ASEAS 12(1) | 49 The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets: Practices at Small Community Markets in Yogyakarta Dodi Widiyanto ► Widiyanto, D. (2019). The third wave of Indonesia’s food markets. Practices at small community markets in Yogyakarta. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 12(1), 49-67. There is growing awareness among people living in developing countries of the impor- tance of healthy lifestyles. Farmers’ markets (FMs) are a rather new type of market in Indonesia, succeeding traditional and modern markets. They began to appear in 2006 in Bali and were established in Yogyakarta in the early 2010s. This article contributes to lim- ited research in this area by presenting a qualitative analysis of market participants with three main aims: to explore the meanings of local and healthy food from the vendors’/ managers’ perspective, to identify the vendors’/managers’ motives for using FMs, and to examine the mechanisms underpinning the performance of FMs. I found no consensus regarding the meanings of local and healthy food. Instead, market participants have a geographically wide concept of ‘local’ that includes perceived high-quality (and healthy) raw materials from all over the Indonesian Archipelago. To assure the quality of food from such distant sources, formal and informal market mechanisms are used in Greater Yogyakarta FMs, as evidenced by the unique practices designed by the markets’ vendors and managers. Keywords: Community Markets; Farmers’ Markets; Food and Health; Indonesia; Market Practices  INTRODUCTION In Indonesia, there are several types of food markets that can broadly be clas- sified into traditional and modern (Dyck, Woolverton, & Rangkuti, 2012). The modern type includes hypermarkets, supermarkets, mini-marts, and other sim- ilar modern retailers, whereas warung1, semi-permanent stands, traditional wet markets, and peddlers represent the traditional type. Traditional markets (com- monly called pasar in Indonesian) have served people’s daily needs in Indonesia for centuries (Tumbuan, Kawet, & Shiratake, 2006), and the government has developed traditional markets in both rural and urban areas (Shepherd & Schalke, 1995). In these markets, consumers can buy fresh food such as vegeta- bles and fruits and other items to meet their daily needs (Tumbuan et al., 2006). These traditional markets sell local food with its characteristic “food quality and freshness” (Ostrom, 2006, p. 66). In addition, modern supermarkets have served Indonesian customers since the 1970s (Chowdury, Gulati, & Gumbira-Sa’id, 1 A warung is a “small store, usually 25–50 square meters, one story, sometimes built in front of residential houses, sometimes in ‘shopping areas/streets’” (Rahtz & Sidik, 2006, p. 277). Aktuelle Südostasienforschung  Current Research on Southeast Asia w w w .s ea s. at d o i 10 .1 47 64 /1 0. A SE A S- 00 13 50 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets 2005; Dyck et al., 2012; Suryadarma et al., 2010), as have hypermarkets since the end of the 1990s (Dyck et al., 2012). A third market type – and the focus of this article – is the small community farmers’ market (FM). This rather new market could be defined as a third wave2 of Indonesian market styles, with the traditional markets being the first wave, and the modern super- and hypermarkets being the second. FMs in Indonesia3 can further be classified into two types, depending on their initiators: 1) FMs initiated by the government (Handayani, 2014), also known as pasar tani and 2) small community markets or FMs initiated at the grassroots level. The second type is the focus of this article. The first FM was most likely initiated on 16 December 2006 in Bali (Ubud Organic Market, n.d.). According to my interviewees (M1, V8), the second group of small community market initiatives started in Yogyakarta in 2012, and another community market was established in Bandung about two years later (Dwiartama, Tresnadi, Furqon, & Pratama, 2017). In 2016, a market, Pasar Papringan, was set up in the rural community of Temanggung (“Lokomotif gerakan membangun desa”, 2017). FMs are located in urban areas such as Jakarta, Bogor, Bandung, Yogyakarta, and Surabaya, and sometimes in more rural areas, such as in Temanggung and Bali, where they are related mainly to tourism. This article aims to describe the meaning of local and healthy food from the perspective of the vendors and managers at the FMs, to analyze the practices and mechanisms by which FMs guarantee the localness and healthfulness of their prod- ucts, and to discuss the significance of alternative food markets in the context of a developing country or urbanizing society by focusing on the production and supply side. FMs are still small-scale activities in Indonesia, and a better understanding of their context should help to fill the urgent need for research on FMs in develop- ing countries (Chiffoleau, 2009). Previous research on FMs has concentrated mostly on consumers or producers/vendors (Hinrichs, Gillespie, & Feenstra, 2004; Schmitt, Dominique, & Six, 2018). This study thus focuses on the supply-side perspective of the vendors and managers who operate the FMs. Specifically, this article explores: (1) the meaning of localness of the products sold at the FMs in the Greater Yogyakarta (GY) area, especially as it is interrelated with quality, health, and food, (2) the vendors’/managers’ motives for using FMs, and (3) the mechanisms that underpin the FMs, paying particular attention to the practices of vendors/managers as the principal actors in these communities. The article first reviews the relevant literature and conceptual framework of local food initiatives and FMs and then explains the methods used. It then presents an overview of Yogyakarta’s FMs and discusses the interview results, particularly as they relate to proximity, rela- tionships, vendor/manager motivation, and market mechanisms. 2 This third wave can also be seen as a kind of revival of traditional markets, with their focus on face-to- face interactions between producers and sellers. 3 These markets are also called alternative, healthy, and community markets. The interviewees in this study used the term “farmers’ market”, which I also deploy in this article. ASEAS 12(1) | 51 Dodi Widiyanto LOCAL FOOD INITIATIVES AND FARMERS’ MARKETS Le Heron (2016) categorized agrifood into three main themes, namely “Global Commodity Chains (GCC), Food Regimes (FR), and Alternative Food Movement and Networks (AFMN)” (p. 57). The last one is the main focus of this study. Constance, Friedland, Renard, and Rivera-Ferre (2014, p. 5) discuss Alternative Agrifood Movements, focusing on “local and regional food systems”; they include FMs as part of their case studies. Also, Barbera and Dagnes (2016) identified the importance of proximity, health, and safety as they relate to agrifood products and networks. Local Food Initiatives and Farmers’ Markets Local food is increasingly seen as an alternative to global food (Heis, 2015; Jung & Pearson, 2014; Kimura & Nishiyama, 2008; Lehtinen, 2012; Yokoyama & Sakurai, 2009). Worldwide, local food initiatives began to spring up in the 1970s (Lehtinen, 2012). Examples include Chisan-Chisho (Locally Produced, Locally Consumed) in Japan, Food Miles in the United Kingdom, Slow Food in Italy, Shintobuli (Body-Soil Inseparable) in South Korea, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in the United States, and Rural Regeneration Programs run by the Jia-Nan Cultural Association in Taiwan (Cheng, 2016; Jung & Pearson, 2014; Kimura & Nishiyama, 2008; Yokoyama & Sakurai, 2009). Many studies have discussed the connections between FMs and local food initiatives. For example, a study of more than 120 community food projects in Ontario, Canada, includes FMs as an example of local food initiatives (Mount et al., 2013). FMs act as an alternative food space (Bosco & Joassart-Marcelli, 2018) and play a role as outlets for local and healthy food (Engelseth, 2016; Hammer, Vallianatos, Nykiforuk, & Nieuwendyk, 2015; Printezis & Grebitus, 2018). Inspired by European agrarian markets, FMs were first established in the USA, specifically in Boston in 1634 (Robinson & Hartenfeld, 2007, p. 35). From 1960 to 1970, modern FMs were re-introduced with the spirit of “healthfulness and freshness of foods” (Gillespie, Hilchey, Hinrichs, & Feenstra, 2007, p. 65). Basil (2012) explains the development of Canada’s FMs and how they regained popularity in the 1970s, largely owing to environmental concerns. In the UK, the first FMs emerged in Bath in 1997 (Kirwan, 2006; Spiller, 2012; Youngs, 2003). In developing countries, however, markets developed differently from developed countries. In many places, some type of traditional market, such as a wet market, still retains the essential food-supply role for city and village dwellers on the basis of food supply chains involving local farmers, not only as product distributors but also as retailers. The influence of the Western lifestyle and a rising middle class in Asian cities have, however, changed people’s buying habits (De Jong et al., 2017). Food safety concerns related to traceability, accountability, and quality are reasons why Asian customers increasingly prefer to buy food at modern-type retail stores, which are viewed as being more hygienic (Chowdury et al., 2005; Dyck et al., 2012; Ehlert & Voßemer, 2015). At the same time, in larger cities and metropolitan areas, an alternative type of FM, seemingly similar to those in Western developed countries, is beginning to emerge. 52 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets Local and Healthy Food at Farmers’ Markets Regardless of the different definitions of local food held by different food protago- nists, there is clearly at least an informal association between the concepts of local and healthy at FMs. Eriksen (2013) argued that “there is no consistent definition of ‘local food’” (p. 49), but defined local food on the basis of three types of proximi- ty: geography, social relations, and values. Other definitions have been offered by Granvik, Joosse, Hunt, and Hallberg (2017) in Sweden, and by Tchoukaleyska (2013), who examined these concepts in France’s FMs. Connell, Smithers, and Joseph (2008) discussed how “good food” meant various things to their interviewees from FMs in British Columbia, Canada, but the meanings shared two basic aspects: a local theme and health-related issues. Several scholars have defined FMs and their relationship to health issues. For example, Sadler (2016) defined FMs as “ideal sites for nutrition and food security programming because they primarily offer healthy foods”, pointing out that “inter- personal relationships with vendors offer the opportunity to learn more about the food being purchased casually” (p. 120). Hammer et al. (2015) explained that FMs are places where consumers obtain local and healthy food, and Granvik et al. (2017) noted in their review that “local food is fresher and healthier than conventional food” (p. 2). Motivations and Mechanisms of Vendors and Managers Underpinning FMs There are two motivations for vendors to participate in FMs: social and economic (Feagan, Morris, & Krug, 2004; Hinrichs, 2000). According to Migliore, Caracciolo, Lombardi, Schifani, and Cembalo (2014), farmers participate in Civic Agriculture or FMs because of (social) embeddedness. The concept of embeddedness was first intro- duced by Karl Polanyi (1957/2001) and later adopted by several scholars (Block, 2001). Granovetter (1985) found that there was an “impact of such change on the social relations in which economic life is embedded” (p. 507). Fred Block (1990) expanded on Granovetter’s work, explaining social relations with the terms “instrumentalism” and “marketness” (p. 53). Higher instrumentalism shows that an actor tends to max- imize economic goals, whereas higher marketness shows that price is the critical factor (Block, 1990; Galt, 2013; Hinrichs, 2000). In a study of Community Supported Agriculture, Galt (2013) stated that both low instrumentalism and marketness are evidenced in customer behaviors. Consumers paid attention to neither price nor eco- nomic motives; rather, they emphasized social embeddedness or a sense of “moral economy” (p. 348). Bloom and Hinrichs (2011) explained the role of social relations and trust in social embeddedness. In short, they said that it was the interrelation- ship of the three concepts of embeddedness, instrumentalism, and marketness that drives farmers to participate in FMs (Hinrichs, 2000). Moreover, Bloom and Hinrichs (2011) explained how interorganizational coordination mechanisms (formal and informal) can be explained by social embeddedness, particularly as it relates to social relations and trust. Trust and social interaction drive social embeddedness (Classens, 2015; Trupp, 2017), with face-to-face interactions leading to trust (Milestad, Bartel- Kratochvil, Leitner, & Axmann, 2010). ASEAS 12(1) | 53 Dodi Widiyanto METHODS The study was conducted in Yogyakarta, a city in Java, Indonesia. The area is well known for tourism, educational institutions, and its multicultural characteristics (Zudianto, 2010). Administratively, Yogyakarta Special Province consists of four regencies (Sleman, Gunungkidul, Bantul, and Kulonprogo) and one municipality (Yogyakarta). In 2017, the population of the province was 3,762,167 and that of the capital city, Yogyakarta, was 422,732 (Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta [BPS DIY], 2018). The development of Yogyakarta’s urban areas during the last decade has created a metropolitan area known as Kawasan Perkotaan Yogyakarta (Aglomerasi Perkotaan Yogyakarta) which is the second-fastest-growing metropolitan area in Indonesia after the Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Area (Legates & Hudalah, 2014; Pemerintah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta, 2010). Yogyakarta is the sec- ond most popular international tourist destination in Indonesia after Bali (Hampton, 2003). The data for this study were obtained from in-depth unstructured interviews, combining “informal and ethnographic interviews” (Bernard, Wutich, & Ryan, 2017, pp. 74-76) with 12 FM vendors and managers from the 6 FMs that I visited (Table 1). Of the 17 people contacted, 14 people agreed to meet, and 12 agreed to be inter- viewed. They included 8 vendors, 3 vendor/managers, and 1 manager. They were intentionally sampled based on the snowball-sampling method (Bernard, 2006). The interviews were conducted between September and November 2017. Two main questions guided the interviews: (1) Could you explain your experi- ence (individually) as a vendor or manager or both? and (2) Could you tell me what the farmers’ market is? The questions that followed were related to thematic issues such as proximity, motivations, prospects, challenges, historical stories, and interac- tions with other actors such as producers and traders. Sometimes, the informants NO CODE ROLE AT THE FM DATE OF INTERVIEW FMs 1 V1 Vendor November 21, 2017 FM1 2 V2 Vendor November 17, 2017 FM2 3 V3 Vendor & Manager November 22, 2017 FM2 4 V4 Vendor November 25, 2017 FM6 5 V5 Vendor October 3, 2017 FM2, FM3, FM4, FM6 6 V6 Vendor November 14, 2017 FM1 7 V7 Vendor September 23, 2017 FM4 8 V8 Vendor & Manager September 7 + 28, 2017 FM5, FM6 9 V9 Vendor & Manager November 14, 2017 FM1 10 V10 Vendor November 15, 2017 FM3, FM5, FM6 11 V11 Vendor September 9, 2017 FM3, FM4 12 M1 Manager November 22, 2017 FM3 Table 1. Informants’ details (own compilation). 54 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets told related stories about their businesses and the FMs themselves, even though I had not directly asked about them. I would then raise questions related to their stories. The conversations were conducted in Indonesian and sometimes Javanese languages, lasting from about 15 to 120 minutes. The interviews were digitally recorded, later transcribed into written text with the interviewees’ permission and finally translated into English. Not all parts of the conversations were transcribed because some parts (such as general chatting) were unrelated to the research focus. At the end of the interview, I asked the informants for permission to observe them at their respec- tive FMs and to inform others about my presence. To analyze the transcribed text, I also was guided by Phillips and Hardy’s (2002) work on discourse analysis. With this strategy information (e.g., the meaning of local food) derived from the interviews, the story-based data can be analyzed qualitatively by developing and examining codes and categories (Phillips & Hardy, 2002). For this article, I present results from the analyzed and coded textual data. The first result (Figure 1) contains information reconstructing the food supply chains, and helps to describe and analyze where the raw materials originated. I classified the areas into three spatial scales (Marston, Jones, & Woodward, 2005; Taylor, 1982, p. 24), namely Greater Yogyakarta (GY), the province, and out of the province. I also describe where the original raw materials come from by adopting the supply chain diagram of Ilbery and Maye (2005). I also analyzed the transcribed interview texts (Bernard, 2006) as the second result to show what the informants’ discourses are by intentionally selecting typical examples. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This section is divided into five sub-sections. First, the overall structure of the FMs is presented. Then, the meaning of local and healthy food as expressed by the prac- tices of the vendors and managers is evaluated. Next, the concept of proximity is explored, particularly as it relates to supply chains. The fourth sub-section examines the motives of the vendors and managers, and the fifth looks at how non-local food is perceived to be local through the concept of health. Finally, the mechanisms under- pinning the FMs are described. The Landscape of Greater Yogyakarta FMs I summarize the history of the FMs based on my conversations with the interviewees. The first FM in Yogyakarta was established in 2012. The second and third FMs were set up in 2014, and these were followed by the establishment of four more FMs in 2016 and three more in 2017. By 2017, a total of 10 FMs were established in GY. Each FM is autonomous; so although there was once an FM association in Yogyakarta, it was no longer in operation at the time of the interviews. Each FM has its own management style; for example, FMs can employ a communal system or group-based management, but some are managed by a single manager or leader. My observations indicate that the FMs have a hybrid physical appearance that combines aspects of traditional and modern markets. Two commonly used spaces for the markets are restaurants and houses. The prices of products at FMs are fixed, so there is no apparent bargaining system. Customers can choose to pay some vendors ASEAS 12(1) | 55 Dodi Widiyanto in cash or by an e-payment or other type of digital payment. These transactions are therefore similar to those used in a modern supermarket. Human interaction is a common characteristic of all of the FMs because the face-to-face interaction between sellers and customers is desired. Most of the commodities sold in the FMs are adver- tised as local and are promoted as being healthy. The products are presented in various types of packaging; the packaging used for artisanal products is particularly attractive. Each FM has a different vision and mission, but in general they aim to educate people (producers and consumers) about food (V8), particularly about healthy food and sustainable food systems. One informant (V8) said that one of their big dreams was to achieve food sovereignty in Indonesia, whereas another stressed that he wanted to provide organic, healthy, fresh local products. The goal proposed by the informant is similar to the emerging food sovereignty activities in today’s Southeast Asia (Voßemer, Ehlert, Proyer, & Guth, 2015). Another informant (V7) told me that the market should provide responsible products, use fair practices, and be accountable to achieve the vendors’ vision and mission. The FMs open variously twice a week, once a week, twice a month, or once a month, each with its own market day(s) and in general operate three to four hours. Yogyakarta’s FMs are also characterized by selling two kinds of products: “wet” prod- ucts and durable products (V8). The GY FM community defines “wet” products as fresh food, ready-to-eat food, snacks, fruits, and vegetables. Durable products refer to foods that can be kept for a relatively long time, such as soybean sauces, coconut oil, and fermented drinks or beverages. There are several types of actors participating in Yogyakarta’s FMs. The first are the vendors. On average, there are 10 to 25 vendors at each FM. According to Stephenson, Lev, and Brewer (2008), FMs consisting of fewer than 30 vendors are categorized as small FMs. A vendor can be a farmer, a producer, or a trader of food products. Lyson (2004) defined three types of vendors in their case study: (1) “tradi- tional full-time farmers”; (2) “part-time growers and market gardeners”; and (3) “local artisans, craftspeople, and other entrepreneurs” (pp. 92-93). My fieldwork showed, however, that the vendors at Yogyakarta’s FMs are dominated by the third type: local artisans and craftspeople, and food processors or food entrepreneurs – but very rarely farmers. The vendors categorized as food processors usually buy raw materials and process these into finished products such as traditional foods and beverages, bread, and other healthy foods to sell at the FMs. Some of the vendors also produce or pro- cess artisanal food. The second type of actor includes the managers or leaders. A manager or leader can be an initiator of the FM or a representative selected by the vendors. The man- ager may operate her/his stall during the market days or execute management tasks without working in a stall. The third type of actor is the host, who is usually the owner of the space where the FMs are regularly held. The host may be a third party who does not sell commodities, but he or she often has a good understanding of the FMs’ activities. The fourth type includes the producers and suppliers who regu- larly support the vendors’ needs, and the final actors are the consumers. During my observation, I identified that the consumers are local residents, domestic as well as international tourists. 56 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets The Meanings of Local and Healthy Food Proximity and the supply chain are two ideas that permeate the local food literature (Eriksen, 2013; Giampietri, Finco, & Giudice, 2016). Similar to the findings of pre- vious research (Eriksen, 2013), I found no apparent consensus among the vendors and managers regarding the meanings of local and healthy food. Each vendor has a good knowledge of local geography; such knowledge is essential to their understand- ing relating their materials (Chang & Lim, 2004). One vendor (V3) explained where their raw materials came from and noted, for example, that a particular vegetable was from upland Magelang (not too far from Yogyakarta) and that some raw materials such as flour and tea originated in Java. A geographically wide but limited context is also important in understanding the idea of ‘local’. This critical point was supported by two informants (V3, V8) who explained that, although their raw materials come from Java, they were still considered to be local. Other informants explained that the term ‘local’ also applies to locally grown commodities that were not originally grown in Java: “Like broccoli, these are not vegetables from Java. But they can still be considered natural because they have become naturalized in this area and have been grown here with no problem (M1)”. Finally, nostalgic food ("Indian flavours are my identity", 2019) – for example, food that close family members have traditionally eaten – is also considered to be local. One informant (V8) mentioned ‘nostalgic food’ talking with a pedicab driver who said that the food (containing kimpul and canthel/ sorghum) the vendor sold was “like his grandparents’ food”. Several points were identified as related to the concept of health: (1) clarity in the specifications of the raw materials and processes (V5), (2) chemical free (V9, V10, V11), (3) supporting a healthy lifestyle (V2), and (4) similar to ancestral food (V8). A vendor who provides dairy products explained his belief that clarity in the specification of raw materials and processes contributes to health as follows: We, and our friends in the organic market of the natural food market com- munity, have two principles: specification of raw materials and transparency of processes. If we want organic, sometimes it’s difficult. There are so many requirements: You want natural? That’s more difficult than organic. (V5) Several informants paid attention to the idea of ‘chemical-free’ when defining their products as healthy. When I asked one of them to explain, she said: The best food is what we plant. We know what we use for production in the garden, I mean, what we use for cultivation. We give the best: the best is nat- ural and doesn’t contain drugs or chemical elements; the consequences of un- healthy farming practices will return to us and to what we eat. (V11) One informant responded to my question regarding what is healthy food by say- ing that “We have never said that our menu is a diet menu. These foods are healthy and balanced for those people who are concerned with having a healthy life” (V2). Another informant told me that healthy food is the food his ancestors ate: “We just interpret it as: What we eat has been consumed by our grandparents” (V8). ASEAS 12(1) | 57 Dodi Widiyanto Defining Proximity for Material Supply Chains In the previous section, the informants expressed their perceived meanings of local and healthy food. It is clear that these respondents paid attention to where the raw materials come from. In this section, the local concept will be explored through Eriksen’s (2013) three types of proximity: geography, social relations, and values. In this quote, one informant explained the origin of his materials by describing the var- ious distances of the source from Yogyakarta. I bought tea from Kendal . . . that is the farthest . . . However, for the fruits, I bought them all from my friends, who supply them. For cinnamon and spices, I have suppliers from Menoreh, but sometimes they are not always ready to sup- ply them . . . Moreover, the vegetables are from Merbabu north of Jogja, the chi- lis are from my friends in Jogja, and a lot of the other food is also supplied from Jogja. The dragonfruit comes from here, from Jakal an area in Jogja4. There is a dragonfruit garden there, but because it is seasonal, I sometimes . . . go to the market trader. For other products, I still use imported products. (V7) Another informant explained the distance of the raw material from the market and defined a specific distance to be local: “As far as I know, the standard of ‘local’ is 100 km from the node where the source is available, in other words, within a cir- cle of 100 km” (M1). The same informant described the role of friends in explaining relational proximity: “They bought materials from their friends. Their supply comes from their friends, and the food sellers provide lunch for their friends” (M1). The informants mentioned many values in addition to health, including those related to local food. This informant, for example, described his value perceptions and prioritizes the values: For me, to educate them [consumers] I should be patient and we must progress step by step . . . For us in Indonesia, mostly halal is the first priority, then health, environmentally friendly, and organic. We must patiently educate them [con- sumers] one by one about the products. (V1) Another informant explained relational and value proximity in this way: For the new vendor(s) that I try to look for and accommodate . . . I persuade my friends to join. When there is a friend(s) who has a good product and can be re- sponsible, we invite them to join. Consumers need variation, and we also need more vendors. If many vendors come, the market will not shrink. (V7) Generally, local food correlates with a geographically short food supply chain or a short distance from the source materials (Giampietri et al., 2016). However, according to my fieldwork in Yogyakarta’s FMs, examples of short geographic distances indicat- ing ‘local’ were given only by two vendors (V2 & V7). Most of the sources were outside 4 The informant explained Jogja refers to Yogyakarta Special Province. 58 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets GY (either within the province or outside of the province; see Figure 1). Some ven- dors reported that some of their materials were obtained from traditional markets or were even imported, but they did not give any information regarding the specific geographic locations of such sources. Overall, the second and third parts of Eriksen’s elements of proximity (relationships and values) were demonstrated by the vendors in GY FMs. Figure 1 shows where the interviewed vendors buy their raw materials, pro- cess them, and sell the finished products (i.e., the FMs). There are three geographic scale-based groups of raw material sources. The first is the inter-supporting local groups of vendors (V2, V7, and others) who sell at the FMs. The second is at the within-province-scale and includes ten locations as the origins of raw materials. The last is from outside the province; most of the raw materials originate in this outer area. The network of relationships is also depicted: For example, V7 à FM4 indicates that V7 (vendor number 7) sells in FM4 (farmers’ market 4) and V7-1 (another vendor in FM4) supplies raw material to V7. The farmers who supply products to the vendors are also shown. For example, Fa7-5 (a farmer/producer) who lives in the province and Fa7-4 from outside the province both supply raw materials to V7. Non-Local Food Perceived as Local Through the Concept of Health At the FMs, non-local food is transformed into local food through the concept of health. A concept critical to understanding the idea of localness at the FMs is the pre- viously discussed concept of proximity and its components. As Figure 1 shows, most Figure 1. FM food supply chains in GY FMs (own compilation). Figure 1. FM food supply chains in GY FMs (own compilation). ASEAS 12(1) | 59 Dodi Widiyanto of the vendors collect raw materials from outside GY. This raises the question of why they use raw materials that are not locally sourced (i.e., in geographical proximity). According to the informants, there are three main reasons for using these products: (1) They sell a variety of products, and sometimes specific ingredients or materials are needed; (2) some materials are not available in GY, or even in the province; and (3) even if the materials can be found within GY or the province, out-of-season high prices sometimes make the vendors reluctant to buy them. Therefore, the vendors often try to look for appropriate raw materials, regardless of the distance from GY to maintain their products’ high quality. Even in this expanded context of local, healthy food is not necessarily synony- mous with local food. How, then, do the vendors try to embody these two concepts: local and healthy in the food products they provide? According to the vendors and managers, there are two types of attitudes toward practices related to healthy and local food. The first type can be thought of as a trade-off model, whereby the vendors must decide where to place their priority – healthy or local. In general, the over- all sentiment for this trade-off was expressed by one vendor, who said: “Providing excellent products for customers is our main priority” (V5). As a result, some of the food sold at the market may be from the GY area, some from outside the GY area, and some may even be imported from other countries. The second type of attitude attempts to satisfy both ideas, at least conceptually under the notion that local food is healthy food. To provide what they perceive as excellent food, the vendors look for high-quality materials from a variety of places, ranging from farmers, friends, and traditional markets, both within and outside the province. How do they treat this geographically non-local food as being local and therefore healthy food? The idea of localness is essential to conveying the quality of healthiness in food sold at these FMs, but most vendors prefer healthy products over local ones, so they must extend the meaning of local and widen its geographic scale. Previously, Gupta and Makov (2017) examined “the degree of localness” by observing where a material comes from as an approach to explain what is local/non local food from the physical and economical viewpoint (p. 620). Further discussion is still needed to determine how to approach the local concept from a proximity perspective (O’Neill, 2014). O’Neill (2014) also discussed the places where products are marketed and attempted to conceptualize localness by first identifying the meaning of local food through a scale approach. In my interviews, an informant (V7) who is an artisan said that he collaborates with another organization involved in tourism and craft pro- grams. They attempted to conserve and add value to a food product from outside Java. He said that during their collaboration they conducted a survey and identified a commodity – a fruit grown in one particular area – that may have become extinct. They hoped that they could increase the value – both of the product and for the community – by introducing this fruit widely and educating others about its sustain- able use. The goal was to first sell the product in the local community before sharing the product more widely. This story is an example of how one artisan attempted to develop his brand by ‘importing’ a raw material that originated outside Yogyakarta but was then processed in Yogyakarta and became a local product. As noted earlier, the practices of the vendors/managers regarding the concept of the ‘local’ can be explained by using Eriksen’s notion of relational proximity (Eriksen, 60 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets 2013). In particular, relational proximity at Yogyakarta FMs can be seen from the vendors’/managers’ practical ways of looking for the materials from their friends or trusted suppliers. For example, one informant said: “The raw materials I got from my friends, so I guarantee the process” (V7). Vendor/Manager Motives As a whole, vendors have two reasons for participating in the FMs: economic and social reasons. Two quotes are presented as examples of economic motives. In the first, a vendor notes that selling their healthy products is the reason for participating in the market: “My reason is to run this business. Before I started this business in Jogja, if we looked for a place to sell healthy food, the options were limited” (V2). In the second quote, however, a vendor said that if the primary reason for providing healthy food at the market was to gain profit, the vendor would not participate: “As an example of the joys and sorrows of the business, say with regard to money, I would have given up from the beginning. It is difficult for marketing (to make a profit). I face frequent losses” (V1). Most of the informants share such strong non-economic motives. They often expressed their pleasure at providing alternative spaces where customers could obtain healthy, high-quality food. An example of this point of view was expressed as follows: We do not work here for . . . economic reasons. I think my friends are commit- ted to their ideas. Most of them point out that commerce is the second or third priority; the first priority is to create excellent products. (V5) One vendor’s reason for providing fresh and healthy food was in line with the notion of “good food” (Connell et al., 2008, p. 181). Based on the FMs' customers perceptions in British Columbia, Canada, Connell et al. (2008) state that “organic is good, family-scale farming is good, local is good, natural is good, and shopping at farmers’ markets is good” (p. 181). In particular, this vendor was concerned with providing fresh products: “I don’t intend to compete with other FMs . . . However, it [my participation] would extend or enlarge a place where people could obtain fresh and local products” (V3). Other motives were also cited; for example, “helping others” (V1) was noted as a reason to participate. These social ties between producers and consumers probably reflect a mixture of economic and non-economic motives. Social ties can be thought of as being embedded in the economic relationships of the FMs' activities (Block, 1990). Formal and Informal Mechanisms to Ensure Local and Healthy Food at the FMs In general, there are two types of mechanisms in any social system: formal and informal (Bloom & Hinrichs, 2011). A formal mechanism might include the use of certificates or other ‘official’ sanctions, whereas informal mechanisms are more relationship driven. A formal mechanism in the FM context might be the use of a ASEAS 12(1) | 61 Dodi Widiyanto third-party certificate as proof of quality products. One vendor, when discussing farmers who supply raw materials, said: “Yes, previously we have been willing to cooperate with farmers because they have shown us their certificates” (V6). In prac- tice, however, few, if any, vendors/managers at Yogyakarta’s FMs rely on certificates from third-party institutions. Instead, they have initiated the use of informal mech- anisms that are expected to provide assurance of the quality of the products sold at the FMs. Darby and Karni (1973) coined the term “credence” for the relationship developed between vendors and customers and said that “credence qualities are those which, although worthwhile, cannot be evaluated in normal use” (p. 68-69). Most of the informants described informal mechanisms to ensure the quality of their products. For example, one of the FMs pays particular attention to the vendors’ homemade products as a primary requirement when joining that market: So, for the new members or vendors, I say ‘Do you make the products yourself or not?’ That way, when the consumers want to buy a product, they can ask many questions, and the vendors could answer those questions. It this commu- nication leads to trust between the producers and the consumers. (V3) Another informal mechanism is the use of quality control (V9) or curator (V7) teams that are informally organized in some FMs. A team or committee is made of vendors who are selected by the FM community. A primary task is to ensure that the products sold in the FM are of high quality and healthy. This team also plays an important role when the FM acquires a new vendor, and it usually examines the quality of the products of prospective vendors before they can join the market. New vendors have to personally assure the quality of their products; this is another infor- mal mechanism stipulated by the particular FMs. However, this mechanism also sometimes enforces efforts to build trust, particularly with new vendors. One vendor (V1), for example, mentioned that he is happy to explain the quality of his products, regardless of whether she/he makes a sale. Another explained that it takes time, and a process, to sell products. Trust-building occurs in face-to-face interactions between vendors and buyers at the FMs (Penker, 2006). One informant (V3) said that after trust has been established between the vendor and the consumer, the consumer also begins to trust the quality of the products. Nevertheless, one informant points out that gaps in knowledge can sometimes occur between a vendor and new consumers. Some mechanisms that are practiced to address trust are exemplified in this inform- ant’s statement: There are precise requirements: the origins of the products should be clear; and the origin means the geographical region’s name, the identity of the producers, and the process of how crops are converted into products. Usually for vendors joining a healthy market community, if their products are rice and vegetables, typically the products are requested to be organic, healthy, natural, and envi- ronmentally friendly. (V1) Trust is an essential component of the market, and the market participants have worked hard to build trust. This quote illustrates the experiences of one vendor: 62 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets In the group, we have had this process for a long time, maybe almost nine years. So, positive interaction with generous intention can be seen . . . We have proved that our process gives benefit to the community so they will provide support . . . trust is developed from a remarkable friendship. (V11) When I asked a manager to describe any challenges related to community inter- actions he first explained the importance of the relationship between vendors and customers and emphasized trust as a critical element: We need to develop confidence and to trust each other. That is our aim . . . be- cause if there is distrust between the vendors and consumers, the vendors will lose out . . . they [the vendors] do indeed need consumers. (M1) Hinrichs et al. (2004) argued that FMs are an example of “an embedded or embed- ding institution” through their role in supporting “material and social resources” (p. 36). Moreover, FMs are “social institutions mediating economic activity” (Hinrichs et al., 2004, p. 37). Clear evidence exists of the markets’ material role: “These activities are their, the vendors’, occupation and also their business development” (M1). The previously discussed informal mechanisms and relations among vendors, managers, and consumers, highlight the social relations that shaped trust and improved eco- nomic opportunity. The informants stressed the importance of friendship and trust and how they contributed to the shaping of the FMs. This was particularly true when the FMs were first being established, and the close relationships that existed between friends helped to assure product quality. One vendor described the role of friendship as follows: I started with my closest friends because I knew what kinds (of products they made), the quality of their products, and the extent of their story regarding their products, so most of them, suppliers and vendors, are my closest friends. (V3) CONCLUSION Previous research showed that there is limited research about alternative food prac- tices in developing countries (Chiffoleau, 2009). This article has discussed GY FMs as an example of this rather new practice in Indonesia which co-exists with traditional and modern markets. First, this article has identified the importance of local and healthy attributes of the products offered by the vendors and managers at the GY FMs. However, the understanding of local is not limited to geographic proximity, but rather can be understood from a variety of interpretations of what can be considered to be proximate. Second, findings highlighted the social relationships between sellers and consumers and the GY FMs’ mission to inform and educate the latter. Social embeddedness within vendors and FM structures based on trust also plays an impor- tant role in order to gain entry into GYs FMs. This article contributes to agrifood market studies, specifically elucidating why and how FMs co-exist with other market types in urban metropolitan areas of ASEAS 12(1) | 63 Dodi Widiyanto developing countries. Although the role of small community markets as discussed in this article in supplying food and produce for city dwellers may be minor in quanti- tative terms, these markets are becoming more common as an alternative food space to provide localness and healthy food as a means to provide quality products to cus- tomers who are interested in a healthy lifestyle. Vendors and microentrepreneurs at these markets thus meet needs that are not being met in more conventional outlets, including traditional markets and modern supermarkets. This article further shows how vendors and managers at GY FMs are operating based on informal market mechanisms which mostly depend on trust as a foundation of social capital. This mechanism is closely related to the vendors’ motivation and their social and economic entrepreneurship. The vendors and managers at the GY’s FMs have both economic and social motives. The vendors are businesspeople trying to both sell products and scale-up their businesses, but the prices at the FMs are fixed, and the participants themselves report that the economic component is not their primary reason for joining the market. Essential social components of the markets are friendship and trust, which shape social embeddedness. Although geographical proximity is an important part of the markets’ local nature, relational proximity cre- ates the social ties that bind the relationships among the actors. Despite providing important insights on alternative food practices in developing countries, this article has limitations. First, the discussion mainly focuses on FMs, whereas other market types which co-exist with these FMs are not analyzed. It would be useful to compare the social and economic mechanisms of the different market types within GY. Secondly, this article employed a rather small sample since it pur- sued an explorative qualitative research approach. Third, this article focused on the vendors and managers’ perspectives and thus neglected the demand and consumer perspective. Fourth, this article discussed FMs within one single metropolitan area, GY. A comparison to other Indonesian cities would be useful. Further research is needed to determine whether these Yogyakarta FMs can be said to be part of a larger community-based food movement and whether similar phenomena can be seen in other places in Indonesia. In particular, more detailed examinations of the mecha- nisms underlying the FMs, as well as the inclusion of consumers’ perspectives, are needed. Overall, it is essential to examine comprehensively why and how the different actors become involved in FMs in developing countries and how their small busi- nesses can succeed. Finally, the use of a more comprehensive qualitative method, such as grounded theory, to build or develop theory, and the integration of quantitative methods to determine economic impacts should also be considered in future studies.  REFERENCES Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta [BPS DIY]. (2018). Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta dalam angka [Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta in figures]. Yogyakarta: Badan Pusat Statistik Propinsi D.I. Yogyakarta. Barbera, F., & Dagnes, J. (2016). Building alternatives from the bottom-up: The case of alternative food networks. Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia, 8, 324-331. 64 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets Basil, M. (2012). A history of farmers’ markets in Canada. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4(3), 387-407. Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bernard, H. R., Wutich, A., & Ryan, G. W. (2017). Analyzing qualitative data: Systematic approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Block, F. (1990). Postindustrial possibilities: A critique of economic discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press. Block, F. (2001). Introduction. In K. Polanyi, The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time (pp. xviii-xxxviii). Boston: Beacon Press. Bloom, J. D., & Hinrichs, C. C. (2011). Informal and formal mechanisms of coordination in hybrid food value chains. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1(4), 143-156. Bosco, F. J., & Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2018). Spaces of alternative food: Urban agriculture, community gar- dens, and farmers’ markets. In P. Joassart-Marcelli & F. J. Bosco (Eds.), Food & place: A critical exploration (pp. 187-205). London: Rowman & Littlefield. Chang, T. C., & Lim, S. Y. (2004). Geographical imaginations of ‘new Asia-Singapore’. Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography, 86(3), 165-185. Cheng, E. S. K. (2016). Return migrants, mini-tours and rural regeneration: A study of local food movement in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 57(3), 338-350. Chiffoleau, Y. (2009). From politics to co-operation: The dynamics of embeddedness in alternative food supply chains. Sociologia Ruralis, 49(3), 218-235. Chowdury, S. K., Gulati, A., & Gumbira-Sa’id, E. (2005). The rise of supermarkets and vertical relationships in the Indonesian food value chain: Causes and consequences. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Develop- ment, 2(1&2), 39-48. Classens, M. (2015). Food, space and the city: Theorizing the free spaces of foodshare's good food markets. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 24(1), 44-61. Connell, D. J., Smithers, J., & Joseph, A. (2008). Farmers’ markets and the “good food” value chain: A preli- minary study. Local Environment, 13(3), 169-185. Constance, D. H., Friedland, W. H., Renard, M.-C., & Rivera-Ferre, M. G. (2014). The discourse on alter- native agrifood movements. In D. H. Constance, M.-C. Renard, & M. G. Rivera-Ferre (Eds.), Alternative agrifood movements: Patterns of convergence and divergence (pp. 3-46). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The Journal of Law & Economics, 16(1), 67-88. De Jong, B., Worsley, A., Wang, W. C., Sarmugam, R., Pham, Q., Februhartanty, J., & Ridley, S. (2017). Personal values, marketing attitudes and nutrition trust are associated with patronage of convenience food out- lets in the Asia-Pacific region: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Health, Population and Nutrition, 36(1), 6. Dwiartama, A., Tresnadi, C., Furqon, A., & Pratama, M. F. (2017). From initiative to movement: The growth and evolution of local food networks in Bandung, Indonesia. Asian Journal of Social Science Studies, 2(4), 91-98. Dyck, J., Woolverton, A. E., & Rangkuti, F. Y. (2012). Indonesia’s modern retail sector: Interaction with chan- ging food consumption and trade patterns. Washington, DC: USDA. Ehlert, J., & Voßemer, C. (2015). Food sovereignty and conceptualization of agency: A methodological dis- cussion. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(1), 7-26. Engelseth, P. (2016). Developing exchange in short local foods supply chains. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 7(3), 229-242. Eriksen, S. N. (2013). Defining local food: Constructing a new taxonomy – three domains of proximity. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, 63, 47-55. Feagan, R., Morris, D., & Krug, K. (2004). Niagara region farmers’ markets: Local food systems and sustai- nability considerations. Local Environment, 9(3), 235-254. Galt, R. E. (2013). The moral economy is a double-edged sword: Explaining farmers’ earnings and self- exploitation in community-supported agriculture. Economic Geography, 89(4), 341-365. ASEAS 12(1) | 65 Dodi Widiyanto Giampietri, E., Finco, A., & Giudice, T. D. (2016). Exploring consumers’ behaviour towards short food sup- ply chains. British Food Journal, 118(3), 618-631. Gillespie, G., Hilchey, D. L., Hinrichs, C. C., & Feenstra, G. (2007). Farmers’ markets as keystones in re- building local and regional food systems. In C. C. Hinrichs & T. A. Lyson (Eds.), Remaking the North American food system: Strategies for sustainability (pp. 65-83). London: University of Nebraska Press. Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510. Granvik, M., Joosse, S., Hunt, A., & Hallberg, I. (2017). Confusion and misunderstanding. Interpretations and definitions of local food. Sustainability, 9(11), 1981. Gupta, C., & Makov, T. (2017). How global is my local milk? Evaluating the first-order inputs of “local” milk in Hawai’i. Agriculture and Human Values, 34(3), 619-630. Hammer, B. A., Vallianatos, H., Nykiforuk, C. I. J., & Nieuwendyk, L. M. (2015). Perceptions of healthy ea- ting in four Alberta communities: A photovoice project. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 649-662. Hampton, M. P. (2003). Entry points for local tourism in developing countries: Evidence from Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 85(2), 85-101. Handayani, S. A. (2014). Pemasaran produk hortikultura melalui pasar tani. Retrieved from http://cybex. pertanian.go.id/materipenyuluhan/detail/8925/pemasaran-produk-hortikultura-melalui-pasar-tani Heis, A. (2015). The alternative agriculture network Isan and its struggle for food sovereignty – a food regime perspective of agricultural relations of production in Northeast Thailand. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(1), 67-86. Hinrichs, C. C. (2000). Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(3), 295-303. Hinrichs, C. C., Gillespie, G. W., & Feenstra, G. W. (2004). Social learning and innovation at retail farmers’ markets. Rural Sociology, 69(1), 31-58. Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005). Food supply chains and sustainability: Evidence from specialist food produ- cers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy, 22(4), 331-344. Indian flavours are my identity: Chef Ranveer Brar takes us on a nostalgic food ride. (2019, February 2). Free Press Journal. Retrieved from https://www.freepressjournal.in/food/indian-flavours-are-my-identity- chef-ranveer-brar-takes-us-on-a-nostalgic-food-ride/1450240 Jung, M.-C., & Pearson, D. (2014). The current status and potential of local food in South Korea. Locale: The Australasian-Pacific Journal of Regional Food Studies, 4, 61-78. Kimura, A. H., & Nishiyama, M. (2008). The chisan-chisho movement: Japanese local food movement and its challenges. Agriculture and Human Values, 25(1), 49-64. Kirwan, J. (2006). The interpersonal world of direct marketing: Examining conventions of quality at UK farmers’ markets. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(3), 301-312. Lokomotif gerakan membangun desa. (2017, October 7). Kompas, 9. Le Heron, R. (2016). Rethinking the economic and social history of agriculture and food through the lens of food choice. In A. Murcott, W. Belasco, & P. Jackson (Eds.), The handbook of food research (pp. 50-68). London: Bloomsbury. Legates, R., & Hudalah, D. (2014). Peri-urban planning for developing East-Asia: Learning from Chengdu, China and Yogyakarta/Kartamantul, Indonesia. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(s1), 334-353. Lehtinen, U. (2012). Sustainability and local food procurement: A case study of Finnish public catering. British Food Journal, 114(8), 1053-1071. Lyson, T. A. (2004). Civic agriculture: Reconnecting farm, food, and community. Medford, MA: Tufts University Press. Marston, S. A., Jones, J. P., & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30(4), 416-432. Migliore, G., Caracciolo, F., Lombardi, A., Schifani, G., & Cembalo, L. (2014). Farmers’ participation in civic agriculture: The effect of social embeddedness. Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment, 36(2), 105-117. 66 | ASEAS 12(1) The Third Wave of Indonesia’s Food Markets Milestad, R., Bartel-Kratochvil, R., Leitner, H., & Axmann, P. (2010). Being close: The quality of social re- lationships in a local organic cereal and bread network in Lower Austria. Journal of Rural Studies, 26(3), 228-240. Mount, P., Hazen, S., Holmes, S., Fraser, E., Winson, A., Knezevic, I., . . . Landman, K. (2013). Barriers to the local food movement: Ontario’s community food projects and the capacity for convergence. Local Environment, 18(5), 592-605. O’Neill, K. J. (2014). Situating the ‘alternative’ within the ‘conventional’. Local food experiences from the East Riding of Yorkshire, UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 35, 112-122. Ostrom, M. (2006). Everyday meanings of “local food”: Views from home and field. Community Develop- ment, 37(1), 65-78. Pemerintah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta. (2010). Peraturan Daerah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Nomor 2 Tahun 2010 Tentang Rencana Tata Ruang Wilayah Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta Tahun 2009-2029. Yogyakarta. Penker, M. (2006). Mapping and measuring the ecological embeddedness of food supply chains. Geoforum, 37(3), 368-379. Phillips, N., & Hardy, C. (2002). Discourse analysis: Investigating processes of social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Polanyi, K. (1957/2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time. Boston: Beacon Press. Printezis, I., & Grebitus, C. (2018). Marketing channels for local food. Ecological Economics, 152, 161-171. Rahtz, D. R., & Sidik, I. G. (2006). Indonesia: Transition at a crossroads. In A. Pecotich & C. J. Schultz II (Eds.), Handbook of markets and economies: East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australia, New Zealand (pp. 234-285). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Robinson, J. M., & Hartenfeld, J. A. (2007). The farmers’ market book: Growing food, cultivating community. Bloomington: Quarry Books. Sadler, R. C. (2016). Strengthening the core, improving access: Bringing healthy food downtown via a far- mers’ market move. Applied Geography, 67, 119-128. Schmitt, E., Dominique, B., & Six, J. (2018). Assessing the degree of localness of food value chains. Agroeco- logy and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(5), 573-598. Shepherd, A. W., & Schalke, A. J. F. (1995). An assessment of the Indonesian horticultural market information service. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ags/publications/INDONMIS.pdf Spiller, K. (2012). It tastes better because … consumer understandings of UK farmers’ market food. Appetite, 59(1), 100-107. Stephenson, G., Lev, L., & Brewer, L. (2008). ‘I’m getting desperate’: What we know about farmers’ markets that fail. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 23(3), 188-199. Suryadarma, D., Poesoro, A., Akhmadi, Budiyati, S., Rosfadhila, M., & Suryahadi, A. (2010). Traditional food traders in developing countries and competition from supermarkets: Evidence from Indonesia. Food Policy, 35(1), 79-86. Taylor, P. J. (1982). A materialist framework for political geography. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 7(1), 15-34. Tchoukaleyska, R. (2013). Regulating the farmers’ market: Paysan expertise, quality production and local food. Geoforum, 45, 211-218. Trupp, A. (2017). Migration, micro-business and tourism in Thailand: Highlanders in the city. London: Routledge. Tumbuan, W. A., Kawet, L., & Shiratake, Y. (2006). Significance of traditional market and supermarket functions for local farmers and consumers: A case study on marketing of vegetables in Manado, North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture Saga University, 92, 79-94. Ubud Organic Market. (n.d.). About the market. Retrieved from http://www.ubudorganicmarket.com/ About-us Voßemer, C., Ehlert, J., Proyer, M., & Guth, R. (2015). Editorial: Sovereignties of food: Political struggle and life-world encounters in Southeast Asia. Austrian Journal of South-East Asian Studies, 8(1), 1-6. ASEAS 12(1) | 67 Dodi Widiyanto Yokoyama, S., & Sakurai, S. (2009). Social capital and the local food movement in Japan: The case of the Chiba Prefecture. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, 6(1), 29-48. Youngs, J. (2003). Consumer direct initiatives in North West England farmers’ markets. British Food Journal, 105(8), 498-530. Zudianto, H. (2010). Yogyakarta: Management of multiculturalism. Paper presented at the 3rd UCLG ASPAC Congress 2010 Hamamatsu, Hamamatsu, Japan. Retrieved from https://www.city.hamamatsu. shizuoka.jp/foreign/english/intercity_cooperation/pdf/congre_06.pdf ABOUT THE AUTHOR Dodi Widiyanto is a PhD student in geography at the Department of Social and Human Environment at the Graduate School of Environmental Studies, Nagoya University, Japan. He is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Geography, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia. His research interests are geography of food, regional development, society and space, and behav- ioral geography. ► Contact: dodi.widiyanto@ugm.ac.id ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is grateful to all informants for their voluntary participation and their sharing of stories and information. He wishes to thank all vendors and managers at Yogyakarta’s FMs for their hospitality. He is also grateful to Makoto Takahashi, Masaya Iga, and Masashi Tachikawa for their valuable inputs, feedback, comments, and guidance. He thanks the Indonesian Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education and Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia for the BUDI-LN Scholarship (grant number: PRJ-3873 /LPDP.3/2016). Finally, he wishes to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers of ASEAS for their valuable inputs, comments, and corrections for this article. 68 | ASEAS 12(1)