1 / 31

Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities National Extension Women in Agriculture Conference April 6-7, 2006 Corry Bregendahl North Central Regional Center for Rural Development corry@iastate.edu. Overview. 2005 collaborative CSA study in Iowa

kamran
Download Presentation

Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities National Extension Women in Agriculture Conference April 6-7, 2006 Corry Bregendahl North Central Regional Center for Rural Development corry@iastate.edu

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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 Collaboration Independence

  5. 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

  6. Principles ofAlternative Agriculture • 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

  7. Measurement • Considering alternative agriculture in terms of seven “community capitals” • Natural capital • Cultural capital • Human capital • Social capital • Political capital • Financial capital • Built capital

  8. Community Capitals Framework

  9. Results • Using the Community Capitals Framework • Benefits women producers receive as a result of participation • Differences between women and men producers • Community benefits

  10. Results:Producer Demographics • 26 producers responded • 70% response rate

  11. Results:Capital Benefit Rankings

  12. 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

  13. Results: Social Capital • 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)

  14. 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

  15. Results: Cultural Capital • 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)

  16. 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

  17. Results: Natural Capital • Scale overall • No difference between men and women • Individual items • No differences between men and women

  18. 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

  19. Results: Human Capital • 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)

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. Results: Political Capital • Scale overall • No differences between women and men • Individual items • No differences between women and men

  23. 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

  24. Results:Financial/Built Capital • Scale overall • No difference between women and men • Individual items • Women producers more likely than men to • Access new markets (p < .05)

  25. 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

  26. 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

  27. 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

  28. 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

  29. Implicationsfor Extension • 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

  30. 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

  31. For surveys and updates on the Web, visit us at: http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/index.html

More Related