Ghosh, Candan Türkkan2022-09-012022-09-0120231552-8014http://hdl.handle.net/10679/7824https://doi.org/10.1080/15528014.2021.1960004Outside of the Global North, where agri-food systems have not yet consolidated into a ‘funnel shape,’ what makes an urban provisioning actor ‘alternative’ is not always clear. In this paper, I use members’ own definitions, emphases, and arguments to differentiate ‘alternative’ networks from other provisioning actors. Using data from semi-structured interviews, I show that while community-building and an affiliation with the food movement (broadly defined) are the most critical features identified by people who participate in these networks, more informal, ad hoc, familial or village networks that are utilized as a response to urban food insecurity are excluded. While such exclusions may not be unique, in this case, they reflect more fundamental divisions regarding what ‘alternative’ implies and how to challenge the throttling hold of conventional provisioning agents on the contemporary agri-food system.engrestrictedAccessarticle26226528500068412510000110.1080/15528014.2021.1960004Alternative food networksAlternative provisioning networksIstanbulUrban provisioning2-s2.0-85112170416