Progress 02/01/14 to 01/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience: Preliminary results of the data on consumers and focus groups was shared with 25 members of the University of Missouri's Community Food Systems Class (AFNR 3215) in Fall 2015, and with between 20-25 members of the Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture class (AFNR 2215) in Spring 2014 and Spring 2015. Preliminary results of the entire project were shared with the USDA's Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food task force (about 12 members) in February 2014. Results of the project have been incorporated into three extension training workshops on local food systems and economic development in three separate areas of Missouri. The attendees included extension educators, community and economic development professionals, businesspeople and local farmers. Total attendance at these workshops is roughly 100 people over three workshops. Additionally, two extension educators have used the data presented by the Project Director at these workshops in developing their own curriculum. Changes/Problems: We had no major changes to project, except for the exclusion of one focus group as results were repeated over the last few focus groups. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Through this research, we included at least three graduate students at various times in the last two years, who improved their methodological and analytic skills and knowledge of rural economic development and local food networks. Jim Rossi, agricultural economics student, analyzed the data for economic impacts. Mary Margaret Saulters, masters candidate in rural sociology, assisted with focus groups and coded the data. J. Eliot Meador, doctoral student in rural sociology, analyzed producer survey results using more sophiscated data analysis techniques. Additionally, we have shared information through presentations and briefs with extension educators in Missouri which allows them to assist more producers, but also help economic developers understand the issues of local food systems. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? In the last year, we have disseminated results of this work to members of Southern Regional Science Association and the Rural Sociological Society. We also presented some of this work to the USDA Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food taskforce. Additionally, we have maintained a website (localfoodlinkages.wordpress.com) that includes updates on the projects and results. Finally, the economic impacts portion of this work has been disseminated to members of the NC-1198 (Agriculture of the Middle) multistate project, and has been included in three local foods workshops in Missouri that have been presented through University of Missouri Extension's Excellence in Community Enterpreneurship and Economic Development. These workshops have included extension educators, community and economic development practitioners, local businesspeople, and farmers. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Objective 1: We continued analysis of the producer survey data to develop profiles of producers who market in local food systems. There was no consensus on the challenges faced by producers, with less than one-third reporting any one particular challenge. Length of time in local foods markets varied considerably, and there were significant regional differences in the number of miles considered local. Overall, there were fewer regional differences than anticipated with no significant difference between the groups on age, education, acres, household income, or percent they sell local. Some significant differences existed by region on the motivations of the farmers for participating in local markets. This led us to examine potential producer typologies using both exploratory factor analysis and logistical regression modeling. Results show that farmer motivations for producing for local markets were significantly different across regions on just four variables, and did not significantly contribute to the typologies model. Other than a few differences between producers who sell strictly to direct local markets (e.g. farmers' markets) and those who also used non-direct market channels (e.g. wholesale markets, farm to school), we conclude that the farmer respondents were more similar across regions, and yet more heterogeneous than anticipated. We are further refining this data for presentation at the Rural Sociological Society meeting this summer, with anticpated journal article submission by August 2015. Objective 2: We used the IMpact Modeling for PLANning (IMPLAN) program to estimate the economic impacts of both local foods production and traditional agriculture and finished a model in summer 2014. We report the impacts accruing from these shocks using three metrics: 1) regional sales; 2) number of jobs created; and 3) the contribution to gross domestic product. Our findings indicate that additional employment created through the indirect and induced effects are larger in local foods production while value-added is higher in traditional agricultural production. However, a greater share of the monies stays in-region in the case of local foods production. We also find that total value-added generated from traditional agricultural production is greater than that of local foods production. Finally, value of total sales (or output) is much greater in the case of local foods production than traditional agriculture representing a stronger network of local linkages. Farmers oriented toward local food production are often less profitable than conventional farms but still generate larger income and employment effects in their communities. We presented these findings at the Southern Regional Science and Rural Sociological Society annual meetings in 2014. Objective 3: We finished the final 4 focus groups and completed 18 of the 19 planned groups. Given the redundancy in themes and answers, and also the difficulty of recruiting, we dropped the Nebraska low-income urban group. The focus groups have all been transcribed and have an initial coding. In general, low-income and high-income groups did not differ much, and there were very few differences between rural and urban shoppers, or even between conventional and local shoppers on the perception that local is good. However, local food shoppers really believe they are very different from conventional grocery shoppers. The key findings of the focus groups are that 'local' food is perceived as good; consumers consider 'local' food to be grown close to home by small-scale producers using low-impact methods; 'local' food is perceived to be healthy and has less environmental impacts. Low-income urban shoppers seemed to conflate 'fresh' food with 'local' food, worrying less about who produced it or where it was produced than how 'fresh' it was. Rural shoppers seem to emphasize community and community relationships more than urban shoppers in discussing 'local' food. The desire for local food often competes with personal notions of cost and convenience, with convenience being the biggst factor for not consuming more 'local' food. These findings have been compiled into a draft brief that will be distributed to extension educators in June 2015. In addition, initial findings from this objective were presented at the Rural Sociological Society annual meeting in 2014, and an updated and more refined version of this paper will be presented at the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society annual meeting in 2015. Additionally, this paper will be submited for publication in August 2015. Objective 4: After finishing the analyses for all the objectives above, finding ways to link farmers and consumers to meet rural development needs remains a challenge. About half of our respondens of local food producers used direct-to-consumer sales as their sole marketing channel. This could be limiting their potential sales, as many shoppers listed difficulties with the farmers' market schedule as a key reason for not buying more local foods. It is also inconvenient if they cannot get all necessary groceries at the market. Many shoppers also remain confused about how to buy locally produced meat. One critical finding is that networks in rural areas are an important source of information for buying 'local' food; exclusion from these networks may constrain what local food consumers are able to obtain. Additionally, the movement of local food through networks may constrain producers' ability to expand their businesses, and may also limit positive economic impacts in these rural areas. This finding has major implications for the rural development potential of locally produced food.
Publications
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Thomas G. Johnson, James Rossi, Mary K. Hendrickson, Jessica Scott and RandyCantrell. The economic impacts of local and conventional food sales. Choices. Invited for special issue.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Hendrickson, M., R. Cantrell, T. Johnson, J. R. Scott and M. Saulters. Why local food makes you happy: The penetration of the local food narrative in the Midwest. Presentation at the Rural Sociological Society Annaul Meeting. New Orleans, LA: August.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Explaining Linkages Among Farmers And Consumers In Local And Regional Food Systems to Enhance Rural Development. Presentation to USDAs Know Your Farmer Know Your Food Task Force. February 18. Washington, D.C.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Johnson, T., J. Rossi, M. Hendrickson, J. Scott and R. Cantrell. Economic Impacts of Local Food Systems in the Rural Midwest: Evidence from Missouri and Nebraska. Poster presented at Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. New Orleans.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Mary Hendrickson, Thomas Johnson, University of Missouri; Randy Cantrell, University of Nebraska; Jessica Scott, Private Consultant:
"The Goodness of Local Food: Consumer Attitudes and the Potential for Rural Development." Paper accepted for presentation at Agriculture, Food and Human Values Annual Meeting. June 24-28. Pittsburgh, PA.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Accepted
Year Published:
2015
Citation:
Hendrickson, Mary K., John E. Meador, Thomas G. Johnson, Randy Cantrell, Jess R. Scott and Jill Lucht. "Farmers in Local Food Systems in the Midwest: Descriptions from Missouri and Nebraska." Paper accepted for presentation at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. August 6-9. Madison, WI.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Rossi, James, Thomas Johnson, Mary Hendrickson, and Jess Scott. 2014. "The Economic Impacts of Local Foods Production." Paper presented at the Southern Regional Science Association Annual Meeting. March 27-29. San Antonio, TX.
|
Progress 02/01/11 to 01/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience: Researchers and Other Academics * Researchers and students attending the 2012 Rural Sociological Society poster session at the annual meeting. Approximately 100 people attended the session. * Researchers and students attending the 2013 Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society annual meeting (approximately 35 participants attended paper session). * Researchers and students attending the 2014 Southern Regional Science Association meetings (approximately 50 people attend the session). * Researchers and students attending the 2014 Rural Sociological Society annual meetng. About 75 people attended the poster session, and about 15 people attended the paper session. * Three papers are being prepared for submission in 2015 to the Regional Science and Rural Sociology journals, while three more are planned for 2016. Non Academic Audiences * Economic developers, community leaders and extension educators attending 3 different presentations on local foods and rural economic development in 2012. * Economic impact data and some focus group data shared at six regional workshops in Missouri that attracted approximately 30-50 people at each workshop. The workshops focused on the economic development possibilities of local food systems. Attendees included extension educators, community and economic development professionals, local business people and local farmers. * Descriptive results of the initial producer survey were shared with the 127 producers who responded via a mailed report, with regional extension educators and administrators in Missouri and Nebraska, and online via our website (localfoodlinkages.missouri.edu). * Findings from the project were shared with 12 members of the USDA's Know Your Farmer Know Your Food taskforce in Spring 2014. * Results of the project have been incorporated into teaching of AFNR 2215 (Introduction to Sustainable Agriculture) and AFNR 3215 (Community Food Systems) at the University of Missouri. Changes/Problems: In general we followed the outline of the project. We delayed the research on Objective 2, economic impact analysis until 2013 following delay in analyzing the results of the producer survey in 2012. However, we were able to achieve a good survey and response rate with the delay. We had more changes with the conduct of the focus groups. One of the planned rural focus groups included more locally oriented shoppers than conventional food shoppers. We chose to include the data with our local shopper focus groups. We have faced difficulties in recruiting focus group participants in some rural areas particularly in Nebraska, and faced challenges with recruiting high income conventional shoppers. To address these difficulties, we extended our time period for holding the focus groups, eliminated one focus group because of repetition in themes across several groups, and changed one focus group to Omaha rather than Lincoln. In addition, we have chosen to transcribe many of the focus groups ourselves rather than sending out for transcription as this gives us a fuller understanding for coding purposes. We have included a rural sociology graduate student interested in local foods in the analysis work on the focus groups. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided? Through this research, we included at least three graduate students at various times in the last two years, who improved their methodological and analytic skills and knowledge of rural economic development and local food networks. Jim Rossi,agricultural economics student, analyzed the data for economic impacts. Mary Margaret Saulters, masters candidate in rural sociology, assisted with focus groups and coded the data. J. Eliot Meador, doctoral student in rural sociology, analyzedproducer survey results using more sophiscated data analysis techniques. Additionally, we have shared information through presentations and briefs with extension educators in Missouri which allows them to assist more producers, but also help economic developers understand the issues of local food systems. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? We have disseminated results of this work to members of Southern Regional Science Association, Agriculture Food and Human Values Society, and Rural Sociological Society. We also presented some of this work to the USDA Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food taskforce. Additionally, we have maintained a website (localfoodlinkages.wordpress.com) that includes updates on the projects and results. Finally, the economic impacts portion of this work has been disseminated to members of the NC-1198 (Agriculture of the Middle) multistate project, and has been included in six local foods workshops in Missouri that have been presented through University of Missouri Extension's Excellence in Community Enterpreneurship and EconomicDevelopment program. These workshops have included extension educators, community and economic development practitioners, local businesspeople, and farmers. The Project Director (Hendrickson) has been intimately involved in helping put the workshops together and the power point presentation that includes some results of this study have been included in other edcuators curriculum materials. The initial survey results were sent to the survey participants. In addition, the descriptive results of the producer survey were sent to extension educators and extension administrators in Missouri and Nebraska (the sites of the research). An extension brief that reports on the findings from the consumer focus groups is in draft format and will be shared with extension educators by the end of June 2015. Finally, information from the focus groups, the producer survey, and economic impact analysis have been included in undergraduate teaching at the University of Missouri, particularly in the courses associated with the sustainable agriculture major (Community Food Systems, Intro to Sus Ag), and with the Community Development Academy. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
To meet Objective 1: A survey of producers producing for local foods markets was conducted in 2012. We compiled a list of 312 local food producers in our targeted areas, delivered 282 surveys and received 126 completed ones (response rate of 44.7%.) We found that all of our producers sell directly to consumers through farmers' markets or other avenues, while only 42% sold through non-direct channels such as to grocery stores etc. They consider regulations, liability issues and marketing to be their main challenges. A third of respondents were 60 or older, while only 13% were younger than 40. Nearly 60% had an associate's degree or higher, while another 20% some college. We continued analysis of the producer survey data to develop profiles of producers who market in local food systems. There was no consensus on the challenges faced by producers, with less than one-third reporting any one particular challenge. Length of time in local foods markets varied considerably, and there were significant regional differences in the number of miles considered local. Overall, there were fewer regional differences than anticipated with no significant difference between the groups on age, education, acres, household income, or percent they sell local. Some significant differences existed by region on the motivations of the farmers for participating in local markets. This led us to examine potential producer typologies using both exploratory factor analysis and logistical regression modeling. Results show that farmer motivations for producing for local markets were significantly different across regions on just four variables, and did not significantly contribute to the typologies model. Other than a few differences between producers who sell strictly to direct local markets (e.g. farmers' markets) and those who also used non-direct market channels (e.g. wholesale markets, farm to school), we conclude that the farmer respondents were more similar across regions, and yet more heterogeneous than anticipated. To meet Objective 2: In 2013, we selected 95 producers from 122 producers who responded to the 2012 Producer Survey to receive an Input/Output survey that asked detailed questions about revenue and expenses of their local food operation, and also about in which regions or areas those expenses or revenues were generated. By August 31, 2013, 36 of 95 had responded with completed questionnaires. From these responses, we completed the first round of Input/Output data analysis to determine economic impacts of local food production. Data Collected: Received 36 surveys listing farmer expenses and revenue for their local food operations and where those expenses and revenue came from. Input-output analysis was conducted to determine economic impacts of producers oriented to local food sytems. Summary of Data Analysis: We used the IMpact Modeling for PLANning (IMPLAN) program to estimate the economic impacts of both local foods production and traditional agriculture and finished a model in summer 2014. We report the impacts accruing from these shocks using three metrics: 1) regional sales; 2) number of jobs created; and 3) the contribution to gross domestic product. Our findings indicate that additional employment created through the indirect and induced effects are larger in local foods production while value-added is higher in traditional agricultural production. However, a greater share of the monies stays in- region in the case of local foods production. We also find that total value-added generated from traditional agricultural production is greater than that of local foods production. Finally, value of total sales (or output) is much greater in the case of local foods production than traditional agriculture representing a stronger network of local linkages. Farmers oriented toward local food production are often less profitable than conventional farms but still generate larger income and employment effects in their communities. We presented these findings at the Southern Regional Science and Rural Sociological Society annual meetings in 2014. To meet Objective 3: We planned to conduct 19 focus groups with both shoppers who primarily shopped for local foods (8 total), and conventional grocery shoppers (11 total). Our goal was to conduct focus groups in our three remote rural areas (9 of the 19), two urban areas (8 of the 19), and one micropolitan area (2 of the 19). From 2012-2014, we conducted 9 focus groups with local shoppers. One of the remote rural areas conventional groups ended up being a local foods group (which led to a major finding on networks described in Objective 4). We conducted 9 with conventional shoppers. We conducted 7 groups in urban areas, 2 in a micropolitan area and 9 in rural areas. We elminated one low-income urban group becuase of reptition of themes in previous focus groups. The majority of the focus groups were transcribed by project personnel, which served as an initial coding. Purchased transcriptions were used for the rest. The focus groups were coded separately by two project personnel and a graduate student interested in local foods. Data Analysis: In general, low-income and high-income groups did not differ much, and there were very few differences between rural and urban shoppers, or even between conventional and local shoppers on the perception that local is good. Still, local food shoppers really believe they are very different from conventional grocery shoppers. The key findings of the focus groups are that 'local' food is perceived as good; consumers consider 'local' food to be grown close to home by small-scale producers using low-impact methods; 'local' food is perceived to be healthy and has less environmental impacts. Low-income urban shoppers seemed to conflate 'fresh' food with 'local' food, worrying less about who produced it or where it was produced than how 'fresh' it was. Rural shoppers seem to emphasize community and community relationships more than urban shoppers in discussing 'local' food. The desire for local food often competes with personal notions of cost and convenience, with convenience being the biggest factor for not consuming more 'local' food. Most participants who said they regularly sought out local foods buy local foods direct from producers at farmers markets, farm stands, U-picks and orchards. Relatively few belong to CSAs. Urban local food shoppers also seek out local foods at specialty retail and restaurants. To met Objective 4: Finding ways to link farmers and consumers to meet rural development needs remains a challenge. Over half of our local food producer respondents used direct-to-consumer sales as their sole marketing channel. This could limit their potential sales, as many shoppers listed difficulties with the farmers' market schedule and lack of knowledge about location or hours as key reasons for not buying more local foods. They also found it inconvient as it is not one-stop shopping. Many shoppers remain confused about how to buy locally produced meat. This suggests tne need for consumer-farmer education. One critical finding is that networks in rural areas are an important source of information for buying 'local' food; exclusion from these networks may constrain what local food consumers are able to obtain. The movement of local food through networks may constrain producers' ability to expand their businesses, and may also limit positive economic impacts in these rural areas. This finding has major implications for the rural development potential of locally produced food.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Hendrickson,M., T. Johnson, R. Cantrell, J. Scott and J. Lucht. 2013. Can Rural Foodscapes Support Economic Development AND Local Consumers? Annual meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society. East Lansing, MI. June
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2012
Citation:
M. Hendrickson, R. Cantrell, T. Johnson, J. R. Scott and J. Lucht. 2012. "Local Food Systems in Rural Areas: Issues and Opportunities." Poster presented at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.
- Type:
Journal Articles
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Thomas G. Johnson, James Rossi, Mary K. Hendrickson, Jessica Scott and RandyCantrell. 2014. The economic impacts of local and conventional food sales. Choices. Invited for special issue.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Hendrickson, M., R. Cantrell, T. Johnson, J. R. Scott and M. Saulters. 2014. Why local food makes you happy: The penetration of the local food narrative in the Midwest. Presentation at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. New Orleans,LA: August.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Rossi, James, Thomas Johnson, Mary Hendrickson, and Jess Scott. 2014. "The Economic Impacts of Local Foods Production." Paper presented at the Southern Regional Science Association Annual Meeting. March 27-29. San Antonio,TX.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Johnson, T., J. Rossi, M. Hendrickson, J. Scott and R. Cantrell. 2014. Economic Impacts of Local Food Systems in the Rural Midwest: Evidence from Missouri and Nebraska. Poster presented at Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting July 31-Aug 3. New Orleans.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Explaining Linkages Among Farmers And Consumers In Local And Regional Food Systems to Enhance Rural Development. Presentation to USDAs Know Your Farmer Know Your Food Task Force. February 18. Washington, D.C.
|
Progress 02/01/13 to 01/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: Researchers and students attending the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society annual meeting (approximately 35 participants attended paper session). Economic developers, community leaders and extension educators attending 3 different presentations on local foods and rural economic development Changes/Problems: One of the planned rural focus groups included more locally oriented shoppers than conventional food shoppers. However, we have chosen to include the data with our local shopper focus groups. We have faced difficulties in recruiting focus group participants in some rural areas particularly in Nebraska. We extended our time period and are finishing recruiting our last 5 focus groups in spring 2014. In addition, we have chosen to transcribe many of the focus groups ourselves rather than sending out for transcription as this gives us a fuller understanding for coding purposes. We have included a rural sociology graduate student interested in local foods in the analysis work. Otherwise things are proceeding normally. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest? Preliminary results discussed in conference paper at Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society meeting in June. Results shared informally with other researchers from USDA and Cornell University working on similar projects. Some data, specifically from the initial producer survey, have been shared with extension educators. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? We requested a one-year no-cost extension. We plan to finish statistical analysis of producer survey, including creating typologies of local producers to better understand motivations for participating in local food systems as well as particular barriers and opportunities that some types of producers may face. We also plan to finish coding and analyzing focus groups. This final year will generate more products for journals and conferences. We have outlined 5-6 academic papers to publish our results and plan to have at least 4 of them completed in next reporting period. We have been invited to submit a paper to Choices regarding the economic impact of local foods. We are also summarizing our results in 3-4 short analytical briefs that will be shared with extension educators in the study areas. These briefs will also likely be published by University of Nebraska Extension, and shared with the Community, Local and Regional Food Systems Community of Practice through eXtension. Finally, we plan to make conference presentations at two academic meetings, and to present findings to USDA staff.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
To meet Objective 1: Major activities completed / experiments conducted: Conntinued working on statistical analysis of results from the 2012 survey. Data collected: No data was collected on this objective. Summary statistics and discussion of results: Cluster analysis is being used to create typologies of the producers to better understand their characteristics. Descriptive statistics from this survey were shared with local extension educators and farmer participants, placed on website, and shared through three different extension meetings. Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized: Initial results from the producer survey were shared with those who participated, generating a larger number of participants in the input-output survey. Producers were excited to see the results from the project. Long-form answers about barriers, challenges and information/resources needed were also compiled and shared with extension educators in the study regions in order to enhance programming around local foods. To meet Objective 2: Major activities: In spring 2013, we selected 95 producers from the 122 producers who responded to the 2012 Producer Survey to receive an Input/Output survey that asked detailed questions about revenue and expenses of their local food operation, and also about in which regions or areas those expenses or revenues were generated. By August 31, 2013, 36 of 95 had responded with completed questionnaires. From these responses, we completed the first round of Input/Output data analysis to determine economic impacts of local food production. Data Collected: Received 36 surveys listing farmer expenses and revenue for their local food operations and where those expenses and revenue came from. Input-output analysis was conducted to determine economic impacts of producers oriented to local food sytems. Summary of statistics and results: Preliminary results indicate that producers oriented to local food production were less profitable than conventional agriculture producers but that the induced and indirect economic effects were higher. Analysis is being refined for presentations and to include in papers for 2014. Key Outcomes: At the project meeting January 2014, key decisions about where and how to publish the results of this analysis were made. In addition, several invitations for papers and presentations showcasing the results have been received. To meet Objective 3: Major activities: Ten more focus groups were completed, bringing the total completed to 14 of 19 planned groups. Focus groups were transcribed by project staff and coding has been underway on all 14 focus groups. Currently rescheduling the remaining focus groups to be completed by May 31, 2014. Data Collected: Transcripts of 14 focus groups exploring local and conventional shoppers understanding of local foods. Summary of Statistics and Results: Preliminary coding data (incomplete because of the need to complete all focus groups) indicates that rural consumers are likely to be involved in local food networks even without seeking them out. However, newcomers to rural areas interested in local foods might have difficulty accessing those networks. Understandings of local food are similar in both rural and urban settings, while convenience and time appear to be barriers to consuming more locally produced foods. Currently are comparing motivations of consumers to search out local foods with motivations of local food producers in attempt to answer Objective 4. Objective 4 will be completed during final analysis of data from producers and consumers.
Publications
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2013
Citation:
Hendrickson,M., T. Johnson, R. Cantrell, J. Scott and J. Lucht. 2013. Can Rural Foodscapes Support Economic Development AND Local Consumers? Annual meeting of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society. East Lansing, MI. June
|
Progress 02/01/12 to 01/31/13
Outputs
OUTPUTS: *Completed first producer survey January - April 2012. This survey consisted of 31 questions,and surveys were sent to 312 producers in two waves. We had 127 returned surveys for a response rate of 45%. Five of these surveys were deemed unusable for a total of 122 complete surveys. During the summer we did initial descriptive analysis that is reported below and have continued with statistical analysis of the survey through January. Initial descriptive statistics are being shared with survey respondents. In addition, essay answer responses regarding challenges and information needs were compiled for each region and shared with local extension educators. *Completed 5 of 7 scheduled focus groups with local foods consumers. The focus groups were completed with high income consumers in Kansas City; low income shoppers in Kansas City and Omaha; and rural local foods shoppers in our 3 rural regions. Analysis of focus groups is beginning. *Tested input-output surveys with 4 local farmers and revised interview form. Currently scheduling interviews with local farmers in 3 rural regions with 25 to be completed by end of February 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Dr. Mary Hendrickson directed survey completion and initial analysis. She also facilitated the Missouri focus groups, and participated in focus group recruitment. She also disseminated some information from surveys to local extension educators. Dr. Randy Cantrell recruited for and facilitated Nebraska focus groups and assisted with survey analysis. Dr. Thomas Johnson assisted with survey analysis and selected survey respondents for follow-up input/output survey. He also led testing and revision of the input/output survey. Jess Scott, Project Manager, sent and collected surveys, entered survey data, and did initial descriptive statistics on surveys. She scheduled focus groups and recruited for them and handled IRB procedures. Jill Lucht was added to the project in July to help with statistical analysis of the survey. She has completed initial ANOVAs, cluster and factor analysis of the data. Kim Petersen assisted with survey collection and focus group recruitment in Nebraska. TARGET AUDIENCES: Local foods producers from three rural regions in Nebraska and Missouri. Local foods shoppers in our three rural regions as well as Omaha and Kansas City. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: Not relevant to this project.
Impacts
Findings from survey: We found that all of our producers sell directly to consumers through farmers' markets, farmstands and/or CSAs, while only 42% (N=51)sold through non-direct channels such as to grocery stores, wholesalers or school lunch programs. They consider regulations, liability issues and marketing to be their main challenges. A third of respondents were 60 or older, while only 13% were younger than 40. Nearly 60% had an associate's degree or higher, while another 20% had some college, indicating a high degree of education. Respondents were split evenly between men and women. Building on Conventions Theory (Sage, 2010; Rosin and Campbell, 2009), we asked producers to agree or disagree on a 7-point Likert scale with 17 statements beginning with "The local foods market..." Each of these statements was based on at least one 'World of Justification' (Market, Industrial, Civic, Green, Domestic, Inspired, and Renown). We expected variation between regions because of their different typologies, but the results did not show significant variation for most motivations. *We found no regional differences in the way that local food producers perceive the local foods market's ability to allow producers to treat their soil, water and/or livestock with care, even though we could hypothesize that people from amenity-rich areas would be more likely to consider environmental and animal care practices than people from persistently poor areas. *One could hypothesize that producers closer to urban areas (i.e. Old Trails) would be more likely to perceive that the local foods market provides a growth opportunity for them, but the data do not corroborate that. Rather, all three regions report quite optimistic views about local foods as a growth opportunity. *Some regional differences can be seen, specifically in the Civic World of Justification. Producers in more rural areas, (SE Nebraska and N. Ozarks) were more likely to feel the local foods market helped them be integrated into the community and to work with other local businesses. Producers in the N. Ozarks were more likely to report the local foods market allowed them to take great pride in their work (Renown), and they also believed local foods enterprises did not take that much greater effort than other farming enterprises (Industrial). Producers in the Nebraska and Old Trails regions tended to be more neutral about the idea that the local foods market allowed them to take pride in their products, and were more likely to believe that farming for the local foods market took more work than other agricultural enterprises.
Publications
- M. Hendrickson, R. Cantrell, T. Johnson, J. R. Scott and J. Lucht. 2012. "Local Food Systems in Rural Areas: Issues and Opportunities." Poster presented at the Rural Sociological Society Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.
|
Progress 02/01/11 to 01/31/12
Outputs
OUTPUTS: Collaborated with local Extension offices and local food and food growers associations to promote project awareness and to gather potential Producer Survey participants. Distributed press release about the project to news outlets to generate community interest in project participation. Prepared and sent Producer Survey. Collected and Compiled responses. Compensated survey participants. Began survey response analysis. Presented project poster at AFRI PD meeting in Miami, FL, 7-9 November, 2011. Presented project in a NCRCRD webinar 8 February, 2012 entitled "Studying Food System Approaches in Three Types of Rural Communities" with 100+ individuals and groups participating. Presented project at Community Economics meeting under the topic "Community Resilience" 22 March 2012. Continuous collaboration with researchers in other regions who are doing similar local food linkage research projects; sharing literature review, project narrative, and producer survey questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Mary Hendrickson (PI), Tom Johnson, and Jessica Scott - University of Missouri; and Randy Cantrell and Kim Peterson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln were the main participants on this project during this reporting period. All attend project meetings. Hendrickson and Cantrell provide project management. Hendrickson, Cantrell and Johnson developed the Producer Survey and Focus Group protocols, worked with Extension personnel in geographic project areas to garner local interest in the project. Johnson developed the Input/Output Survey worksheet. Hendrickson, Cantrell, and Scott submitted project information for IRB approval. Scott and Peterson gathered potential participant contact information. Scott formatted paper and on-line surveys, sent surveys, collected responses, and submitted participant info for compensation. Hendrickson, Cantrell, and Johnson presented project information via posters and panel discussions at conferences and in a project-focused webinar. TARGET AUDIENCES: We have several target audiences for this project. The first is small to medium-sized farmers who are participating in local markets in three different geographical regions of MO and NE. A second target audience is consumers of local foods in rural and urban settings, and grocery store shoppers in rural, micropolitan and metropolitan settings. With both of these audiences we hope to provide information about motivations for participating in local food systems and benefits and challenges to doing so. The long-term goal of this project is to fully realize the potential of regional food systems as an entrepreneurial strategy for rural economic development by providing research-based guidance to rural communities on how regional food systems can be developed that bring together the interests of both the producers and the consumers, in ways that mutually benefit them and the rural community in which they live. In the first year of this project, we have made efforts to connect with other researchers and non-profit personnel doing similar local food system research to foster collaboration and an understanding in the differences and similarities in local communities and local and regional food systems from place to place. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: We changed the project timeline to reflect changes in interview schedules for farmers involved in the input/output summary to October 2012. No other modifications have been made to the project.
Impacts
The long-term goal of this project is to fully realize the potential of regional food systems as a strategy for rural development. The producer survey will help to identify opportunities and challenges for local food producers and to examine ways in which to link producers to local consumers. The in-depth interviews, forthcoming, will be used to develop economic producer profiles. Producer profiles will be used to calibrate an economic impact model that will quantify the profitability of small to medium sized farms and the local economic impact that comes from regional food sales. Focus Groups, forthcoming, will illuminate factors differentiating food buyers in rural and urban areas, high and low incomes, and those who buy directly from farmers and those who shop conventional retail outlets.
Publications
- A final report of this project, papers for professional meetings, journal articles, and extension publications are planned as this project progresses, in 2013.
|
|