Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

31
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 [email protected]

description

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 [email protected]. Overview. 2005 collaborative CSA study in Iowa - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Page 1: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

[email protected]

Page 2: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 3: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 4: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 5: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 6: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 7: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Measurement Considering alternative agriculture in terms

of seven “community capitals”– Natural capital– Cultural capital – Human capital– Social capital– Political capital– Financial capital– Built capital

Page 8: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Community Capitals Framework

Page 9: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Results

Using the Community Capitals Framework– Benefits women producers receive as a result

of participation– Differences between women and men

producers– Community benefits

Page 10: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 11: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 12: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 13: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 14: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 15: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 16: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 17: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Scale overall– No difference between men and women

Individual items– No differences between men and women

Results: Natural Capital

Page 18: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 19: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 20: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 21: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 22: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

Scale overall– No differences between women and men

Individual items– No differences between women and men

Results: Political Capital

Page 23: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 24: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 25: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 26: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 27: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 28: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and 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

Page 29: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 30: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

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

Page 31: Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Supporting Women and Communities

For surveys and updates on the Web, visit us at:

http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/index.html