IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uamsrr/317884.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Community Supported Agriculture in California, Oregon and Washington: Challenges and Opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Strochlic, Ron
  • Shelley, Crispin

Abstract

Excerpts from the Executive Summary: In an era of disappearing family farms, consolidation of the food industry and food that travels an estimated 1,500 miles “from farm to table,” consumers are increasingly seeking alternatives to what many see as an impersonal food system. An increasing number are wondering how their produce is grown, where it came from, and how it got to the supermarket. At the same time, small farmers are increasingly exploring a broad range of “alternative” marketing mechanisms, such as direct marketing, as a means of increasing their viability by capturing a larger percentage of consumer food dollars. An increasingly popular means of creating direct linkages between small farmers and local consumers is Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). The CSA movement has resonated with American consumers seeking a more direct connection with local food and family farmers. The number of CSA farms in the U.S. has grown from approximately 60 farms in 1990 to an estimated 1,700 in 2004. CSAs are now located in all 50 states, with the largest concentrations in California, New York, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Washington. The research set out to gain an in-depth understanding of CSA in terms of a range of issues, including production, labor, marketing, finances, collaboration, competition and community relations. The research identifies a number of challenges facing CSA and how farmers have addressed those challenges. Finally, the report offers recommendations for increasing the viability of CSA, based on the research.

Suggested Citation

  • Strochlic, Ron & Shelley, Crispin, 2004. "Community Supported Agriculture in California, Oregon and Washington: Challenges and Opportunities," Research Reports 317884, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uamsrr:317884
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.317884
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/317884/files/CSAinCaOrWa2004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.317884?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kambara, Kenneth M. & Shelley, Crispin L., 2002. "The California Agricultural Direct Marketing Study," Research Reports 317879, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Diane Smith & Weiwei Wang & Lisa Chase & Hans Estrin & Julia Van Soelen Kim, 2019. "Perspectives from the Field: Adaptions in CSA Models in Response to Changing Times in the U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, June.
    2. Mark Paul, 2016. "Farmer Perspectives on Livelihoods Within Community Supported Agriculture," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2016-13, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    3. Woods, Timothy & Ernst, Matthew & Tropp, Debra, 2017. "Community Supported Agriculture: New Models for Changing Markets," Research Reports 316239, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, Transportation and Marketing Program.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Visser, Jurriaan & Trienekens, Jacques & van Beek, Paul, 2013. "Opportunities for Local for Local Food Production: A case in the Dutch Fruit and Vegetables," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164758, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    2. Lohr, Luanne & Park, Timothy, 2012. "Demand for Private Marketing Expertise by Organic Farmers: A Quantile Analysis Based on Counts," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 157-171, May.
    3. John M. Polimeni & Raluca I. Iorgulescu & Lucian Liviu Albu & Andrei Ionica, 2022. "Romanian Farmers’ Markets: Understanding the Environmental Attitudes of Farmers as an Instrument for Bioeconomy Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    4. Kim, Man-Keun & Curtis, Kynda R. & Yeager, Irvin, 2014. "An Assessment of Market Strategies for Small-Scale Produce Growers," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 17(3), pages 1-18, September.
    5. Visser, Jurriaan & Trienekens, Jacques & van Beek, Paul, 2013. "Opportunities for Local for Local Food Production A Case in the Dutch Fruit and Vegetables," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(1), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Spiller, Achim & Zuhlsdorf, Anke & Mellin, Matthias, 2007. "Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing: The Role of Customer Satisfaction Measurement for Service Innovations," 2007 1st Forum, February 15-17, 2007, Innsbruck, Austria 6607, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    7. Dumitrescu, Carmen Simona & Pet, Elena & Salasan, Cosmin & Stanciu, Sorin, 2022. "Direct Sale Of Products From The Farm," MPRA Paper 116154, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Ostrom, Marcia & Goldberger, Jessica R. & Smith, Katherine Selting, 2020. "Market Makers; Exploring Gender Dynamics in Farmers Markets from Field to Booth," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 18(2), December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:uamsrr:317884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/amsgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.