Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture:Supporting Women and Communities
National Extension Women in Agriculture ConferenceApril 6-7, 2006
Corry BregendahlNorth Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Overview 2005 collaborative CSA study in Iowa What is collaborative CSA? CSA and alternative agriculture
– Principles of alternative agriculture Community Capitals Framework
– Benefits of participation for women producers Women’s contributions Implications for Extension
About the Study Unique contributions and community
benefits of multi-producer, for-profit CSA– Funded by Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture– In partnership with Iowa Network for
Community Agriculture– Surveyed/interviewed current and former
coordinators, producers, and members of three cCSAs in Iowa
What Is ‘Collaborative’ CSA?
Almost all for-profit CSA is collaborative Our research focus
– For-profit CSA in which multiple producers collaborate to provide food/fiber products for CSA in which no single producer has sole responsibility
Horizontal decision making
Vertical decision making
No interactive decision making
Collaboration Independence
Principles ofAlternative Agriculture
Independence– Self sufficiency
Decentralization– Dispersed control of land, resources, capital
Community– Increased cooperation, small communities essential
Harmony with nature– Humans subject to nature, imitation of natural
ecosystems
Source: Beus and Dunlap, 1990 and Chiappe and Flora, 1998
Diversity– Integration of crops and livestock, polyculture
Restraint– Simpler lifestyles, nonmaterialism
Quality of life– Decreased labor time, more time with family
Spirituality/religiosity– Living spiritual values, respect for earth and life
Source: Beus and Dunlap, 1990 and Chiappe and Flora, 1998
Principles ofAlternative Agriculture
Measurement Considering alternative agriculture in terms
of seven “community capitals”– Natural capital– Cultural capital – Human capital– Social capital– Political capital– Financial capital– Built capital
Community Capitals Framework
Results
Using the Community Capitals Framework– Benefits women producers receive as a result
of participation– Differences between women and men
producers– Community benefits
Results:Producer Demographics
Demographiccharacteristic
2005 cCSA study
2002 Upper Midwest CSA study (Tegtmeier and Duffy, 2005)
2002 USDA Census of Agriculture
Female 62% 53% 36%
Average age 44.8 45.4 55.3
26 producers responded– 70% response rate
Results:Capital Benefit Rankings
Women’s Rank Men’s RankSocial capital 1 3
Cultural capital 2 4
Natural capital 3 1
Human capital 4 2
Political capital 5 5
Financial capital 6 6
Results: Social Capital 6-item scale
– Measures extent to which producers develop relationships, networks, and trust with other producers, CSA members, and community
– Reliability coefficient= .9224– Ranked first among women
Scale overall– Women producers more likely (p < .10) than men to
agree they receive social capital benefits Individual items
– Women more likely than men to Make professional connections with other producers
(p < .10) Make personal connections with other producers
(p < .10) Build trust with CSA members (p < .05) Establish broader network of relationships in
community (p < .10) Strengthen relationships in the community (p < .10)
Results: Social Capital
Results: Cultural Capital 7-item scale
– Measures shared identity to the land, farming, food, and others who have similar beliefs, values, and philosophies
– Reliability coefficient = .8430– Ranked second among women
Scale overall– Women more likely than men (p < .05) to agree
they receive cultural capital benefits Individual items
– Women more likely than men to Help CSA members connect with each other/other
community members through CSA events (p < .05) Maintain shared identity with community members
through local/organic farm products (p < .10) Stay connected to the land (p < .10)
Results: Cultural Capital
Results: Natural Capital 8-item scale
– Measures extent to which producers report their activities positively impact soil health, biodiversity, water quality, wildlife habitat, and landscape appearance
– Unable to measure direct environmental impact– Reliability coefficient = .9204– Ranked third among women
Scale overall– No difference between men and women
Individual items– No differences between men and women
Results: Natural Capital
Results: Human Capital 11-item scale
– Measures time-saving aspects of collaborative CSA, educational and knowledge-generating aspects, self-actualization, and human health contributions
– Reliability coefficient = .8430– Ranked fourth among women
Scale overall– No difference between men and women
Individual items– Women more likely than men to
Share knowledge of environmentally friendly farming/animal husbandry techniques with other producers and groups (p < .10)
Access knowledge of more experienced producers (p < .05)
Results: Human Capital
Community benefits– Educating, training, building confidence of
women– 36% of women employed in ag-related position
paid by off-farm source since cCSA 40% credit cCSA for employment
– 73% of women say cCSA participation influenced business decisions by
Learning more about consumers Learning more about themselves Learning more about the business of production
Results: Human Capital
Results: Political Capital 6-item scale
– Measuring links to power, influence, voice, and public resources often through elected officials
– Reliability coefficient = .9052– Ranked fifth among women
Scale overall– No differences between women and men
Individual items– No differences between women and men
Results: Political Capital
Results:Financial/Built Capital
9-item scale– Extent to which producers report they were not
only able to increase their assets and financial wealth, but also diversify and stabilize income
– Reliability coefficient = .8478– Ranked sixth/last among women
Scale overall– No difference between women and men
Individual items– Women producers more likely than men to
Access new markets (p < .05)
Results:Financial/Built Capital
Results:Financial/Built Capital
Community benefits– cCSA as business incubator for women
44% of women producers say cCSA participation helped them start new or expand new farm-related enterprises
– Offer new products such as bread, eggs and beef– Start single proprietor owned CSA– Cheese making operation– Farmhouse dinners– Buying club
Women’s Contributions Understanding of relationship marketing
(human capital)– Emphasizing customer retention, not constantly
attracting new ones– Retaining customers by creating channels for
communication, interaction, and information– Adding social, cultural, emotional, political,
financial value to products– Committing long-term to consumers
Women’s Contributions Innovations in relationship marketing (human
and social capital)– Creative producer-to-producer relationships– Creative relationships with members
Rejecting idea that consumers are product recipients Getting consumers to buy into business
– Consumers identify with producer/production methods – Consumers do word-of-mouth marketing– Consumers provide capital, labor– Consumers become co-producers, co-creators
– Creative relationships with communities
Implicationsfor Extension
Educators can support women and communities by– Understanding women producers’ values
Social connections Culture Community Quality of life
– Validating and legitimizing those values
Educators can support women and communities by– Understanding women’s strengths
Community ties Long-term commitment Relationship marketing Willingness, creativity, and flexibility to engage in
unconventional business relationships
Implicationsfor Extension
Implications for Extension
Educators can support women and communities by– Facilitating networks
Provide professional and personal support Minimize and share risk Access production and business knowledge
– Helping women recognize and invest their strengths into business, community
For surveys and updates on the Web, visit us at:
http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/index.html