Source: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS submitted to
EXPANDING COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) SALES AND ACCESS IN CALIFORNIA
Sponsoring Institution
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Project Status
TERMINATED
Funding Source
HATCH
Reporting Frequency
Annual
Accession No.
0216862
Grant No.
(N/A)
Project No.
CA-D-HCE-7743-H
Proposal No.
(N/A)
Multistate No.
(N/A)
Program Code
(N/A)
Project Start Date
Oct 1, 2012
Project End Date
Sep 30, 2017
Grant Year
(N/A)
Project Director
Galt, R. E.
Recipient Organization
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS
410 MRAK HALL
DAVIS,CA 95616-8671
Performing Department
Human Ecology
Non Technical Summary
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) has expanded rapidly in recent years, including both the number of farmers participating and the number of member households. We know surprisingly little about this member base's demographic and socio-economic characteristics other than limited evidence that they tend to be white, educated, middle- and upper-class, and located in more metropolitan counties. We also know little about how CSAs are succeeding in reaching a broader audience in terms of income, race/ethnicity, and geographic regions, especially poorer urban communities and rural areas - knowledge in this realm has been limited to case studies of individual CSAs. Thus, the central research questions for this project are: what are the motivations and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of CSA member households compared to non-member households, how do member characteristics vary according to CSA marketing strategies and other characteristics, how do CSA characteristics relate to retention rates, and how might CSA farmers expand their memberships to groups historically underrepresented in CSA participation The study will involve surveys of four populations: (1) current CSA members, (2) former CSA members, (3) non-CSA members, and (4) CSA farmers and organizers. Using data from these surveys, case studies of numerous CSAs will be conducted. Cases will be selected to maximize variation in order to understand those CSAs that have members predominantly from low-income populations, populations that are more diverse than the geographical region in which the CSA operates, and communities of color. The study will result in 1-page, individualized fact sheets to be shared with each CSA that participates. The fact sheet will provide a snapshot of their specific membership attributes in relation to (1) all CSAs in California, (2) the general population of the region they serve (including non-members and data from the census), and (3) the general population of California. Many aggregated findings from the study will also be useful for CSA farmers and organizers who can use it to advertise to non-members, including their retail outlet preferences, their willingness to pay, and barriers to participation. The case studies will produce a considerable amount of qualitative data on the kinds of CSAs that have the most impact on high quality food access and on inclusivity in the food movement, so making these findings available to other CSAs will allow them to learn about new strategies to increase their membership base. Additionally, the member data will also allow for the first-ever state map of CSA market saturation, in which member numbers will be compiled by zip code and mapped on a per capita basis for the state. This will be made widely available and will help CSA farmers and organizers in their locational decision-making, including areas for increased marketing efforts, and, for new farmers, places to consider starting a CSA.
Animal Health Component
(N/A)
Research Effort Categories
Basic
25%
Applied
75%
Developmental
(N/A)
Classification

Knowledge Area (KA)Subject of Investigation (SOI)Field of Science (FOS)Percent
6046230206040%
6076050300015%
7046050308015%
8016020300010%
8036050206020%
Knowledge Area
607 - Consumer Economics; 704 - Nutrition and Hunger in the Population; 604 - Marketing and Distribution Practices; 801 - Individual and Family Resource Management; 803 - Sociological and Technological Change Affecting Individuals, Families, and Communities;

Subject Of Investigation
6050 - Communities, areas, and regions; 6020 - The family and its members; 6230 - Marketing systems and sectors thereof;

Field Of Science
3000 - Anthropology; 2060 - Geography; 3080 - Sociology;
Goals / Objectives
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is a type of direct marketing relationship in which consumers commit to supporting local producers. As originally conceived, CSA members receive shares of produce from the supported farm, usually each week, in return for paying in advance, often for a full season. Farms with CSA operations share a number of characteristics: "most of them are organic or biodynamic farms, most of them show great diversification, most are integrated farm organisms having their own livestock and thus their own source of manure, or they are aiming in this direction. At all of them - whether urban, suburban or rural - far more people are working regularly per 100 acres than at conventional farms" (McFadden 1991: 16; see also Galt et al. 2012). CSA is an increasingly important market channel for medium- and small-scale farms. Nationwide, the number of farms marketing through CSA has expanded rapidly, from two in 1986 to between 3,500 to 13,000 (National Agricultural Statistics Service 2009; Galt 2011). Within California, the number of CSA farms has gone from a few in the early 1990s to at least 300 currently (LocalHarvest 2012). If we extrapolate membership numbers from a detailed study of more than 50 CSA farms in the Central Valley (Galt et al. 2012) to the 300 CSA operations in the state currently, CSA membership would be close to 200,000 households in California. Knowledge about CSA member's demographic and socio-economic characteristics comes exclusively from case studies. This evidence suggests that they tend to be white, educated, middle- and upper-class, and located in metropolitan counties (Schnell 2007), but no state-wide membership studies have been conducted. We also know little about those CSAs that are succeeding in reaching a broader audience in terms of income/class, race/ethnicity, and geographic regions, especially poorer urban communities and rural areas. Similarly, while we know CSA membership turnover rates are high and identified as one of the main problems facing CSA farmers (Goland 2002; Perez, Allen, and Brown 2003), there are no studies that compare the characteristics of CSAs with different turnover rates to see which correlate with high and low turnover rates. Thus, the central research objectives are to determine: 1. the motivations and socio-economic and demographic characteristics of CSA member households compared to ex-member (non-renewing) households and non-member households, and the general population, 2. how member characteristics vary in relation to CSA marketing strategies and other characteristics (e.g., farm location, geographic focus of marketing, payment types and flexibility, engagement with USDA's food entitlement programs, etc.), 3. the CSA characteristics that correspond with higher and lower levels of member retention, and 4. successful strategies that CSA farmers can use to expand their member base to groups historically underrepresented in CSA. Outputs will include 1-page, individualized fact sheets to be shared with each CSA that participates, aggregated findings in the form of reports and peer-reviewed journal articles, and a first-ever statewide map of CSA market saturation.
Project Methods
The study will have three stages of data collection and analysis, with each stage sequentially informing the next. Stage 1 will involve the identification of the population of CSA operations in California and will ask CSA farmers and organizers for their feedback in creating survey instruments for four populations: (1) current CSA members, (2) former CSA members, (3) non-CSA members, and (4) themselves as CSA farmers and organizers. Stage 2 will involve the implementation of these four surveys. This stage is based on an extensive research approach, which "is concerned with discovering some of the common properties and general patterns of a population as a whole" (Sayer 1992: 221). Survey questions for all customer groups will focus on member and household characteristics, motivations, customer choice among various retail outlets, willingness to pay for CSA, food safety concerns, and questions agreed upon by the CSA farmers and organizers. The consumer surveys will be complemented by a statewide CSA farmer/organizer survey that asks about important characteristics of the CSA operation that might affect CSA membership characteristics and member retention rates. A link to the survey questionnaire will be sent to the entire population of CSAs in the state. Data on membership characteristics - including race/ethnicity, income, indicators of wealth, education, household size - will be compiled at a number of scales - census tract, zip code, county, and state - for each CSA individually and on an aggregated basis for all CSAs. This data analysis will provide for comparisons between (1) each CSA's membership profile and the general population of the area they serve and (2) the aggregate CSA population and the general population at each scale - census tract, zip code, county, and state. These data will also allow for detailed geographical analyses, including the production of a statewide map and regional maps showing CSA market saturation (i.e., percentage of households of a given census tract, zip code, or county belonging to a CSA) and analysis of the correlations between CSA market saturation and available secondary data. Statistical analysis will be used to explore the relationships between CSA characteristics and member demographics, and between CSA characteristics and membership turnover rates. By using the large quantitative datasets, statistically significant relationships will be identified. The likelihood that these are causally related will be examined by intensive methods, which will involve case studies of CSAs. Stage 3 will involve detailed case studies of CSA operations selected through a maximum variation sampling approach, which seeks to find common patterns across considerable variation (Flyvbjerg 2001; Patton 2002). Methods used in the case studies will be interviews with CSA farmers and organizers, participant observation of interactions between members and farmers/organizers, and focus groups with members. As such, Stage 3 is based on an intensive research approach, in which "the primary questions concern how some causal process works out in a particular case or limited number of cases" (Sayer 1992: 221).

Progress 10/01/12 to 09/30/17

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension Advisors, and academics. Changes/Problems:In 2014, the survey of California CSA members and ex-members took much longer to complete than anticipated because most growers did not share it with their members and former members. This has required substantial follow-up and caused delays. This also changed the sampling method for case studies of CSAs since they were to be selected in part due to aggregate membership characteristics (income, race/ethnicity, region, etc.). Many CSAs have also declined to participate in the case study portion of the study, meaning that we had to expand our selection from those initially chosen. In 2015, I changed the methods of data collection for grocery purchasers in California. Originally I had proposed conducting widespread surveying in person, with students going to various grocery stores throughout a variety of regions in the state. I changed this method to a statewide survey of grocery purchasers in California so that better statistical comparisons could be made. The survey was conducted successfully in 2016. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Four of my graduate students -- Libby O'Sullivan Christensen, Katie Bradley, Natasha Simpson, and Kate Munden-Dixon -- were very involved in the project. An undergraduate student has also been involved in survey follow up. All of these individuals have advanced professional skills as a result of working on the project. Specifically, I oversaw their work of survey design, data entry, data analysis, and academic writing. Many of these graduate students gain experience with quantitative data analysis and the integration of various datasets, including quantitative and qualitative data. Additionally, some have had the opportunity to present findings from the project in professional conferences with me. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?In 2013, the research was presented at the 2013 EcoFarm Conference, the California Climate Action Network (CalCAN) conference in 2013, and Yolo Food Connect, an effort led by Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor. Each of these conferences had audiences of different publics that were interested in the research. The work was also communicated at four academic conferences and invited presentations. I personally shared my publications with interested farmers. In 2014, we produced a preliminary analysis of the member and ex-member survey data and shared it with CSA farmers across the state via email. Additionally, this information was disseminated within a CSA panel in the EcoFarm conference in early 2015. In fall of 2015, I partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to run five workshops in different regions of California. These workshops were held in the following locations: • Sebastopol Grange, Sebastopol, California, 28 September. • McKellar Farms, Ivanhoe, California, 21 September (presented by Libby Christensen). • Glide Ranch, Davis, California, 17 September. • Chico Grange, Chico, California, 14 September. • Live Earth Farm, Watsonville, California, 18 August. At these workshops, I presented the findings from surveys of three groups: CSA farmer/operators, current CSA members, and former CSA members. More than 100 people participated in these workshops, and lively conversations generally were had. After the workshops were completed, I once again partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to have their webpage host all of the educational materials that we presented at the workshops. In 2015 I also presented findings at several academic conferences -- the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, the ATINER Annual International Conference on Geography, and the Annual Meeting of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society/Association for the Study of Food and Society -- and gave two invited lectures during which I presented my CSA research, one at Yale University and the other at Portland State University. In 2016, reporting occurred in academic and farmer-centered settings. My graduate student and I presented at the Annual Meeting of American Association of Geographers. Additionally, I was invited to give a plenary talk at the 6th International Community Supported Agriculture Conference held in Beijing, China. The international gathering had more than 100 attendees, and occurred at the same time as the annual Chinese CSA Conference, which had 900 attendees. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?In 2013, the research was presented at the 2013 EcoFarm Conference, the California Climate Action Network (CalCAN) conference in 2013, and Yolo Food Connect, an effort led by Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor. Each of these conferences had audiences of different publics that were interested in the research. The work was also communicated at four academic conferences and invited presentations. I personally shared my publications with interested farmers. In 2014, we produced a preliminary analysis of the member and ex-member survey data and shared it with CSA farmers across the state via email. Additionally, this information was disseminated within a CSA panel in the EcoFarm conference in early 2015. In fall of 2015, I partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to run five workshops in different regions of California. These workshops were held in the following locations: • Sebastopol Grange, Sebastopol, California, 28 September. • McKellar Farms, Ivanhoe, California, 21 September (presented by Libby Christensen). • Glide Ranch, Davis, California, 17 September. • Chico Grange, Chico, California, 14 September. • Live Earth Farm, Watsonville, California, 18 August. At these workshops, I presented the findings from surveys of three groups: CSA farmer/operators, current CSA members, and former CSA members. More than 100 people participated in these workshops, and lively conversations generally were had. After the workshops were completed, I once again partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to have their webpage host all of the educational materials that we presented at the workshops. In 2015 I also presented findings at several academic conferences -- the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, the ATINER Annual International Conference on Geography, and the Annual Meeting of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society/Association for the Study of Food and Society -- and gave two invited lectures during which I presented my CSA research, one at Yale University and the other at Portland State University. In 2016, reporting occurred in academic and farmer-centered settings. My graduate student and I presented at the Annual Meeting of American Association of Geographers. Additionally, I was invited to give a plenary talk at the 6th International Community Supported Agriculture Conference held in Beijing, China. The international gathering had more than 100 attendees, and occurred at the same time as the annual Chinese CSA Conference, which had 900 attendees.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? In 2013, the statewide survey of California CSA farmers was completed and executed, resulting in a unique and comprehensive database of 111 CSA farmers. In early 2015, the statewide survey of members and former members of CSA was completed. These are the largest surveys of their kind yet conducted, resulting in datasets that will be useful on their own as well as when combined with previously gathered data for the project. The case study data collection was completed in 2015, which involved interviews with 20 CSA farmers throughout the state. In 2016, the data collection for the statewide survey of grocery purchasers in California was completed. As of the end of 2017, initial data analysis of the California statewide survey of grocery purchasers has proceeded, but has not yet been completed, while all of the other datasets have yielded peer-reviewed journal articles.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Galt, Ryan E. 2013. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: explaining farmers earnings and self-exploitation in Community Supported Agriculture. Economic Geography 89 (4):341365
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Galt, Ryan E. 2013. Placing food systems in first world political ecology: a review and research agenda. Geography Compass 7(9): 637-658
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Bradley, Katie, and Ryan E. Galt. 2014. Practicing food justice at Dig Deep Farms & Produce, East Bay Area, California: self-determination as a guiding value and intersections with foodie logics. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Special Issue: Subversive and Interstitial Food Spaces, 19 (2): 172-186
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Surls, Rachel, Gail Feenstra, Sheila Golden, Ryan Galt, Shermain Hardesty, Claire Napawan, and Cheryl Wilen. 2014. Gearing up to support urban farming in California: preliminary results of a needs assessment. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Beckett, Jessica, and Ryan E. Galt. 2014. Land trusts and beginning farmers access to land: exploring the relationships in coastal California. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 4 (2): 19-35.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Leslie Gray, and Patrick Hurley. 2014. Subversive and interstitial food spaces: transforming selves, societies, and society-environment relations through urban agriculture and foraging. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Special Issue: Subversive and Interstitial Food Spaces, 19 (2): 133-146.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., and Libby OSullivan Christensen. 2015. Preliminary report: current and former CSA members in California.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Galt, R.E., K. Bradley, L. Christensen, J. Van Soelen Kim and R. Lobo 2016 [accepted and online in July 2015]. Eroding the community in community supported agriculture (CSA): competitions effects in alternative food networks in California. Sociologia Ruralis 56(4): 491-512.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Katharine Bradley, Libby OSullivan Christensen, Cindy Fake, Katherine Munden-Dixon, Natasha Simpson, Rachel Surls, and Julia Van Soelen Kim. 2017. What difference does income make for Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) members in California? Comparing lower-income and higher-income households. Agriculture and Human Values 34 (2), 435-452
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Under Review Year Published: 2018 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Katharine Bradley, Libby OSullivan Christensen, Kate Munden-Dixon. in revision. The (un)making of "CSA people:" the paradox of member retention in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California. Journal of Rural Studies.


Progress 10/01/15 to 09/30/16

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension Advisors, and academics. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?One of my graduate students, Kate Munden-Dixon, have been heavily involved in the project as a Graduate Student Researcher this year. She has become more familiar with quantitative data analysis and the integration of various datasets. Additionally, she has had the opportunity to present findings from the project in a professional conference. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Reporting for this period occurred in academic and farmer-centered settings. The following academic presentation occurred: • Munden-Dixon, Kate,* and Ryan E. Galt. 2016. Place-based agrifood system politics: a regional analysis of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California. Annual Meeting of American Association of Geographers, San Francisco, California, 31 March. Additionally, I was invited to give a plenary talk at the 6th International Community Supported Agriculture Conference. The international gathering had more than 100 attendees, and occurred at the same time as the annual Chinese CSA Conference, which had 900 attendees: • Galt, Ryan E. 2015. CSA in the USA and California: contributions and challenges. Plenary talk, CSA Regenerating the Economy session. Urgenci 6th International Community Supported Agriculture Conference, Beijing, People's Republic of China, 21 November. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?More data analysis will continue, with the goal of submitting at least three additional academic publications.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? I completed data collection for the statewide survey of grocery purchasers in California. This means that all data collection has been concluded. I also progressed on analysis of the data, resulting in one completed publication (in Agriculture and Human Values) and many more publications underway.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2016 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Katharine Bradley, Libby OSullivan Christensen, Cindy Fake, Katherine Munden-Dixon, Natasha Simpson, Rachel Surls, and Julia Van Soelen Kim. in press. What difference does income make for Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) members in California? Comparing lower-income and higher-income households. Agriculture and Human Values.


Progress 10/01/14 to 09/30/15

Outputs
Target Audience:The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension Advisors, and academics. I focused outreach efforts thus far on sharing results and presenting findings at relevant popular and academic conferences. Changes/Problems:I changed the methods of data collection for grocery purchasers in California. Originally I had proposed conducting widespread surveying in person, with students going to various grocery stores throughout a variety of regions in the state. I changed this method to a statewide survey of grocery purchasers in California so that better statistical comparisons could be made. Development of this survey instrument is ongoing, and it will be conducted in the next year. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?A number of my graduate students -- Katherine Bradley, Natasha Simpson, Libby Christensen, and Kate Munden-Dixon -- have been involved in the project as Graduate Student Researchers and have learned about survey design, survey implementation, and database creation. They have also been involved in the writing of research articles, and have helped to edit the presentations and handouts. All of these efforts have been learning opportunities for professional development. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?I partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to run five workshops in different regions of California in fall 2015. These workshops were held in the following locations: • Sebastopol Grange, Sebastopol, California, 28 September. • McKellar Farms, Ivanhoe, California, 21 September (presented by Libby Christensen). • Glide Ranch, Davis, California, 17 September. • Chico Grange, Chico, California, 14 September. • Live Earth Farm, Watsonville, California, 18 August. At these workshops, I presented the findings from surveys of three groups: CSA farmer/operators, current CSA members, and former CSA members. More than 100 people participated in these workshops, and lively conversations generally were had. After the workshops were completed, I once again partnered with Community Alliance with Family Farmers to have their webpage host all of the educational materials that we presented at the workshops. I have also presented findings at academic conferences: • Galt, Ryan E., Libby O'Sullivan Christensen, Katie Bradley, Natasha Simpson, & Kate Munden-Dixon. 2015. Synergies and trade-offs within sustainability: considering well-being in civic agriculture. Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, Chicago, Illinois, 21 April. • Galt, Ryan E. 2015. Place-based agrifood systems: a regional analysis of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California. ATINER Annual International Conference on Geography, Athens, Greece, 1 June. • Galt, Ryan E.,* Libby O'Sullivan Christensen, Katie Bradley, Natasha Simpson, & Kate Munden-Dixon. 2015. Who supports Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)? CSA members in California. Annual Meeting of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society/Association for the Study of Food and Society, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 25 June. I was also asked to give two invited lectures during which I presented my CSA research, one at Yale University and the other at Portland State University: • Galt, Ryan E. 2015. Agricultural governance for sustainability. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, 15 January. • Galt, Ryan E. 2015. Governing agrifood systems for sustainability: lessons from the Global South and North. Portland State University, 29 January. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?I will complete data collection for the statewide survey of grocery purchasers in California. Analysis of the various datasets will continue, with more publications to be submitted.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? Data gathering for three of the five data gathering efforts was completed (prior to this report, the CSA farmer/operator survey had been completed, but all other data gathering efforts were ongoing). This means that three phases were completed. First, the statewide survey of CSA members was completed. Second, the statewide survey of former members of CSA were completed. These two surveys are the largest surveys of their kind yet conducted, resulting in databases that will be useful on their own as well as when combined with previously gathered data for the project. Third, case study data collection was completed, which involved interviews with 20 CSA farmers throughout the state. The last data collection effort, a statewide survey of California grocery purchasers, is still pending.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Galt, R.E., K. Bradley, L. Christensen, J. Van Soelen Kim and R. Lobo 2016 [accepted and online in July 2015]. Eroding the community in community supported agriculture (CSA): competitions effects in alternative food networks in California. Sociologia Ruralis 56(4): 491-512.


Progress 10/01/13 to 09/30/14

Outputs
Target Audience: The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension advisors, and academics. I have focused outreach efforts thus far on sharing results and presenting findings at relevant popular and academic conferences. Changes/Problems: The survey of California CSA members and ex-members has taken much longer to complete than anticipated because most growers did not share it with their members and former members. This has required substantial follow-up and caused delays. This also changed the sampling method for case studies of CSAs since they were to be selected in part due to aggregate membership characteristics (income, race/ethnicity, region, etc.). Many CSAs have also declined to participate in the case study portion of the study, meaning that we have had to expand our selection. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? My graduate students Libby O'Sullivan Christensen, Katie Bradley, Natasha Simpson, and Kate Munden-Dixon have been very involved in the project. I have overseen their work of survey design, data entry, data analysis, and academic writing. Each has improved professional skills from work on the project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? 014 was a year of data collection more than anything, which means that data analysis and writing are ongoing, but have not resulted in a large number of products. We produced our first analysis of the farmer survey data which has been submitted to a journal. We also produced a preliminary analysis of the member and ex-member survey data and have shared it with CSA farmers across the state via email. Additionally, this information was disseminated within a CSA panel in the 2015 EcoFarm conference. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? The statewide survey of California CSA members and ex-members will be closed by January-February 2015. Detailed case studies using qualitative methods will be completed, as will surveys of non-CSA members using a representative mailing approach. Data analysis and writing will proceed leading to further manuscript submissions, as will the outreach and communication portions of the project. Team meetings with the Cooperative Extension Farm and Food Systems Advisors will be held to further data analysis and outreach.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The statewide survey of members and former members of CSA has almost been completed. These are the largest surveys of their kind yet conducted, resulting in datasets that will be useful on their own as well as when combined with previously gathered data for the project. Case study participants have been identified and data collection is ongoing for them.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Surls, Rachel, Gail Feenstra, Sheila Golden, Ryan Galt, Shermain Hardesty, Claire Napawan, and Cheryl Wilen. 2014. Gearing up to support urban farming in California: preliminary results of a needs assessment. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Beckett, Jessica, and Ryan E. Galt. 2014. Land trusts and beginning farmers access to land: exploring the relationships in coastal California. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 4 (2): 19-35.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Leslie Gray, and Patrick Hurley. 2014. Subversive and interstitial food spaces: transforming selves, societies, and society-environment relations through urban agriculture and foraging. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Special Issue: Subversive and Interstitial Food Spaces, 19 (2): 133-146.
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Submitted Year Published: 2014 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., Katie Bradley, Libby OSullivan Christensen, Julia Van Soelen Kim, and Ramiro Lobo. in review. Eroding the community in community supported agriculture (CSA): competitions effects in alternative food networks in California. Submitted to Sociologia Ruralis, 11 November 2014.
  • Type: Other Status: Published Year Published: 2015 Citation: Galt, Ryan E., and Libby OSullivan Christensen. 2015. Preliminary report: current and former CSA members in California.


Progress 01/01/13 to 09/30/13

Outputs
Target Audience: The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension advisors, and academics. I have focused outreach efforts thus far on sharing results and presenting findings at relevant popular and academic conferences. Changes/Problems: Nothing Reported What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? My graduate students Katie Bradley and Libby O’Sullivan have been heavily involved in the project. I oversaw their participation in survey design and implementation, data entry, data analysis, and writing. An undergraduate student has also been involved in survey follow up. All of these individuals have advanced professional skills as a result of working on the project. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? The research was presented at the 2013 EcoFarm Conference, the California Climate Action Network (CalCAN) conference in 2013, and Yolo Food Connect, an effort led by County Supervisor Don Saylor. Each of these conferences had audiences of different publics that were interested in the research. The work has also been communicated at four academic conferences and invited presentations during the review period. I have personally shared my publications with interested farmers. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? The statewide survey of California CSA members and ex-members will be launched shortly. Detailed case studies using qualitative methods will be launched this spring, as well as surveys of non-CSA members at a variety of food retail outlets. Data analysis and writing will proceed leading to further manuscript submissions, as will the outreach and communication portions. Team meetings with the Cooperative Extension Farm and Food Systems Advisors will be held to further data analysis and outreach. Outreach will include using the grower survey data to inform the possible creation of a statewide network/organization of CSAs.

Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals? The statewide survey of California CSA farmers was completed and executed, resulting in a unique and comprehensive database.

Publications

  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Galt, Ryan E. 2013. The moral economy is a double-edged sword: explaining farmers earnings and self-exploitation in Community Supported Agriculture. Economic Geography 89 (4):341365
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2013 Citation: Galt, Ryan E. 2013. Placing food systems in first world political ecology: a review and research agenda. Geography Compass 7(9): 637-658
  • Type: Journal Articles Status: Published Year Published: 2014 Citation: Bradley, Katie, and Ryan E. Galt. 2014. Practicing food justice at Dig Deep Farms & Produce, East Bay Area, California: self-determination as a guiding value and intersections with foodie logics. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, Special Issue: Subversive and Interstitial Food Spaces, 19 (2): 172-186


Progress 01/01/12 to 12/31/12

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Since primary data collection about CSA farms and farmers concluded in April 2011, I have continued to disseminate the results of the research to the CSA farmers participating, community organizations that support sustainable agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), interested academics, and others who have attended conference presentations and/or have signed up to receive project updates. This has occurred through emailing PDFs of the report and journal article to these parties, and through a number of conference presentations from Feb 2012 to Feb 2013. These presentations were at the Urgenci 5th International Community Supported Agriculture Conference as a preconference to EcoFarm, Annual Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, the Annual Meeting of the California Geographical Society, and UC Berkeley's Center for Diversified Farming Systems. PARTICIPANTS: Many of my graduate students - Colleen Hiner, Libby O'Sullivan, and Katie Bradley - have been heavily involved in the project. This year I oversaw their participation in data entry, analysis, writing, and presentation. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs, Cooperative Extension advisors, and academics. I have focused outreach efforts thus far on sharing results and presenting findings at relevant professional and academic conferences. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: The next phase in the study is starting now. It will be a statewide study that focuses on CSA farmers and farms, CSA members, and CSA ex-members. The focus is on understanding these populations and their relationships, with special attention to retention, expansion, and food access issues.

Impacts
The CDFA taskforce that is rewriting California's direct marketing code continues to use the findings from this project to shape the addition of CSA to California's direct marketing code.

Publications

  • Galt, Ryan E., Libby O'Sullivan, Jessica Beckett, and Colleen C. Hiner. 2012. Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley. California Agriculture 66 (1):8-14.


Progress 01/01/11 to 12/31/11

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Primary data collection about CSA farms and farmers concluded in April 2011. The results of the research have been disseminated to the CSA farmers participating, community organizations that support sustainable agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), interested academics, and others who have attended conference presentations and/or have signed up to receive project updates. This has occurred through emailing PDFs of the report and journal article to these parties, and through two conference presentations (at EcoFarm and the Association of American Geographers). PARTICIPANTS: Many of my graduate students - Jessica Beckett, Colleen Hiner, Libby O'Sullivan, and Alberto Valdivia - have been heavily involved in the project. This year I oversaw their participation in data collection, transcription, data entry, analysis, and presentation. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers, state agencies that oversee food and agriculture, and non-governmental organizations that work with CSAs. I have focused outreach efforts thus far on sharing results and presenting findings at relevant conferences. There is also considerable interest among CSA farmers in having a CSA conference, where we could also present our findings. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Data collection about consumers' satisfaction and willingness to pay continues to be delayed because I had to prioritize publication of the findings from the portion focused on CSA farmers. We envision this as a future effort in which interested farmers will help to shape questions that we ask of their members.

Impacts
Karen Ross, the Secretary of CDFA, asked for the report that resulted from this project (see publications) when I met her at the ANR Sustainable Food Systems conference at UC Davis. She has convened a taskforce that is rewriting California's direct marketing code. CSAs are a likely addition to the code, so the findings from this project are being used to shape that addition.

Publications

  • Galt, Ryan E. 2011. Counting and mapping community supported agriculture in the United States and California: contributions from critical cartography/GIS. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10 (2):131-162.
  • Galt, Ryan E., Jessica Beckett, Colleen C. Hiner, and Libby O'Sullivan. 2011. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in and around California's Central Valley: farm and farmer characteristics, farm-member relationships, economic viability, information sources, and emerging issues. Davis: University of California.


Progress 01/01/10 to 12/31/10

Outputs
OUTPUTS: Data collection on Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) operations in California's Central Valley and surrounding foothills has proceeded apace through interviews and an online survey. As we are almost finished with data collection, we presented preliminary findings at a session called "Are CSAs sustainable" at the Ecological Farming Association annual conference. The session was well attended, with probably 100 attendees, of which approximately 80% were farmers, and there was considerable interest in our preliminary findings. We passed along a sign-up sheet for individuals who want to know more about the study and be notified when findings are available. PARTICIPANTS: Many of my graduate students - Jessica Beckett, Colleen Hiner, Joanna Normoyle, and Libby O'Sullivan - have been heavily involved in the project. I have overseen their participation in data collection, transcription, data entry, analysis, and presentation. TARGET AUDIENCES: The target audiences for the research include CSA farmers and state agencies that oversee food and agriculture. Our efforts to date have focused on data collection and will now turn to presenting findings at conferences and, potentially, workshops. There is also considerable interest among CSA farmers in having a CSA conference, where we could also present our findings. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Data collection regarding consumers has been delayed because sufficient rapport with CSA farmers needs to be developed before proceeding and because we want farmers' needs to inform data collection on CSA customers generally. We envision this as a future effort in which interested farmers will help to shape questions that we ask of their customers.

Impacts
Some of the initial findings of the project are being used to inform discussions between CSA farmers, Community Alliance with Family Farms (CAFF), and state regulatory agencies that oversee food and agriculture. The findings are helping to inform definitions of CSA within direct marketing rules and food safety regulations, which will impact CSA farmers.

Publications

  • Galt, Ryan E. in press 2011. Counting and mapping community supported agriculture in the United States and California: contributions from critical cartography/GIS. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies.


Progress 01/01/09 to 12/31/09

Outputs
OUTPUTS: I used the results of the geographical analysis of CSAs in the US and California to inform USDA's data collection efforts in the future using their website Solicitation of Input for the 2012 Census of Agriculture. Below are the questions posed by USDA about census improvement and my suggestions to improve data collection efforts. At what level is the information needed (U.S., state, county) All three- US, state, and county Who will use the information Academics, people starting or planning to start Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) farms What decisions could be influenced by the information Locational decision-making among CSA farmers, creation of local labels, decisions made by researchers about locations of studies What surveys have used the proposed question(s) What testing has been done on the question What is known about its reliability and validity It has not been used in any surveys, but based on my analysis of 2007 census data I believe that it will provide better data in 2012. The suggestion is made as a modification of the CSA question in the 2007 census, based upon my analysis of the 2007 census data in relation to other CSA data sets, and to a best estimate list of CSAs in California compiled from seven different CSA lists. My analysis suggests that the 2007 census question likely led to significant overcounting of existing CSA operations, in part because some farmers are not familiar with the specific definition of CSA and because it does not specify whether a farm is primarily responsible for running a CSA operation or instead provides goods to another farm that is responsible for the CSA boxes (a copy of the analysis is under peer review right now and I can certainly provide the manuscript upon request). Please submit a draft of the proposed question below. Part 1: At any time during 2012, did this operation. Market products through a community supported agriculture (CSA) arrangement (Please refer to the specific definition of CSA in the glossary, page B-__.) Part 2 (follow up): Is your operation primarily responsible for the share provided to subscribers in the CSA arrangement Part 3 (for the glossary): Community Supported Agriculture is an arrangement between producers and subscribing consumers. For a cash share, often paid before the season begins, subscribers to the farm receive a box of food and sometimes other agricultural products, usually on a weekly basis throughout the growing season. PARTICIPANTS: Colleen Hiner, a PhD student, and myself have been involved in the initial phase of preparation for primary data collection for the project. This will expand to other graduate students I mentor as the project proceeds. TARGET AUDIENCES: The information entered under outputs shows the outputs so far that have been communicated to USDA. So far, five individuals in various USDA positions have expressed interest in the geographical analysis of overcounting of CSAs in the Census of Agriculture data, and the article will be shared with them once it has been published. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Analysis of secondary data on CSA locations was a new piece of the project that is mostly completed now. The other portions of the project remain the same, and we are starting primary data collection.

Impacts
There are no outcomes or impacts yet as the primary data collection efforts are currently taking place. Additionally, analysis of secondary data might have impacts on the 2012 census of agriculture questionnaire, but this will not be known until the questionnaire is complete.

Publications

  • Galt, Ryan E. How many Community Supported Agriculture operations are there in the US A geographical analysis and critique of overcounting by the US Census of Agriculture. Submitted to ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2009.