IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i15p6912-d1713115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is the Concept of Food Sovereignty Still Aligned with Sustainability Principles? Insights from a Q-Methodology Study

Author

Listed:
  • Serena Mandolesi

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, 60121 Ancona, Italy)

  • Ahmed Saidi

    (Dipartimento di Agraria, Università di Napoli Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Teresa Del Giudice

    (Dipartimento di Agraria, Università di Napoli Federico II, 80055 Portici, Italy)

  • Simona Naspetti

    (Dipartimento di Scienze e Ingegneria della Materia, dell’Ambiente ed Urbanistica (SIMAU), Università Politecnica delle Marche, 60121 Ancona, Italy)

  • Raffaele Zanoli

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie, Alimentari e Ambientali (D3A), Università Politecnica delle Marche, 60121 Ancona, Italy)

  • Carla Cavallo

    (Dipartimento di Farmacia, Università degli Studi di Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy)

Abstract

Food sovereignty has gained significant political attention in recent years, proven by the recent change of the name of Italian Ministry of Agriculture. Coined by the transnational movement “La Via Campesina” in 1996, food sovereignty emphasizes sustainable food security and the right of populations to determine their own food policies. However, the concept is often misunderstood in the light of rising sovereigntist debate, and its original meaning, intertwined with long-term sustainability, is gradually disappearing. This study uses Q methodology to explore consumer perspectives on food sovereignty, identifying distinct groups that reflect how the concept has evolved and how it is perceived by the general population. The analysis is based on a sample of 24 participants from Italy. Starting from all sustainability issues contained in food sovereignty, relevant opinion groups have been identified. Results show that half of the groups still recognize their traditional meaning, while the other half understands food sovereignty as a modern form of autarchy.

Suggested Citation

  • Serena Mandolesi & Ahmed Saidi & Teresa Del Giudice & Simona Naspetti & Raffaele Zanoli & Carla Cavallo, 2025. "Is the Concept of Food Sovereignty Still Aligned with Sustainability Principles? Insights from a Q-Methodology Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-18, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6912-:d:1713115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6912/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6912/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    2. Miguel A Altieri & Clara I Nicholls, 2008. "Scaling up Agroecological Approaches for Food Sovereignty in Latin America," Development, Palgrave Macmillan;Society for International Deveopment, vol. 51(4), pages 472-480, December.
    3. Astari, Annisa Joviani & Lovett, Jon C., 2019. "Does the rise of transnational governance ‘hollow-out’ the state? Discourse analysis of the mandatory Indonesian sustainable palm oil policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.
    4. Hu, Yun-fei & You, Fei & Luo, Qi-you, 2018. "Characterizing the attitudes of the grain-planting farmers of Huaihe Basin, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 224-234.
    5. Nicolae Istudor & Marius Constantin & Donatella Privitera & Raluca Ignat & Irina-Elena Petrescu & Cristian Teodor, 2025. "Systemic Competitiveness in the EU Cereal Value Chain: A Network Perspective for Policy Alignment," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-31, March.
    6. Lenka Rumankova & Elena Kuzmenko & Irena Benesova & Lubos Smutka, 2022. "Selected EU Countries Crop Trade Competitiveness from the Perspective of the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-31, January.
    7. Marina Masso & Christos Zografos, 2015. "Constructing food sovereignty in Catalonia: different narratives for transformative action," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(2), pages 183-198, June.
    8. Jessica Clendenning & Wolfram Dressler & Carol Richards, 2016. "Food justice or food sovereignty? Understanding the rise of urban food movements in the USA," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 33(1), pages 165-177, March.
    9. Ober, Carina & Canessa, Carolin & Frick, Fabian & Sauer, Johannes, 2025. "The role of behavioural factors in accepting agri-environmental contracts – Evidence from a Q-method and thematic analysis in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    10. Michaud-Létourneau, Isabelle & Pelletier, David Louis, 2017. "Perspectives on the coordination of multisectoral nutrition in Mozambique and an emerging framework," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 84-97.
    11. Yuna Chiffoleau & Tara Dourian, 2020. "Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-21, November.
    12. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2021. "Gendered differences in crop diversity choices: A case study from Papua New Guinea," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    13. Phelps, Jacob & Zabala, Aiora & Daeli, Willy & Carmenta, Rachel, 2021. "Experts and resource users split over solutions to peatland fires," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    14. Alberto Alonso-Fradejas & Saturnino M. Borras & Todd Holmes & Eric Holt-Giménez & Martha Jane Robbins, 2015. "Food sovereignty: convergence and contradictions, conditions and challenges," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 431-448, March.
    15. Dryzek, John S. & Berejikian, Jeffrey, 1993. "Reconstructive Democratic Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(1), pages 48-60, March.
    16. Eden, Sally & Bear, Christopher & Walker, Gordon, 2008. "The sceptical consumer? Exploring views about food assurance," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 624-630, December.
    17. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Philippa & Naspetti, Simona & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2015. "Identifying viewpoints on innovation in low-input and organic dairy supply chains: A Q-methodological study," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 25-34.
    3. Adams, Marshall Alhassan & Carodenuto, Sophia, 2023. "Stakeholder perspectives on cocoa’s living income differential and sustainability trade-offs in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    4. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, "undated". "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    5. Bożena Nosecka & Łukasz Zaremba, 2025. "The International Competitiveness of Polish Fruit and Their Preserves," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    6. Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    7. Katarzyna Gruszka & Annika Scharbert & Michael Soder, 2016. "Changing the world one student at a time? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics Papers ieep7, Institute of Ecological Economics.
    8. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    9. Paweł Kraciński & Paulina Stolarczyk & Łukasz Zaremba, 2025. "Competitiveness of the Largest Global Exporters of Concentrated Apple Juice," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, May.
    10. Gruszka, Katarzyna & Scharbert, Annika Regine & Soder, Michael, 2017. "Leaving the mainstream behind? Uncovering subjective understandings of economics instructors' roles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 485-498.
    11. Góngora, R. & Milán, M.J. & López-i-Gelats, F., 2019. "Pathways of incorporation of young farmers into livestock farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 183-194.
    12. Paul Sylvestre & Tarah Wright & Kate Sherren, 2014. "A Tale of Two (or More) Sustainabilities: A Q Methodology Study of University Professors’ Perspectives on Sustainable Universities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-23, March.
    13. Rebecka Daye, 2020. "Competing food sovereignties: GMO-free activism, democracy and state preemptive laws in Southern Oregon," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1013-1025, December.
    14. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    15. Cuppen, Eefje, 2012. "A quasi-experimental evaluation of learning in a stakeholder dialogue on bio-energy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 624-637.
    16. Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi & Lyn Kathlene & Jeanette Wright, 2016. "Sustainable citizenship as a methodology for engagement: navigating environmental, economic, and technological rationalities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 617-630, September.
    17. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    18. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    19. Elvis Modikela Nkoana & Aviel Verbruggen & Jean Hugé, 2018. "Climate Change Adaptation Tools at the Community Level: An Integrated Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-21, March.
    20. Astari, Annisa Joviani & Lovett, Jon C., 2019. "Does the rise of transnational governance ‘hollow-out’ the state? Discourse analysis of the mandatory Indonesian sustainable palm oil policy," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 1-12.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:15:p:6912-:d:1713115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.