Whoa, you're using an old browsers aren't you? This site would look better if you upgraded. We recommend Mozilla Firefox

NE185: Commodities, Consumers, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment

Duration:
October 01, 1997 to September 30, 2002
Administrative Advisor(s):
W. Ronnie Coffman (NY.C)
NIFA Reps:
Edith P. Thomas
Sally W. Maggard

Statement of Issue(s) and Justification:

Agriculture in the United States had changed dramatically over the past 50 years. Smaller, family-labor farms have declined substantially in number and to some extent have been replaced by industrial-like operations. These big operations have become the main provider of food and other agricultural products. Agricultural production has also become regionalized as areas exploit their comparative advantage. The relationships between large scale, regionally concentrated producers, national and multinational food processors and distributors, and the structure of local food systems are complex, geographically complicated, and heavily influenced by policy. Yet they are poorly understood. This research will provide critical information about farmers, food and agricultural firms, families, communities and consumers in different locales and with different resources respond to and manage these changes.

Related, Current, and Previous Work:

A search of the Current Research Information System (CRIS) and other research data bases was undertaken to identify current or recently completed projects addressing the following topics:. local food system(s), global food system(s), community food system(s), local agriculture, global agriculture, community agriculture, commodity system(s), commodity chain, commodity subsector. This search uncovered several projects that speak to different aspects of the agricultural and food system. However, only a few are directly relevant to the research proposed here.

A Hatch project in New York (Gillespie, Hilchey, and Lyson, 1996) is designed to identify, examine, and compare the economic and geographic spaces occupied by large-scale, globally oriented agricultural producers and smaller scale, community integrated agricultural entrepreneurs. Measures of community welfare and socioeconomic well-being associated with each type of agriculture are being examined. This research is confined to New York State and deals primarily with agricultural production and not with the distribution and consumption aspects of the food system.

In New York, results of a survey of 500 northeasterners were used to provide background support for the development of a Regional Food Guide (Wilkins, 1995). Respondents expressed a preference for locally produced foods as well as reducing the cost and resources used to transport food from great distances, the preservation of the region's farmers and farmland, and their role as individuals in maintaining this agriculture. Nearly all respondents (98.2 %) agreed that keeping farms viable in the Northeast is important and 97% noted that buying local produce is an effective way to keep farms viable in the northeast.

Another New York project (Bills and Boisvert, 1996) has been designed to estimate the relationship between production agriculture and the wider New York economy in the major economic regions of the state. This is a highly technical, econometric analysis of how the agricultural sector links to other economic sectors in the state and will result in a set of economic multipliers for different agricultural activities. It does not address the social and community linkages of farming and food production.

Researchers at the University of Maryland (Falk and Brinsfield, 1996) are documenting the historical changes in agriculture on Maryland's Eastern Shore, with particular attention given to the rise of the poultry industry from 1970 to 1990. These researchers are concerned with documenting the degree to which local labor markets changed as prevailing forms of agriculture changed. While this research relates to some of the social and community dimensions associated with agriculture and food system changes, it is not a comprehensive treatment of these issues.

Several other state-level projects have examined agriculture and community linkages. A project in Missouri (Gilles, 1993) used survey data from two agriculturally dependent towns to examine the relationship of export agriculture to community vitality. In California, a recently completed project (Rudy, 1995) examined changes in agriculture and rural communities in the Imperial Valley. The relationship of sustainable agricultural practices to the viability of rural communities is the focus of a Minnesota project (Levins, 1996). Finally, an Idaho project (Harp, 1996) is centered on modelling the relationship between social wellbeing of rural communities and the structure of the local economic base. All of these projects deal with only one or two communities and none treat the agricultural and food system comprehensively.

Researchers at the Economic Research Service (Brown, Henderson and Majchrowwicz, 1994) examined the relationships between production agriculture and farm inputs, processing and marketing, and other agribusiness industries giving special attention to the metro/nonmetro distribution of these industries. However, this research did not account for variation in the structure and dynamics of the food and agricultural system across a range of different community contexts.

Several state-level projects touch on different aspects of local food and agricultural systems. The role of cooperatives in rural community development was the topic of a recently completed project at the University of Wisconsin (Cropp, Acton and Cottingham, 1994). Research at the University of Vermont (Kolodinsky, 1996) is focusing on factors related to the decision to join a CSA (community supported agriculture). In New York (Gillespie, 1996) attention is being directed at the role smallscale food processors play in sustainable agriculture systems.

The global aspects of food and agricultural production are the focus of research projects underway in several states. In New York (McMichael, 1996), research will develop a systematic comparative analysis of the regional and global institutional forces affecting the structure and trajectory of the U.S. farm sector. In Missouri (Heffernan, 1996), an on-going research project is documenting the process of vertical and horizontal integration of the global food system and attempting to discern the effects of the globalization process of local agriculture and rural communities. A second Missouri project (Bonanno, 1996) deals with farmers' perceptions of the globalization process.

While numerous studies have examined specific types of farms as well as specific commodity price structures and policies, only a few have studied entire commodity systems with local development and equity as central issues of concern. Most of the projects focus on only a very limited set of aspects of the commodities examined. For example, Davis (1995) proposes to develop and test export market assessment models for dry beans. Similarly, Ray. (1993) proposes to develop a linear programming model of agricultural policy. Yonkers and Ford (1991) are working on developing a model of factors influencing profitability in the dairy industry. Ricks (1993) is examining the competitiveness of the US fruit and vegetable production system. Anderson, Gates and Wessels (1991) are working on an analysis of strategies used by firms operating in the food system.

Although there are many regional research projects with a commodity focus, virtually all of these projects deal with the economic or technical aspects of the commodity (see for example, NC-186 -- Structural Changes in the U.S. Grains and Oilseeds Marketing System in a Dynamic and Global Marketplace; NC-119 -Dairy Herd Management Strategies for Improved Decision Making and Profitability; or NE-177 Organizational and Structural Changes in the Dairy Industry). Similarly, regional projects dealing with' the food system have a decidedly economic focus to them (i.e., NE-165 Private Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance).

The recently completed regional project 5-246 (The Transformation of Agriculture: Resources, Technologies, and Policies) was designed to examine the consequences of agricultural restructuring on farms, families, communities and society. While this project addressed some of the issues related to farming and community linkages, it did not deal with food system issues comprehensively at the local level, nor did it address the linkages between global and local food systems.

No current or recent regional research project takes into account the social, economic, and political factors and conditions associated with changes in food and agricultural systems and examines the restructuring of local food and agricultural systems in response to global and national trends towards increased competition and consolidation. And no regional or state projects are assessing and documenting comprehensively the range of * strategies that farmers, food and agricultural firms, households, communities, and consumers are using to sustain local food and agricultural systems in a globalizing environment.

Objectives

  1. Document and assess how social, economic, political forces influence the interaction between community stakeholders, consumers and the local and global food system.
  2. Identify, examine and assess the factors, conditions, and changes associated with the global and local dimensions of selected commodity systems (inputs, production, processing, and consumption).
  3. Examine and analyze the local and non-local components of community food systems and quantify the economic and social contributions of local food systems to their communities.
  4. Collaborate with ongoing educational efforts to enhance the viability of local food systems.

Methods:


objective 1: Document and assess how social, economic, political forces influence the interaction between community stakeholders'' and the local and global food system.

The procedures for this objective are designed to answer the following questions:

What do people in representative communities think about their food system/supply?

what are people's understandings of where their food comes from?

From community members' perspectives, what factors have most greatly shaped the current food and agriculture system? (Specifically, what influences access, to availability of, affordability of and appropriateness of commodities in the food supply?)

What are community members' perceptions of what the "ideal" food system would look like and what do they see as barriers to achieving this.

How do community members understand the local vs. global issues and implications of the current food system?

To what extent do people think local food and agricultural systems should be maintained? If so, what steps would people take to redevelop local food and agricultural systems?

The procedures will characterize individuals according to how they interact with the food system (Typologies). Differences in community groups will be determined with respect to adoption and non-adoption of behaviors related to food production and consumption.

Focus group interviews will elicit the underlying issues and themes related to community member interactions with the food system. Stakeholder groups including buyers, local government officials, growers, retailers, and consumers will be identified for this part of the study. Interviews will be structured for each individual group.

Under the coordination of New Jersey, a semi-structured interview guide will be developed for each stakeholder group. The guide will be used by all states participating on this objective. Questions included will cover local foods, the food and agriculture system, use of local/seasonal foods, access to the food system, interactions with the food system, influences on food decision-making, and the importance of localized systems. Qualitative methods will be used for data analysis. Each participating state will conduct focus group interviews with the same stakeholder group types.

A second set of interviews will be conducted to more precisely define emerging themes as well as to gain insight into people's willingness to consider alternate scenarios. The second phase will utilize participatory action research (PAR) techniques to gain group consideration of incorporating the food system into other community activities. For this phase, "contexts" will be developed that allow different groups to consider localized food systems within non-traditional contexts.

Objective 2: Identify, assess, and examine the factors, conditions, and changes associated with the global and local dimensions of selected commodity systems (production, processing, consumption).

Participating states will select commodities for study based both on these commodities' significance for the US food and agricultural system, their significance for the researchers' home states, and on the competencies and interests of the researchers.

Among commodities to be selected are: grapes (Cornell), tuna (Missouri), beef cattle and wheat (Kansas), chickens (Missouri), soybeans (Michigan), and canola (Michigan). Michigan State will coordinate this objective.

A uniform set of quantitative data for the post World War II period (approximately 1945-present) will be assembled in each state for each commodity. In addition, historical data prior to 1945 will be assembled as needed to explain the structure and trends of each particular commodity system. Data now identified for collection and the uses to which they will be put include:

(1) Data from the censuses of manufacturing, wholesale and retail trade, and transport on economic concentration ratios by SIC code will be used to examine the changes in economic concentration at each stage of the commodity system (i.e., inputs, production, processing, distribution, etc.).

(2) Data on employment and reporting units from County Business Patterns will reveal the changing spatial distribution of a given commodity system as well as production unit size.

(3) Data from the Census of Agriculture on characteristics of each producer's commodity and localities of production will permit a similar spatial and temporal analysis for the production aspect of each commodity system.

(4) USDA data on farm-retail price spreads for each commodity will permit documenting the distribution of value among the major sectors in the system.

(5) Consumption data for each commodity will be gathered from Bureau of Labor Statistics market basket studies, industry trade association reports, USDA nutrition studies and other relevant sources so as to produce a picture of domestic consumption over time.

(6) In addition, historical and contemporary qualitative data will be gathered for each commodity on standards, technology, policy, and other issues.

First, changes in each of three types of commodity standards (governmental, industry, and private). The industry impact of changes in standards will be examined through a review of trade magazines and other relevant trade publications. This will permit researchers to gain an understanding of the interests and issues involved in changes in standards and how changes in standards have affected commodity system organization.

Second, major technological changes that have affected each commodity that will permit researchers to examine how these technical changes have affected commodity system organization. Third, agricultural and food policy changes that relate to each particular commodity and that will permit researchers to see how policy changes relate to each commodity system.

Finally, in-depth interviews with key informants in each commodity system will permit researchers to gain an understanding of the dynamics of each commodity system.

Furthermore, in addition to the in-depth studies of selected commodities, The Wallace Institute will engage in a statistical review of changes in commodity system organization among a wide range of major commodities at the national level. This will permit researchers in each state to assess the degree to which changes in a particular commodity system fits a general pattern or has specific unique characteristics. It will also facilitate theorizing why different groups of commodity systems display different historical trajectories of development.

We stress that a central part of the analysis under this objective will be the comparison of the selected commodity systems as well as the comparison of trends and changes in particular commodities with the overall trends for major commodities. These comparisons will permit the researchers to make variable what must be constant in any study of a single commodity. For example, the import of the physical characteristics of the commodity (e.g., fresh produce versus grains) and the social organization surrounding it (e.g., vertical integration vs. an open market) can only be understood when multiple commodities are compared. In addition, participating researchers will take advantage of their dispersed locations to assist each other by conducting interviews with key informants from commodity systems other than the one they are studying.

Objective 3: Examine and analyze the local and non-local components of community food systems and quantify the economic and social contributions of local food systems to their communities.

To understand the structure and dynamics of the local and global components of a community food system, each participating state will select as study sites at least three counties (or regions), representing different degrees of urbanization and farming. A selection protocol will be established to insure that each participating state identifies counties in which the local and non-local aspects of community food systems can be identified and evaluated. It is expected that one of the study sites in each state will represent large urban communities and high value farming, a second will represent a mix between rural and urban populations and a diverse farm base, and a third will be highly rural with a strong agricultural base.

Special attention will be paid to identifying and assessing the linkages between local production and local consumption within each county. This has two parts: 1) direct marketing: and 2) local food processing and delivery systems. In direct marketing, farmers' markets, roadside stands, u-pick operations, community gardens and community supported agriculture are important manifestations of the linkage between production and consumption. Such outlets are often overlooked when 'official' statistics about the food system are collected. Data on this segment of the food system will be collected from available secondary sources such as county planning offices, chambers of commerce, Cooperative Extension offices and from key informants in each county.

In local food processing and delivery systems, food processing enterprises and wholesale and retail food outlets are also important links between production and consumption. The flows-of locally produced and non-locally produced commodities into the processors will be assessed by interviewing the procurement managers at each processor. This will be used to assess changes in the balance between locally and non-locally produced food that have occurred over time. Produce and dairy managers at local grocery stores will also be interviewed to assess the amount of locally produced food that is available to consumers throughout the year.

Using both primary and secondary data collection techniques, information will be collected on economic and social indicators of local and global food production and consumption for each of the counties selected. Below are examples of the types of data that will be collected.

Economic indicators (from Census of Agriculture, State Agriculture Departments, interviews, others)

-- direct sales volume (roadside stands, farmers' markets, etc.) -- sales to processors -- sales to institutions and restaurants, retail outlets, co-ops -- taxes paid by local producers/processors -- jobs generated by local producers/processors -- dollar value of agriculture-related tourism -- estimated value of foods donated by farms to food banks, etc. -- participation in the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program -- dollars generated in the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program -- estimated value of food produced in community gardens

Social indicators (from Census of Agriculture, interviews, others)

-- number and characteristics of agricultural producers -- commodities produced -- number and characteristics of food processors

-- number and type of wholesale and retail outlets -- nutrition education efforts connected with local marketing

A common protocol will be developed for all states to use in collecting and coding the data on local production and consumption. Special attention will be paid to the linkages among agricultural organizations in the community and to the consumer/customer base. Insofar as possible, GIS techniques will be developed in each state to map the location of these organizations and activities in each county. New York, California, and Louisiana will coordinate this activity.

The final product will be a data base composed of statistical and geographical information about the local and global components of community food systems as they are found in each of the three counties in each state. When pooled together these data will present a comprehensive picture of how community food systems are organized across different social, demographic, and economic contexts. This information will not only serve as the raw data for analyses by the project participants, but community agricultural development groups, economic planners, educators, and government officials will find the statistical and GIS information on local food systems useful in their work.

Objective 4: Collaborate with ongoing educational efforts to enhance the viability of local food systems.

The following activities will be undertaken to address Objective 4.

Provide appropriate electronic access to project information. (NY will coordinate this activity)

A listserv (RSSUSTAG-L) has been established to coordinate activities of the project members. In addition, coordinated efforts will be made to disseminate project results electronically through various channels. Examples include a world-wide website for project summaries, reports, lists of available data and papers downloadable map layers through the CLEARS laboratory (Cornell Laboratory for Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing); and posting in existing locations such as the home pages for Agriculture & Human Values and SANet.

Publish a project newsletter through the Farming Alternatives Program.' (NY will coordinate this activity)

This newsletter will be disseminated to each participating state in a format that allows for regional customization.

Convene an international policy forum to report results of the project and make policy recommendations based on discussion of these outcomes. (All participating states will help coordinate this activity)

Grassroots agricultural groups, educators and policy makers are the target audiences for this conference. They will actively participate in conference planning and assist in seeking funding to support the conference and ensure diverse participation. At this time the location of the conference has not been determined, but efforts will be made to tie this forum to another important international meeting taking place near the end of the project's term. The organization of the conference will be coordinated through North Carolina State University. .

Implement an ongoing evaluative review of project procedures and findings by involving interested publics. (NY will coordinate this activity)

All project members will document questions from individuals who come into contact with the project. These questions will be compiled by Cornell and analyzed to provide ongoing guidance. Questions may include: What are the key points of interest for the publics involved? What are confusing or difficult results to understand? What are key elements not included in the project design that may provide direction to future research? Results of analysis will be shared with project members (and other interested parties) as the project advances. At the end of the project, the analyses will be synthesized and published in print and electronic forms.

Measurement of Progress and Results:

Outputs:
Outcomes or projected Impacts:
Milestones:

(1999): States select commodities for study. Uniform data for selected commodities assembled. Study sites selected by states.

(2000): Community member interactions with food system focus groups held Produce and dairy managers interviewed on locally produced food availability.

(2001): Second set of interviews completed. Economic and social indicators data collected. In-depth interviews completed. Comprehensive picture completed of community food system organizations.

(2002): Patterns of commodity standards (governmental, industry, private) change determined. Examination of technical changes completed. Agricultural food policy changes described.

(2003): National statistical study of selected commodity systems and comparisons completed. Appropriate electronic access provided to project information. Convene international policy forum to report project results. Evaluative review of project procedures and findings by interested publics completed.

Projected Participation:

Include a completed Appendix E form

Outreach Plan:

Organization and Governance:

standard

Literature Cited:

Attachments:

[Official.pdf]

Internal Linkages:

External Linkages:

Signatures:


s:/W. Ronnie Coffman

Last Modified: unknown

Back to Top