Next Article in Journal
Sustainable Planning of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: A Bi-Level Optimization Framework for Reducing Vehicular Emissions in Urban Road Networks
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Agricultural Measures to Safeguard the Vulnerable Karst Groundwater Habitat of the Black Olm (Proteus anguinus parkelj) from Nitrate Pollution
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 24
10.3390/su162411310
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Local Food Production Based on Culinary Heritage—A Way to Local Sustainability

by
Luiza Ossowska
1,*,
Dorota Janiszewska
1,
Grzegorz Kwiatkowski
1 and
Ove Oklevik
2,3
1
Department of Economics, Koszalin University of Technology, 75-343 Koszalin, Poland
2
HVL Business School, Faculty of Technology, Environmental and Social Sciences, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Røyrgata 6, 6856 Sogndal, Norway
3
Department of Marketing, Management and Finance Institute, WSB Merito University in Gdansk, Al. Grunwaldzka 238A, 80-266 Gdansk, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(24), 11310; https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411310
Submission received: 21 November 2024 / Revised: 21 December 2024 / Accepted: 22 December 2024 / Published: 23 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Trends and Perspectives in the Approach to Sustainable Food Design and Production)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research assess the role of traditional food producers’ activities in fostering local sustainability in Poland. The study was carried out at the turn of 2021 and 2022, involving a sample of 70 traditional food producers. It utilized semi-structured interviews, which included two categories of questions: the characteristics of traditional food producers and the significance of their operational goals. Given the unique nature of traditional food in Poland, producers can be categorized into three groups, based on their connection to tradition: local, regional, and national. Differences among these groups were analyzed using a series of t-tests. The findings indicate that in the hierarchy of goals for traditional food producers, socio-cultural objectives take precedence, followed by business goals, while goals related to food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility rank as the least important, with significant differences noted. Producers associated with local traditions, predominantly consisting of family businesses, show the least interest in achieving food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility objectives. While traditional food producers in Poland are adopting pro-ecological practices, these are primarily driven by business considerations and market demands.

1. Introduction

Food is a marker of identity, regardless of the geographical, social and political differences that divide populations [1]. Moreover, food evokes memories, stimulates senses and emotions, and offers experiences that connect people across space and time, creating local, regional and national/ethnic identities and connecting the past with the present. These elements make food a form of cultural heritage that encompasses both material and immaterial dimensions [2].
The important role of food is demonstrated by its recognition as intangible cultural heritage by UNESCO for the first time in 2010 [3]. Heritage deals with the updating, adaptation and reinterpretation of elements of a group’s past—its knowledge, skills and values [4]. UNESCO defines cultural heritage as “the heritage of tangible and intangible attributes of a group or society inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and transmitted for the benefit of future generations” [5].
Heritage in the context of food—culinary heritage—is defined as a set of tangible and intangible elements of food cultures that are considered a common heritage or common good. Culinary heritage includes agricultural products, ingredients, dishes, techniques, recipes and culinary traditions. In addition, it also includes table manners, the symbolic dimension of food and, in more tangible aspects, culinary artifacts and table setting: art, dishes, etc. [4]. All these factors have distinguished individual groups and societies for centuries, creating strong bonds and identities. In a multigenerational environment—especially a family environment—such traditions were passed down as part of cultural heritage, which often remains a source of culinary habits and patterns [6]. Ramli et al. [7] consider the essence of culinary heritage in various contexts: the relationship to place and agricultural history, the origin of food products (i.e., fruit and vegetable growing and livestock breeding related to regional climate and suitability), and food production from local produce.
Culinary heritage is an evolving conversation about food, society and history that brings many stakeholders with different perspectives and backgrounds to the table. Culinary heritage stakeholders are a diverse group that includes visitors as well as farmers, gardeners, chefs and families, who share this heritage as a birthright [8]. An interesting view is presented by Hatchuel et al. [9], who believe that culinary heritage is both the ability to “respect” the tradition of craftsmanship and to “break” traditional rules and renew traditions. According to Avieli [10], culinary heritage has no static dimension. It is a culturally constructed dynamic process with self-generating capabilities. It includes dishes consumed by local people and different customers who can assign new meanings to them. Food heritage encompasses numerous socio-cultural aspects that are generally unique to local social customs, such as knowledge, cooking techniques, eating and drinking methods, and food-sharing practices [11].
As Almansour et al. [12] emphasize, culinary heritage is particularly important for local areas, as it is strongly linked to specific food production. In this context, culinary heritage reflects shared memory and origin, which increases the sense of belonging to the territory. Moreover, and more valuable, these factors can be motives for attachment to a specific place/region. Ultimately, this can increase the willingness to develop various activities in and for the area.
Initiatives related to culinary heritage fit into the concept of sustainable development. They undoubtedly strengthen local culture and economy. They can also become an element of the process of returning to disturbed balance and maintaining it [13]. Cultural sustainability of culinary heritage is just the first step in setting in motion a circle that brings benefits of social, economic and environmental sustainability [14]. Hawkes [15] treats cultural heritage as the fourth pillar of sustainable development, meaning culinary heritage as part of cultural heritage is also one of the pillars of this development [11]. Moreover, food culture and heritage connect food security and sustainable development [2]. Culinary heritage in the environmental dimension is the connection of food with nature. In the economic dimension, it is income generation through sales and connections with tourism. In the social dimension, the new emotional bonds that are created in the process of reconstructing the food identity of the communities are very important [16].
In the field of culinary heritage, several research gaps have been identified in the literature, which are to be filled. According to Almansour et al. [12] culinary heritage encompasses three fundamental dimensions—heritage, people and place. The authors feel that this concept requires further evaluation, including research with different stakeholders involved in food production in the field of culinary heritage. Shahrin and Hussin [17] emphasize the need for further empirical research on culinary heritage, especially in terms of decision-making challenges and the implications of culinary heritage for business development. According to Ramli et al. [18], future research should investigate patterns of social interaction in local food and culinary cultures, which could be a beneficial contribution to more comprehensive sustainable development. Zocchi et al. [19] indicate the need to explore the impacts in the stages before the commercial valorization of culinary heritage, in more detail. In this respect, research could focus on the diversity, continuity and variability of traditional foods in the context of keeping traditions alive. Multidisciplinary research is needed to explore the perspectives and expectations of specific entities (e.g., producers) and factors that activate the involvement of local communities in the protection of culinary heritage.
To fill the gap regarding the multidisciplinary approach from the perspective of a specific stakeholder group, the aim of the research is to determine the role of traditional food producers’ activities for local sustainability in Poland. Additionally, the following research questions were formulated:
  • Q1. How can traditional food producers contribute to local sustainability?
  • Q2. What is the hierarchy of goals of traditional food producers’ activities in relation to local sustainability?
The article is organized as follows: Section 2 contains a theoretical approach. Section 3 presents the research hypothesis. Section 4 describes materials and methods. Section 5 presents the results. Section 6 includes discussion. Section 7 elaborates on the study conclusions.

2. Culinary Heritage and Its Implementation by Traditional Food Producers in the Process of Local Sustainability—A Theoretical Approach

2.1. Supporting Cultural Heritage and Local Identity

Analyzing the goals of traditional food producers’ activities, researchers indicate various categories, including those related to local sustainable development. Among the socio-cultural goals, the following are mentioned: preserving regional and local cultural heritage, enjoying work [20], passion [21,22], sharing passion and interest, and a continuation of family traditions, promoting local traditions and culture [23].
Food and its preparation, as well as the taste choices of individuals and nations, seem to play an important role in the construction of identity, because, as it is commonly said, “we are what we eat” and, therefore, “we create ourselves”. Food is therefore attributed with different meanings for different societies and communities, as well as differences between individuals within these groups [24]. Food can be considered as people’s identity, considering its uniqueness and diversity. In this approach, culinary heritage is based on historical, aesthetic and social, but also symbolic aspects [25]. Food is a reflection of society, including traditions, rituals, religious references, and agricultural methods. The production and consumption of food, especially traditional food, has an impact on those involved. Thus, culinary heritage has the ability to enhance and showcase the culture of a given place or destination. Rituals and food traditions reflect the cultural diversity of a given society [26]. Recognizing the value of the specificity of the culinary heritage of local communities supports cultural diversity. This can contribute to the strengthening of local communities, which is consistent with the sustainable development goal of reducing inequality [27].
Traditional cuisine is an integral part of the cultural heritage, offering insight into the history, lifestyles and values of the people who have inhabited the area for generations. This connection between food and culture is essential to preserving indigenous knowledge [28]. Culinary heritage is therefore a valuable resource that must be protected and promoted. All territories and communities are rich in a specific food culture. Culinary heritage is a cultural asset. It connects destinations, entrepreneurs, consumers, tourists and key stakeholders [29]. It is also a factor strengthening local identity [30].
Traditional food is inextricably linked to the identity of the area of origin and authenticity, thus it can be an added value [31].The importance of authenticity for culinary heritage is also emphasized by Shahrin and Hussin [17]. Authenticity is, in this approach, a factor of competitiveness and building trust and loyalty of customers, similar to the passion for how food should be made. In the production of traditional food, passion is very important. It contributes to the fact that it is not only a business, but also a way of life of producers [21]. The activity of traditional food producers allows one not only to pursue one’s own interests and passions, but also to share one’s knowledge and skills with others [23].

2.2. Supporting Local Business

Referring to the results of other researchers, the business goals of local traditional food producers include realizing the highest income level [20], financial independence [22], profit and earnings, having one’s own business and one’s own brand of product [23,32], and also building a strong local brandj [30].
Rathor and Parkash [33] emphasize the importance of culinary heritage and traditional dishes in the region’s economic development, and even in that of the country. This is related to the fact that food is indispensable in human life, which applies to the local community and tourists. According to Jaroscenkova’s results [34], there is a positive correlation between the level of development of the business environment and the level of use of culinary heritage. Thus, culinary heritage is an important additional opportunity to support business and economic growth. By supporting business, the production and sale of traditional food is consistent with the goal of sustainable development related to decent work and economic growth [35].
Bolborici et al. [30] indicate the possibility of creating and developing a strong local brand based on culinary heritage. This can strengthen the local economy, both in terms of income, raw materials and human capital, manifested in specific skills. An important determinant of culinary heritage is the locality of ingredients. Raw materials should be produced locally. The broadly understood local climate is conducive to producing appropriate ingredients for culinary heritage [36]. Kumar Singh et al. [26] emphasize the great importance of a well-qualified workforce for the culinary-heritage food segment. Knowledge and skills are essential in producing traditional food, and experience is also important. This is important, because culinary heritage is recognized as a challenging and lucrative market niche in the hospitality sector. Culinary heritage is often used to run family businesses, where knowledge and skills are passed down from generation to generation, and employees come from family members. They are usually loyal and reliable employees, both economically and emotionally involved in the business [37,38].
Besides food production and sale, culinary heritage can also support other types of profitable activities. Culinary heritage can be a basis for food tourism (culinary tourism or gastronomy tourism). Culinary tourism has become so popular that it has separated from cultural tourism, as a separate segment [39]. Sustainable tourism is a form of tourism in which travelers seek authentic, environmentally friendly and culturally enriching experiences [28]. Culinary offerings can play a significant role in attracting tourists. As a separate segment, culinary tourism refers to experiences in which tourists usually embark on journeys to discover local gastronomy. The connection between regional food and specific places or regions is strong. This connection can be used to build strategies for these areas [26].
As Omar et al. [40] emphasize, food is a key element of the cultural and heritage tourism sector, as it reflects the culture and image of the region. Nowadays, tourists are not only looking for experiences involving the sense of sight; places that provide experiences for all the senses, including taste, are dying out [41,42].

2.3. Supporting Food Safety and Quality, Environmental Responsibility

Local producers of traditional food also pursue goals related to supporting food safety and quality and environmental responsibility. These include preserving regional and local environmental values (nature, landscape), implementing new farming technologies, producing high-quality products [20,22,23], ecological practices [28], and the introduction of short supply chains for raw materials and products [43].
Kofi Britwum and Demont [44] indicate the connection between culinary heritage and food security. The authors indicate five paths through which cultural heritage can be used to increase food security. The first is the protection of genetic resources, related to the use of specific raw materials within the framework of culinary heritage. The second path is valorization, to generate the necessary market incentives for farmers to preserve cultural heritage. The valorization of food through the value chain aims to meet the growing expectations of consumers regarding authentic quality. This is related to the third path—support for traditional food processing, which is able to preserve the authenticity of heritage. The next paths include consumer preference matching and agritourism, a part of which may be cuisine using culinary heritage.
Food as a form of heritage plays an important role in defining food security, which should be included in food security activities at the political, organizational, individual or educational level. These activities should take into account the importance of food in relation to memory and expression of identity and different values and traditional ways of eating. In addition, in relation to food security and culinary heritage, the quality of food and the growing awareness of consumers in this area are important. The authors point to the need to include heritage in the definition of food security—alongside access, safety and sovereignty [2].
The use of traditional dishes and local ingredients is not only a response to the demand for natural and healthy products. It is also related to the location of food supply chains in the local area, thus shortening them. Basing food chains on independent and local production of raw materials contributes to the reduction of intermediary costs (including transport costs), and often also to greater control of the quality of raw materials, as well as to less waste of raw materials [45]. Hence, there is a growing interest in short food chains in the context of achieving environmental goals [43].
Food products produced in a traditional way are considered sustainable. Raw materials come directly from nature, and their usability is usually complete. If there are any useless residues in the production process, they biodegrade without polluting the environment [22]. Culinary heritage encourages consumers to make more informed choices, thus achieving the sustainable development goal of responsible consumption and production [27]. In relation to culinary heritage, the authenticity of products is extremely important to consumers, and is related to their quality [17].
Maintaining the culinary heritage, its dishes, ways of eating and handling, and food sharing practices, are associated with increasing environmental responsibility [11]. Culinary traditions often include sustainable practices such as organic farming, foraging, and using seasonal, locally available ingredients. As modern society becomes more environmentally conscious, these practices are in line with the growing global demand for sustainability [28]. In addition to traditional practices, modern solutions are also of great importance. In relation to food production, including traditional food, innovations mainly include the technological process. Modern solutions contribute to energy savings, shortening production times, and thus reducing waste and costs [46].
Adomako et al. [47] observed that limited resources and capabilities of local, family-owned businesses make it difficult to fully engage in environmental sustainability orientation. Local producers usually pursue environmental goals while seeking cost-cutting opportunities, or as a result of market pressure [48]. The personal values of the founding owners and family values played a dominant role in decisions and actions regarding environmental involvement in family businesses [49].

3. Study Context and Research Hypothesis

Based on the literature, the goals of traditional food producers’ activities related to local sustainability were identified. Social cultural goals include pursuing one’s own interest, promoting tradition and culture and sharing passion [20,21,22,23]. Business goals cover running one’s own business, creating one’s own product brand, and financial independence [20,23,30,32]. Food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals relate to delivering high-quality products, the development and innovation of activities and introducing ecological solutions [20,22,23,28,43].
Additionally, due to the specific nature of traditional food in Poland, traditional food producers can be divided into three groups—those related to the national tradition, those related to the regional tradition and those related to the local tradition. It is believed that Polish national cuisine was finally shaped in the 19th century. Its character was influenced by old Polish culinary customs and the influence of foreign nations. A characteristic Polish product is honey, which was initially collected from forest bees. Herbs and spices (cumin, marjoram, sage, mint, mustard, and lovage) are commonly used in national cuisine dishes, initially also collected in forests and meadows. A lot of dishes are made on the basis of cabbage or sauerkraut [50].
The regions have retained their distinct dishes and food traditions to this day. The most important element of the culinary heritage of the region are products and cuisine deeply rooted in history, and which is rooted in customs and tradition. Regional cuisine is an important element of folk culture, shaped over the centuries. It is characterized by originality, long-standing traditions, and availability mainly in the region from which it comes. Regional dishes are prepared according to traditional recipes, passed down from generation to generation. Products characteristic of the region are used to prepare them [50]. A kind of autonomy with respect to national cuisine characterizes regional cuisine. Most often, regional products are an element of the heritage of previous generations, have a specific character, are original, and are therefore difficult to copy or imitate in other areas [51].
As in the case of regional products, the locality of a product is determined by its production area and the range of its occurrence [51]. The limitations caused by the financial situation in various parts of the country forced the population to consume only the available products—hence, the emergence of local cuisine. The production of local products does not require the presence of imported raw materials. Their locality consists in using only the resources of a given area and then giving them a local identity, consisting in identifying them with a given place [50].
Several hypotheses were tested, taking into account the division of traditional food producers into those associated with national, regional, and local traditions. Based on the literature review, the following research hypotheses were formulated.
Due to the connection with the traditions of previous generations and a strong, historically established connection [50,51]:
H1. 
The group of traditional food producers with the greatest use of family knowledge and old recipes is most interested in achieving socio-cultural goals.
Due to the desire to use local production and gain additional income [50,52]:
H2. 
The group of traditional food producers with the largest share of micro enterprises are most interested in achieving business goals.
Due to limited possibilities of implementing new, including ecological, solutions to family businesses [47,48,49]:
H3. 
Among traditional food producers, the importance of environmental goals is the lowest, and is significantly different from the importance of social and economic goals.
Wherein
H3.1. 
The group of traditional food producers with the largest share of family businesses is the least interested in achieving environmental goals.

4. Materials and Methods

The research was conducted at the turn of 2021 and 2022 on a sample of 70 producers, who produce and sell traditional food, understood as high-quality food, and produce this using traditional methods, constituting an element of the region’s cultural heritage and local identity. “Traditional” means documented as having been in use in the domestic market for a period capable of being passed down from generation to generation, a period which will be at least 30 years [53].
The research was conducted on producers who belonged to the European Culinary Heritage Network, which promotes food produced locally and regionally in relation to culinary traditions. It should be emphasized that, at the end of 2022, Polish regions withdrew from the association due to formal and legal transformations in the European Culinary Heritage Network.
The surveyed food producers came from five voivodeships belonging to the European Culinary Heritage Network until 2022, namely the Świętokrzyskie, Wielkopolskie, Małopolskie, Pomorskie, and Zachodniopomorskie voivodeships. The main intention of the research was to obtain knowledge about food producers’ activities and approaches to culinary heritage. The mailing list of respondents was created based on information posted on the websites of the Regional Culinary Heritage of individual regions.
To achieve the research goal, research was conducted in the form of semi-structured interviews [54]. The surveyed food producers received a questionnaire prepared using the Google Forms tool. The questions were closed, semi-open and open. Some of the questions used a five-point Likert scale [55]. In addition, telephone conversations were conducted with respondents to supplement the information and opinions provided in the questionnaire. A total of 70 semi-structured interviews were conducted.
The questionnaire contained two groups of questions. The first group concerned the characteristics of traditional food producers. The questions concerned sources of knowledge about culinary traditions, forms of promoting culinary traditions, cooperation, business duration, business legal form, source of income, employment, sources of semi-finished products and raw materials, sales methods, and new solutions. Authors conducting research in this field have raised these issues [56,57,58,59,60].
In the second part, questions concerned the importance of the goals of traditional food producers’ activities, which were selected based on the literature [20,21,22,23,28,30,32,43]. Respondents assessed the following goals using a Likert scale: pursuing one’s own interest, promoting tradition and culture, sharing passion, running one’s own business, creating one’s own product brand, financial independence, delivering high-quality products, development and innovation of activities, and introducing ecological solutions.
Additionally, the obtained data were divided into three groups of respondents based on their culinary tradition origin—national (related to Polish culture), regional (related to regional culture) and local (related to local culture). A series of t-tests examined the differences between these groups.

5. Results

5.1. Characteristics of the Surveyed Food Producers

In terms of culinary tradition origin, producers of food referring to national culture constitute 24.29%, producers of food referring to regional culture 31.43%, and producers of food referring to local culture 32.86%. The predominance of local and regional traditions results from the fact that they are more strongly connected with the regional and local level at which the research was conducted.
The respondents produce various agricultural products. The majority of them process fruit and vegetables (32.86%)—this is particularly true for food referring to regional and local culinary traditions. These products include jams, juices and syrups, dried fruit and vegetables. The next group is meals and dishes (18.57%)—particularly in terms of regional traditions and characteristic dishes. The next two product groups are honey and bee products and bread and baked goods (both 17.14%). Honey and bee products refer, in particular, to national and local traditions. On the other hand, bread and baked goods refer to regional traditions. Three product groups gained a 10% share each: dairy and eggs, meat and cold cuts, and herbs. Interestingly, no herbal products refer to local traditions. Alcoholic beverages covered 8.57% of products—not referring to regional traditions at all. The smallest group turned out to be fish and fish products (4.29%), which are typical of coastal and lake areas and refer to regional and local traditions.
Table 1 contains the main features of food producers in groups referring to national, regional and local traditions. The features were divided into three categories—supporting cultural heritage and identity (sources of knowledge about culinary traditions, forms of promoting knowledge about culinary traditions and cooperation with other producers in the exchange of knowledge and skills), supporting business (business duration, business legal form, source of income and employment) and supporting food safety and quality, and environmental responsibility (sources of semi-finished products and raw materials, sales methods and introducing new solutions).
By far the most important source of knowledge about traditions of all three groups of food producers is family knowledge, passed down from generation to generation. This source was indicated by 56.00% of producers associated with national traditions and over 78.26% of producers associated with local traditions. In the case of producers referring to regional traditions, family knowledge was indicated by almost 90.91% of respondents, as were old recipes—another source of knowledge about traditions. Old recipes are also of great importance for producers associated with national (52.00%) and local (43.48%) traditions. The surveyed producers also use—although to a lesser extent—training and workshops, cookbooks and guides, or other vendors and manufacturers. It is worth emphasizing that, despite its general availability, the Internet enjoys less interest. This source was indicated by only 13.64% of producers associated with regional traditions, 17.39% associated with local traditions and 20.00% associated with national traditions. This may result from the desire to use proven, old sources, which is more characteristic of family knowledge or old recipes.
The respondents also indicated the forms of promoting knowledge about culinary traditions. The most frequently used form is participation in culinary festivals—in all three groups surveyed, this option received over 70.00% of responses, and in the case of producers associated with regional and local traditions, almost 80.00%. Culinary festivals offer many opportunities. They are not only an opportunity to promote tradition, but also to promote and sell your own products, establish contacts, and cooperation. Another popular form of promoting knowledge about traditions are tastings. They are organized by 44.00% of producers associated with national traditions, 50.00% associated with regional traditions and almost 47.83% associated with local traditions. Similarly to festivals, tastings also offer many other opportunities, such as establishing contacts with customers. Producers associated with regional traditions often organize workshops as part of promoting traditions (54.55%). In the case of producers associated with national and local traditions, this form of knowledge promotion did not exceed 30.00%. Promotional lectures are also most often organized by producers associated with regional tradition (36.00%). It is also worth adding that producers associated with national and regional tradition also indicated other forms of promoting knowledge, including participation in culinary programs on television and the Internet.
Producers associated with regional tradition are the group most willing to cooperate—81.82% cooperate with other producers from the local environment, and 50.00% also from outside the local environment. This cooperation aims to exchange knowledge and skills necessary in the production process. For the remaining groups of producers, this cooperation is of lesser importance, with 44.00% of producers associated with national tradition and 34.78% associated with local tradition cooperating with other producers.
Undoubtedly, culinary heritage can be a factor supporting business. When analyzing business duration, it should be emphasized that in groups related to national and regional tradition, companies operating on the market for 20 years or more dominate, constituting about half of the entities studied. The longest-operating companies in all three groups of producers have been operating on the market for about 40 years. These are companies with many years of tradition and an established market position. In turn, the youngest companies (less than 10 years) in all the groups studied covered about one-third of the entities. However, these are not new companies—the youngest in all the groups studied have been operating for 3–4 years. It is worth emphasizing that the data shows that the youngest group is definitely made up of producers associated with local tradition (average business duration 8 years), followed by those with regional tradition (average 11.5 years). The oldest is the group of producers associated with national tradition (average 20 years). It is worth emphasizing that, due to the specific nature of the activities of the surveyed producers in this industry, business duration is important. The production of traditional food requires experience and skills acquired over time. Moreover, it may be much more difficult for young companies to convince customers to buy their traditional products, because tradition is associated with time, history, and family knowledge passed down from generation to generation.
In terms of business legal forms, individual farmers dominate among the surveyed producers. They constitute 56.52% of respondents in the group associated with local tradition, 44.00% in the group associated with national tradition and 27.27% in the group associated with regional tradition. Farmers are interested in traditional food production for several reasons. First, they can use raw materials from their own fields, i.e., raw materials of known origin and quality. Second, they can use available space and buildings, and food production is an additional source of income for them. Third, they often continue family traditions and acquire the necessary knowledge and skills from childhood.
A registered business is another group of traditional food producers, covering 54.55% of producers associated with regional tradition, almost 34.78% associated with local tradition, and 28.00% associated with national tradition. Registered business is the most popular legal form of business activity in Poland. Its establishment is simple, and there are no special requirements in this respect. It is characteristic of small companies, often with additional activities to the main source of income. The situation is different in the case of companies, the establishment of which is associated with agreements between partners. Companies include 28.00% of the producers related with national tradition and only 8.70% associated with local tradition and 4.55% with regional tradition. It should be emphasized that the group associated with the regional tradition also includes associations and foundations (almost 13.64%). These are specific forms of conducting business—they are not focused on profit, but on achieving other goals. In the case of traditional food, they often promote this type of product.
The data show that traditional food production is the main source of income for most producers. This applies to about half of producers associated with national and regional traditions and over 43% associated with local traditions. For many respondents associated with regional (45.45%) and local (43.48%) traditions, traditional food production is an additional source of income, accompanying only the main activity. Traditional food production is the only source of income for 24.00% of producers associated with national traditions, for 13% associated with local traditions and 4.55% with regional traditions.
In relation to the size of enterprises measured by employment, micro enterprises employing up to nine people definitely predominate. They constitute about 80% of the surveyed entities, and in the group associated with local tradition, 86.96%. Small enterprises (10–15 employees) covered about 12–14% of respondents. These values turned out to be quite similar in all three groups. Medium-sized enterprises concern only producers associated with regional (9.09%) and national (4.00%) traditions. There are no large enterprises in the surveyed group of respondents; all belong to the SME sector. It is worth adding that the majority of surveyed enterprises are family businesses. In the group associated with local tradition, 91.30% are family businesses, and in the remaining groups about 68%. Some of the surveyed producers employ seasonal workers—among producers associated with local and regional tradition, more than half employ seasonal workers, and among producers associated with national tradition, it is 40.00%. Seasonal workers are often employed by farmers during the period of field work and harvest.
The surveyed food producers use their own crops and breeding for production. In the case of producers associated with local traditions, the share of this group reached almost 82.61%, those associated with regional traditions exceeded 77%, and those associated with national traditions 64.00%. Supplies from the local market are mainly used by producers associated with regional traditions (68.18%), and, to a lesser extent, by those associated with national (36.00%) and local (21.74%) traditions. The regional market supplies raw materials and semi-finished products mainly for producers associated with national (40.00%) and regional (36.36%) traditions. Producers associated with local traditions use the regional market much less often (13.04%). Raw materials and semi-finished products from the domestic market serve all groups of producers to a small extent, especially those associated with national traditions. Only some producers associated with national (12.00%) and regional (4.55%) traditions use supplies from the international market.
In terms of sales methods, producers associated with regional traditions use indirect forms to the least extent (40.91%). Other producers are more likely to use intermediary stores and wholesalers—56.52% associated with local traditions and 60.00% associated with national traditions. Similarly, producers associated with regional traditions use direct forms of sales more often, shortening the supply chain. They most often use the opportunity to sell products at culinary festivals (77.27%) and in their own physical stores (63.64%). In general, sales at culinary festivals are the most frequently used method of selling traditional food. They provide the possibility of direct contact with customers, and the opportunity to talk about the product and the tradition associated with it. About 44% of producers associated with national and local traditions have their own physical stores. It should be emphasized that producers from these groups use the help of sales intermediaries more often. Due to the specificity of the products, online sales are not very popular. Food products have special requirements regarding packaging, and often transport, which makes such sales difficult.
Most producers introduce product innovations, adapting to market needs. This is done by 76.00% of producers associated with national tradition, 73.91% with local tradition and 59.09% with regional tradition. These innovations are introduced mainly as part of improving the competitiveness of products. On the other hand, pro-environmental solutions in the surveyed group mainly concern the technological process. These are solutions that allow for energy savings and reduction of waste and costs, as well as shortening the production time. Pro-environmental solutions are most willingly introduced by producers associated with regional tradition (72.73%) and national tradition (72.00%), and slightly less willingly by producers associated with local tradition (52.17%).

5.2. Comparison of the Activity Goals of the Surveyed Food Producers

The research analyzed the activity goals of three groups of producers and the differences between the goal categories (Table 2). Three items were used to measure each category. For each goal category, an aggregate measure was determined, based on items.
Generally, among the three groups of producers, those associated with national tradition identified socio-cultural goals as the most important (mean = 4.57); promoting culture and traditions is especially important for them. Producers associated with local tradition are less interested in achieving socio-cultural goals (mean = 4.35). This group is more focused on business goals (mean = 4.45), and creating their own product brand is especially important for them. In relation to food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals, the most interested group are producers associated with national traditions (mean = 4.44), for whom it is particularly important to deliver high-quality products.
The first step in our analysis was to test if there are any differences between the three groups, both at the aggregated level, but also at single-item level. To achieve this goal, we carried out an ANOVA (Levene’s) test. We did not find any significant mean differences between the three groups for the social-cultural goals or business goals, either on a aggregated level or a single-item level (all p > 0.10). For the food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility goals we found a significant difference between the three groups at aggregated level (p < 0.10) and for two out of three single-item measures, delivering high-quality products (p < 0.05) and developing innovative activities (p < 0.05). The last item within this category, including ecological solutions showed no significant differences between the mean scores of the groups (p > 0.10). In order to achieve a deeper understanding of the underlying structure within the three goal groups, we further employed post hoc tests. The results from the post hoc test shows that there is significant differences between means of the national and local groups (p < 0.05) at the aggregated level, and for the two items mentioned above (both p < 0.05). For the item “development and innovative activities”, there is also a significant difference between the regional and national groups (p < 0.05).
To check for any differences in aggregated measures between the three aggregated variables, we used a series of t-tests. We also used the t-tests to validate the findings from the ANOVA and post hoc analysis. Overall, the mean of socio-culture goals and food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals are significantly different from each other (p < 0.01). This result means that hypothesis H3 was verified positively, which is in accordance with the studies by Adomako et al. [47], Curado and Mota [48], and Kariyapperuma and Collins [49].
The mean of business goals and food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals are significantly different from each other, but only at the 10% level (p < 0.10). According to socio-cultural goals, the mean score is highest in the national tradition-related group (mean = 4.57), followed by the regional tradition-related group (mean = 4.55) and with the lowest mean score in the local tradition-related group (mean = 4.35). However, none of these mean scores are significantly different from each other (all p > 0.10). The results confirms the findings from the ANOVA and post hoc analyses above. These results do not confirm hypothesis H1, and therefore differ from the results of Makała [50] and Mazur and Dominik [51].
The same pattern occurred in the business goals, with no significant differences and a very similar mean structure across the three traditional food-producer groups (meannational = 4.39, meanregional = 4.37, meanlocal = 4.45, all p > 0.10), which also confirms the findings from the ANOVA and post hoc analyses above. Despite the fact that the group associated with local tradition (in which the largest share are microenterprises) is most interested in achieving business goals, hypothesis H2 was not statistically supported. Therefore, the results are consistent with the trends indicated by Makała [50] and Mazur and Dominik [51], but are not statistically confirmed, due to too small differences between the studied groups of producers.
In the last goal group, the food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility goal, the national tradition-related group has the highest mean score at 4.44, followed by the regional tradition-related group with a mean = 4.29, and the local tradition-related group with a mean = 4.00. The mean score in the regional tradition-related group was significantly different from the mean score in the local tradition-related group (p < 0.10). The mean score in the national tradition-related group is significantly different from the mean score in the local tradition-related group (p < 0.01). This confirms the findings from the ANOVA and post hoc analyses above, except for the finding in the item “development and innovative activities”, where the ANOVA also showed a significant difference between locals and the regional group. However, the results from The ANOVA/post hoc analyses and the series of t-test confirms our findings. This means that hypothesis H3.1 was verified positively, and the results are in accordance with Adomako et al. [47], Curado and Mota [48], and Kariyapperuma and Collins [49]. However, the mean scores in the national tradition and the regional tradition were not significantly different from each other.

6. Discussion

In the hierarchy of goals of traditional food producers, socio-cultural goals are the most important, followed by business goals; food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals are the least important. The importance of food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals differs significantly from the importance of socio-cultural goals and business goals. This means that hypothesis H3 was confirmed. There are many reasons for this situation. The uniqueness of this goal may result from its lesser connection with the realization of producers’ own goals. Producers prioritize goals that directly satisfy their needs and the needs of their customers. Environmental goals are more indirect in nature, resulting from ecological awareness. However, their realization may be forced, for example, by rising prices of raw materials and energy (cost reduction), which is confirmed by the results of Leroy et al. [46] and Curado and Mota [48]. In addition, the respondents are dominated by family businesses, which are characterized by specific features. This group has limited possibilities of implementing new solutions, and is also characterized by a lower propensity to risk [47,49]. This also confirms the findings that the group of producers with the largest share of family businesses is the least interested in achieving food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals. This group consists of producers associated with local tradition. The importance of food safety, quality and environmental responsibility goals in this group of traditional food producers is the lowest, and is statistically different from the other surveyed groups. Therefore, hypothesis 3.1 was also confirmed.
According to the results, producers associated with local tradition are most interested in achieving business goals. These are usually micro-enterprises for whom running their own, profitable business is particularly important. This allows using local resources, which often appear as a result of running another activity—agricultural. This is consistent with Makała [50] and Nummendal and Hall [52]. However, there were no significant differences between the three producer groups regarding business goals, so the hypothesis was not statistically confirmed.
The results indicate that producers associated with national traditions are most interested in socio-cultural goals. It should be emphasized that no significant statistical differences were found between individual producer groups regarding the importance of socio-cultural goals. Hypothesis H1, according to which the group of producers with the highest share of family knowledge and old recipes is most interested in achieving socio-cultural goals, was not confirmed. According to the results, producers associated with regional traditions have by far the highest share of family knowledge and old recipes. The data show that the group of producers associated with regional traditions uses the most sources of knowledge about culinary traditions, is most involved in promoting knowledge about culinary traditions, and is most willing to cooperate with other producers in the ex-change of knowledge and skills. It can, therefore, be stated that they are most involved in the process of supporting culinary heritage and building identity. This may result from both economic and social premises, such as the attachment of these food producers to the place of residence and activity or the desire to support the development of this place. This confirms the views of Mazur and Dominik [51].
The data show that the most “closed” group are producers associated with local tradition, who use primarily their own raw materials to produce food, and to a much lesser extent using offers from other suppliers—even local ones. And although local and one’s own crops are conducive to producing appropriate ingredients [36], this means that the possibilities of supporting the local economy by producers associated with local tradition are limited mainly to their own needs.
Producers associated with regional traditions are much more willing to cooperate with their environment, and they are happy to use raw materials and semi-finished products supplied by local and regional suppliers. Producers associated with regional traditions are most involved in building short supply chains and least willing to use sales intermediaries. This may result from the desire to reduce costs [45] or their involvement in implementing socio-cultural goals, including promoting culinary heritage [29,30]. Direct sales provide an opportunity to contact customers and to share passion and knowledge. Producers associated with regional tradition introduce relatively few product innovations, and the most pro-ecological ones. This results from the desire to maintain product recipes as close as possible to the original and to the tradition, as well as from the care for high product quality. Such a product may prove to be more competitive on the market than innovative products. Care for the recipe shows commitment to the process of maintaining knowledge and skills related to a given tradition [51].
The most “open” to the environment are producers associated with national tradition, who use external supplies of raw materials (from the national and international markets) and sales intermediaries to a greater extent than the other groups. This may result from the greater range of their sales, as well as the fact that their products are better known and recognizable in the country, and are not treated only as local culinary attractions. Producers associated with national tradition introduce the most product innovations, as well as quite a lot of pro-ecological ones. They are more prone to risk, and are also characterized by the smallest share of family businesses [49]. Producers associated with national traditions connect the local economy with the external environment, but in such a situation it is more difficult to shorten supply chains or close the circle of the local economy [43].
The main limitations of the research are related to the sample size. The small size of the research sample limits the possibility of formulating generalizations, due to the low representativeness of such a group. It should be emphasized that the size of the sample was dictated by the data collection method—semi-structured interviews are time-consuming and require a lot of direct involvement of researchers. However, this method allows for the collection of not only quantitative, but also qualitative data, with great detail. Another limitation is the inclusion of only one group of stakeholders, which makes the obtained results one-sided, but this is a good basis for further analysis. In addition, the research group was included only from one country, which makes it impossible to conduct international comparisons and present the situation of Polish traditional food producers in a broader context.
Further research should focus on other stakeholder groups of culinary heritage. These include customers buying traditional food as well as the local community or local authorities. All these groups benefit from culinary heritage by participating in local development. Inter-regional and international comparisons would also be interesting, and could contribute to the development and implementation of a list of inter-regional and international good practices. It should be added that such studies are planned in the near future—comparing Poland with Scandinavian countries. They will provide valuable information on the functioning of traditional food ecosystems, both in Poland and abroad.

7. Conclusions

In accordance with the primary objective, this article examines the role of traditional food producers’ activities for local sustainability in Poland. For the purposes of the research, traditional food producers in Poland were divided into three groups, depending on the tradition to which their products refer. It should be emphasized that traditional food producers contribute to local sustainability. They are particularly strongly involved in the economic dimension, as well as the socio-cultural dimension. Traditional food production is not only a source of income for them, it allows them to use their own and local raw materials, and also provides broader opportunities in the form of additional activities related to it, such as culinary tourism. Recreating culinary heritage is also often a passion for those interested, which is associated with the desire to share these interests with others. Maintaining culinary heritage contributes to building a local identity, and practices related to traditional food production are considered sustainable because they are based on natural, high-quality raw materials. Often, the production process reduces waste generation, and, if it does occur, it is biodegradable, due to its natural origin. Traditional food producers also willingly use direct sales, shortening the supply chain.
Importantly, in terms of the hierarchy of activity goals, it turned out that traditional food producers are less interested in environmental goals than in socio-cultural and economic ones. They implement them, but mainly because their business or market pressure forces them to do so. This is particularly true for food producers associated with local traditions. They turned out to be the most ‘closed’ group, acting primarily in their own interest and based on their own raw materials and labor resources.
In terms of managerial implications, it is necessary to emphasize the need to support traditional food producers in Poland in the implementation of pro-environmental goals, including the necessary investments in this area. These are primarily representatives of small and micro enterprises, often family businesses. The main limitation to implementing pro-ecological solutions is the financial and cost side. Hence, the role of broadly understood external support—both systemic and financial—may prove important.
Traditional food producers are extremely important members of the local community. They maintain knowledge about the area’s traditions and history, build local identity, and support the local economy. These processes are particularly important in rural areas or those associated with small towns, of which there are many in Poland, and which struggle with development problems in both the social and economic sense.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; methodology, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; software, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; validation, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; formal analysis, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; investigation, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; resources, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; data curation, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; writing—original draft preparation, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; writing—review and editing, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; visualization, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; supervision, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; project administration, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O.; funding acquisition, L.O., D.J., G.K. and O.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ramli, A.M.; Zahari, M.S.M.; Halim, N.A.; Aris, M.H.M. The Knowledge of Food Heritage Identity in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 2016, 222, 518–527. [Google Scholar]
  2. Kapelari, S.; Alexopoulos, G.; Theano Moussouri, T.; Sagmeister, K.J.; Stampfer, F. Food Heritage Makes a Difference: The Importance of Cultural Knowledge for Improving Education for Sustainable Food Choices. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Di Giovine, M.A.; Brulotte, R.L. Introduction Food and Foodways as Cultural Heritage. In Edible Identities: Food as Cultural Heritage; Di Giovine, M.A., Brulotte, R.L., Eds.; Routledge: Routledge, UK, 2014; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  4. Matta, R. Valuing Native Eating: The Modern Roots of Peruvian Food Heritage, Anthropology of Food. Available online: http://aof.revues.org/7361 (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  5. European Parliament, 2018, Cultural Heritage in EU Policies, European Parliamentary Research Service. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621876/EPRS_BRI(2018)621876_EN.pdf (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  6. Dominik, P. Food tourism as a tool for intergenerational transfer of culinary traditions. Geogr. Tour. 2020, 8, 115–124. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ramli, A.; Zahari, M.M.; Ishak, N.; Sharif, M.M. Food heritage and nation food identity formation. In Proceedings of the International Hospitality and Tourism Conference (IHTC 2013), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10–15 August 2013; Sumarjan, N., Zainal, A., Radzi, S.M., Mohi, Z., Radzi, S.M., Saiful Bakhtiar, M.F., Artinah, Z., Bakhtiar, S., Hafiz, M., Hanafiah, M., et al., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 2014; pp. 407–411. [Google Scholar]
  8. Fisher, C.; Ardren, T. Partaking in Culinary Heritage at Yaxunah, Yucatán during the 2017 Noma Mexico Pop-Up. Heritage 2020, 3, 474–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hatchuel, A.; Le Masson, P.; Weil, B.; Carvajal-Perez, D. Innovative Design within Tradition—Injecting Topos Structures in C-K Theory to Model Culinary Creation Heritage. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19), Delft, The Netherlands, 5–8 August 2019; pp. 1542–1543. [Google Scholar]
  10. Avieli, N. What is ‘Local Food?’ Dynamic culinary heritage in the World Heritage Site of Hoi An, Vietnam. J. Herit. Tour. 2013, 8, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Choi, B.-Y.; Yang, S.J. Sustainability of Food Heritage in Birthday Rituals. Sustainability 2024, 16, 7718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Almansouri, M.; Verkerk, R.; Fogliano, V.; Luning, P.A. Exploration of heritage food concept. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 790–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Aleffi, C.; Cavicchi, A. The Role of Food and Culinary Heritage for Postdisaster Recovery: The Case of Earthquake in The Marche Region (Italy). J. Gastron. Tour. 2020, 4, 13–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cerquetti, M.; Ferrara, C.; Romagnoli, A.; Vagnarelli, G. Enhancing Intangible Cultural Heritage for Sustainable Tourism Development in Rural Areas: The Case of the “Marche Food andWine Memories” Project (Italy). Sustainability 2022, 14, 16893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hawkes, J. The Fourth Pillar of Sustainability: Culture’s Essential Role in Public Planning. Common Ground. 2001. Available online: https://www.culturaldevelopment.org.au/downloads/FourthPillarcomplete.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2024).
  16. Thomé-Ortiz, H. Social Construction of Mycological Culinary Heritage as a Tourist Resource and its Dimensions of Sustainability. Folia Tur. 2020, 55, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shahrin, N.; Hussin, H. Negotiating Food Heritage Authenticity in Consumer Culture. Tour. Hosp. Manag. 2023, 29, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ramli, A.M.; Zahari, M.S.M.; Suhaimi, M.Z.; Talib, S.A. Determinants of Food Heritage towards Food Identity. In Proceedings of the Asia Pacific International Conference on Environment-Behaviour Studies, AicE-Bs2015, Barcelona, Spain, 30 August–4 September 2015; pp. 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zocchi, D.M.; Fontefrancesco, M.F.; Corvo, P.; Pieroni, A. Recognizing, Safeguarding and Promoting Food Heritage: Challenges and Prospects for the Future of Sustainable Food Systems. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dunay, A.; Lehota, J.; Mácsai, É.; Bálint Illés, C. Short Supply Chain: Goals, Objectives and Attitudes of Producers. Acta Polytech. Hung. 2018, 15, 199–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yankellow, J. Defining Artisan: What It is and What It Means. Perspectives 2018, 63, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lukić, T.; Kalenjuk, B.; Đerčan, B.; Bubalo-Živković, M.; Solarević, M. Traditional Food Producers and Possibilities of Their Tourist Affirmations the Territory of Bačka (Serbia). Eur. Geogr. Stud. 2017, 4, 70–79. [Google Scholar]
  23. Janiszewska, D.; Ossowska, L. Food Festival Exhibitors’ Business Motivation. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Partarakis, N.; Kaplanidi, D.; Doulgeraki, P.; Karuzaki, E.; Petraki, A.; Metilli, D.; Bartalesi, V.; Adami, I.; Meghini, C.; Zabulis, X. Representation and Presentation of Culinary Tradition as Cultural Heritage. Heritage 2021, 4, 612–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mercado, J.M.T.; Andalecio, A.B.P. Ysla de Panciteria: A preliminary study on the culinary heritage significance of pancit using the heritage documentation approach—The case of Luzon Island, Philippines. J. Ethn. Foods. 2020, 7, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kumar Singh, S.; Srivastav, D.; Singh, S.; Tripathi, R.; Kumar, S. Culinary Heritage of Awadh Region: Key Factor for Gastronomy Tourism Promotion. Int. J. Interdiscip. Organ. Stud. 2023, 18, 1940–1955. [Google Scholar]
  27. Fontefrancesco, M.F.; Zocchi, D.M.; Pieroni, A. Scouting for Food Heritage for Achieving Sustainable Development: The Methodological Approach of the Atlas of the Ark of Taste. Heritage 2022, 5, 526–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sharma, R. Rediscovering the Lost Cuisines of the Himalayas: A Study on Traditional Culinary Practices, Cultural Heritage and their Potential for Sustainable Tourism. Int. J. Multidimens. Res. Perspect. 2024, 2, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rivza, B.; Foris, D.; Foris, T.; Privitera, D.; Uljanova, E.; Rivza, P. Gastronomic heritage: A contributor to sustainable local tourism development. Geoj. Tour. Geosites 2022, 44, 1326–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bolborici, A.-M.; Lupu, M.I.; Sorea, D.; Atudorei, I.A. Gastronomic Heritage of Fagaras, Land: A Worthwhile Sustainable Resource. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Suwandojo, D.P.E.H.; Handajani, S.; Annisa, R.N. Satay as a Culinary Heritage of Indonesian Gastronomy. Tour. Res. J. 2023, 7, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Ossowska, L.; Janiszewska, D.; Kwiatkowski, G.; Kloskowski, D.; Oklevik, O. Traditional Food Vendor-Producer Innovation Capabilities. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rathor, A.; Parkash, G. Culinary Study and Cultural Heritage of Delhi: Tourist’s Perspective. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Digital Strategies for Organizational Success, Gwalior, India, 5–7 January 2019; Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3320674 (accessed on 8 November 2024). [CrossRef]
  34. Jeroscenkova, L. Culinary Heritage in Latvian Municipalities and Its Role in the Development of Entrepreneurship. Res. Rural Dev. 2014, 2, 252–257. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ebekozien, A.; Ohis Aigbavboa, C.; Shaharudin Samsurijan, M.; Didibhuku Thwala, W.; Hafez Ahmed, M.A. The role of apprenticeship in skills development of construction artisans to achieving Sustainable Development Goal 8: Stakeholders’ unexplored approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2024, 31, 411–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Almansouri, M.; Verkerk, R.; Fogliano, V.; Luning, P.A. The heritage food concept and its authenticity risk factors—Validation by culinary professionals. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2022, 28, 100523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wardhana, D.Y.; Hariwibowo, I.N. Sustainability Analysis of Family Based Culinary Industry in Indonesia. Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. 2020, 9, 465–479. [Google Scholar]
  38. Balzano, M.; Marzi, G. Osmice at the crossroads: The dialectical interplay of tradition, modernity and cultural identity in family businesses. J. Manag. Hist. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sahoo, D. Promoting Culinary Heritages as a Destination Attraction: A Case Study of Ancient Temple Food ‘Mahaaprasaada’. Int. J. Relig. Tour. Pilgr. 2020, 8, 60–76. [Google Scholar]
  40. Omar, S.R.; Karim, S.A.; Omar, S.N. Exploring International Tourists’ Attitudes and Perceptions: In Characterizing Malaysian Heritage Food (MHF) as a Tourism Attraction in Malaysia. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. 2015, 5, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haukeland, J.V.; Jacobsen, J.S. Food and cuisine as tourism attractions on the top of Europe. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Tourism Research Conference, Vasa, Finland, 18–20 October 2001. [Google Scholar]
  42. Lin, Y.-C.; Pearson, T.E.; Cai, L.A. Food as a form of Destination Identity: A Tourism Destination Brand Perspective. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2011, 11, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Canfora, I. Is the short food supply chain an efficient solution for sustainability in food market? Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 8, 402–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kofi Britwum, K.; Demont, M. Food security and the cultural heritage missing link. Glob. Food Secur. 2022, 35, 100660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zocchi, D.M.; Fontefrancesco, M.F. Traditional Products and New Developments in the Restaurant Sector in East Africa. The Case Study of Nakuru County, Kenya. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 599138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Leroy, F.; Scholliers, P.; Amilien, V. Elements of Innovation and Tradition in Meat Fermentation: Conflicts and Synergies. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 212, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Adomako, S.; Amankwah-Amoah, J.; Danso, A.; Konadu, R.; Owusu-Agyei, S. Environmental sustainability orientation and performance of family and nonfamily firms. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 1250–1259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Curado, C.; Mota, A. A Systematic Literature Review on Sustainability in Family Firms. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kariyapperuma, N.; Collins, E. Family logics and environmental sustainability: A study of the New Zealand wine industry. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2021, 30, 3626–3650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Makała, H. Tradycje w kuchni polskiej jako atrakcja dla turystów (in Polish). Zesz. Naukowe. Tur. I Rekreac. Sci. Papers. Tour. Recreat. 2015, 1, 17–27. [Google Scholar]
  51. Mazur, A.; Dominik, P. Wykorzystanie potencjału kuchni regionalnych i żywności tradycyjnej w rozwoju regionalnym (in Polish). Przedsiębiorczość I Zarządzanie Entrep. Manag. 2017, 18, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  52. Nummendal, M.; Hall, C.M. Local food in tourism: An investigation of the New Zealand South Islands bed and breakfast sector’s use and perception of local food. Tour. Rev. Int. 2006, 9, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Regulation (EU) No 1151/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 on Quality Schemes for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2012/1151/oj (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  54. Adeoye-Olatunde, O.A.; Olenik, N.L. Research and scholarly methods: Semi-structured interviews. J. Am. Coll. Clin. Pharm. 2021, 4, 1358–1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Willits, F.K.; Theodori, G.L.; Luloff, A.E. Another Look at Likert Scales. J. Rural Soc. Sci. 2016, 31, 126–139. [Google Scholar]
  56. Chen, S.C.; Elston, J.A. Entrepreneurial motives and characteristics: An analysis of small restaurant owners. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2013, 35, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Getz, D.; Carlsen, J. Characteristics and goals of family and owner-operated businesses in the rural tourism and hospitality sectors. Tour. Manag. 2000, 21, 547–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Pret, T.; Cogan, A. Artisan entrepreneurship: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2019, 25, 592–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tregear, A. Lifestyle, growth, or community involvement? The balance of goals of UK artisan food producers. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2005, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hjalager, A.M.; Corigliano, M.A. Food for tourists—Determinants of an image. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2000, 4, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Characteristics of the surveyed food producers.
Table 1. Characteristics of the surveyed food producers.
VariablesNational TraditionRegional TraditionLocal TraditionAll Respondents
Sample size (Number of Entities)25222370
Responses in %
Supporting cultural heritage and identity
Sources of knowledge about culinary traditions
Family knowledge56.0090.9178.2674.29
Old recipes52.0090.9143.4861.43
Training, workshops28.0022.7330.4327.14
Cookbooks, guides16.0036.3621.7424.29
Other vendors and manufacturers24.0018.1817.3920.00
Internet20.0013.6417.3917.14
Forms of promoting knowledge about culinary traditions
Tastings44.0050.0047.8347.14
Workshops28.0054.5526.0935.71
Lectures24.0036.3613.0424.29
Food festivals72.0077.2778.2675.71
Others12.0027.270.0012.86
Cooperation with other producers in the exchange of knowledge and skills
With producers from the local environment44.0081.8234.7850.00
With producers outside the local environment44.0050.0034.7842.96
Supporting business
Business duration
Below 1028.0036.3634.7832.86
10–2020.0018.1847.8328.57
20 and more52.0045.4517.3938.57
Business legal form
Individual farmer44.0027.2756.5242.86
Individual registered business28.0054.5534.7838.57
Company28.004.558.7014.29
Association/Foundation0.0013.640.004.29
Traditional food production as a source of income
The only one24.004.5513.0414.29
Main48.0050.0043.4847.14
Additional28.0045.4543.4838.57
Employment
1–9 employees (micro)84.0077.2786.9681.43
10–50 employees (small)12.0013.6413.0414.29
50 and more employees (medium)4.009.090.004.29
Family member employment68.0068.1891.3075.71
Seasonal employment40.0054.5556.5250.00
Supporting food safety, quality and environmental responsibility
Sources of semi-finished products and raw materials
From own crops and breeding64.0077.2782.6174.29
From local market36.0068.1821.7441.43
From regional market40.0036.3613.0430.00
From national market16.009.098.7011.43
From international market12.004.550.005.71
Sales ways
Sales at the production place or direct delivery28.0031.8226.0928.57
Festivals and events72.0077.2778.2675.71
Physical own stores 44.0063.6443.4848.57
Online own stores 32.0022.7317.3927.14
Intermediary stores and wholesalers60.0040.9156.5250.00
Introducing new solutions
Product innovations76.0059.0973.9170.00
Ecological solutions in the production process72.0072.7352.1765.71
Source: Own survey.
Table 2. Main activity goals of food producers related to tradition: a comparison.
Table 2. Main activity goals of food producers related to tradition: a comparison.
VariablesNational TraditionRegional TraditionLocal TraditionAll Respondents
Average * (and Standard Deviation)
Socio-cultural goals
Pursuing one’s own interests4.64 (±0.64)4.55 (±0.67)4.39 (±0.99)4.53 (±0.77)
Promoting tradition and culture4.56 (±0.65)4.68 (±0.57)4.39 (±0.78)4.54 (±0.67)
Sharing passion4.52 (±0.71)4.41 (±0.80)4.26 (±0.81)4.40 (±0.77)
Socio-cultural goals—aggregated measure4.57 (±0.06)4.55 (±0.14)4.35 (±0.08)4.49 a(±0.08)
Business goals
Running one’s own business4.20 (±0.87)4.18 (±0.85)4.22 (±1.17)4.20 (±0.96)
Creating one’s own product brand4.60 (±0.76)4.41 (±0.73)4.74 (±0.62)4.59 (±0.71)
Financial independence4.32 (±0.75)4.59 (±0.67)4.39 (±0.84)4.43 (±0,75)
Business goals—aggregated measure4.37 (±0.21)4.39 (±0.20)4.45 (±0.27)4.40 b(±0.19)
Food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility goals
Delivering high-quality products4.84 (±0.37)4.59 (±0.50)4.35 (±0.93)4.60 (±0.67)
Development and innovation activities4.76 (±0.44)4.41 (±0.67)4.17 (±0.65)4.46 (±0.63)
Introducing ecological solutions3.70 (±0.84)3.86 (±0.77)3.48 (±0.99)3.69 (±0.88)
Food safety, quality, and environmental responsibility goals—aggregated measure4.44 c(±0.62)4.29 d(±0.38)4.00 c,d(±0.46)4.25 a,b(±0.49)
* Likert scale: 1—definitely not, 2—rather not, 3—neutral, 4—would prefer, and 5—definitely yes. Means with same superscripts are significantly different from each other, a,c p < 0.01, b,d p < 0.10. Source: Own survey.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ossowska, L.; Janiszewska, D.; Kwiatkowski, G.; Oklevik, O. Local Food Production Based on Culinary Heritage—A Way to Local Sustainability. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411310

AMA Style

Ossowska L, Janiszewska D, Kwiatkowski G, Oklevik O. Local Food Production Based on Culinary Heritage—A Way to Local Sustainability. Sustainability. 2024; 16(24):11310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411310

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ossowska, Luiza, Dorota Janiszewska, Grzegorz Kwiatkowski, and Ove Oklevik. 2024. "Local Food Production Based on Culinary Heritage—A Way to Local Sustainability" Sustainability 16, no. 24: 11310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411310

APA Style

Ossowska, L., Janiszewska, D., Kwiatkowski, G., & Oklevik, O. (2024). Local Food Production Based on Culinary Heritage—A Way to Local Sustainability. Sustainability, 16(24), 11310. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411310

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop
  NODES
Association 5
coding 2
Community 4
deepl 1
games 2
games 2
Idea 2
idea 2
innovation 13
Interesting 5
Intern 44
iOS 4
Javascript 2
languages 2
mac 25
Note 10
OOP 11
os 220
text 12
Training 2
twitter 1
visual 1
web 3