Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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