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
What is collaborative CSA?
CSA and alternative agriculture
–

Community Capitals Framework
–


Principles of alternative agriculture
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
Collaboration
Horizontal decision
making
Independence
Vertical decision
making
No interactive decision
making
Principles of
Alternative Agriculture

Independence
–

Decentralization
–

Dispersed control of land, resources, capital
Community
–

Self sufficiency
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
Principles of
Alternative Agriculture

Diversity
–

Restraint
–

Simpler lifestyles, nonmaterialism
Quality of life
–

Integration of crops and livestock, polyculture
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
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

26 producers responded
–
70% response rate
Demographic
characteristic
2005
cCSA
study
2002 Upper
2002 USDA
Midwest CSA study Census of
(Tegtmeier and Duffy, 2005)
Agriculture
Female
62%
53%
36%
Average age
44.8
45.4
55.3
Results:
Capital Benefit Rankings
Social capital
Women’s Rank Men’s Rank
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
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)
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
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)
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
Results: Natural Capital

Scale overall
–

No difference between men and women
Individual items
–
No differences between men and women
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
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)
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: 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
Results: Political Capital

Scale overall
–

No differences between women and men
Individual items
–
No differences between women and men
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
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)
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
Implications
for Extension

Educators can support women and
communities by
–
Understanding women producers’ values




–
Social connections
Culture
Community
Quality of life
Validating and legitimizing those values
Implications
for 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
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