Spatial considerations for implementing two direct-to-consumer food models in two states

To open new markets, some farmers have adapted direct-to-consumer (DTC) models, such as Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), to reach new settings or audiences. We compared sociodemographic and geospatial contexts to farmers\u27 experience with one of two DTC innovations: a cost-offset CSA for low-income families and food boxes distributed through rural convenience stores. We geocoded addresses of thirteen farms and DTC pickup sites in two U.S. states (Vermont and Washington) and calculated road network distances from pickup to supermarket, farmers\u27 market, and farm. We compiled Census block-level demographic and transportation data, and compared it to postseason interviews to explore the effect of suitability of the pickup location; proximity to food retail; and potential farmer burden. Most pickup areas were heavily car-dependent, with low walkability and few public transportation options. Conventional sources of fresh produce were within six miles of most pickups, but farmers markets were further away. Despite modest profitability, both models were deemed worth pursuing, as they expanded farmers\u27 customer base. Farmers implementing the store-distributed food box were sensitive to market trends and customer needs in choosing pickup location. Farmers seemed more concerned with marketing in convenience store settings, and finding efficient ways to conduct recordkeeping than with delivery distances

Knowledge, Attitudes, Beliefs and Behaviors Regarding Fruits and Vegetables among Cost-Offset Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) Applicants, Purchasers, and a Comparison Sample

Data were collected in August, amid the summer CSA season, when shares include many of the summer FV preferred by low-income caregivers and their children [33], which may have contributed to the magnitude of the differences in children’s FV consumption that we observed. Because resources to support the CO-CSA were limited and offsets were awarded on a first-come first-served basis, and because almost all KABs were equivalent for purchaser and non-purchaser sub-groups, selection bias into the purchaser sub-group is an unlikely explanation for differences observed between CO-CSA purchasers and non-purchasers. [...]the inclusion of some CO-CSA applicants who participated in a longitudinal study regarding CO-CSA may have biased upwards estimates of KAB and self-efficacy with respect to FV consumption in the applicant sample. [...]although selection of adults into the comparison group used similar eligibility criteria, they were not comparable to CO-CSA applicants who were older, more educated, and more often lived in food-secure households. [...]sample sizes were too small to permit exploration of observed associations in a multivariate context that controlled for key sample differences such as age, educational attainment, or self-efficacy for eating and cooking FV. 5

Gaining and maintaining a competitive edge: Evidence from CSA members and farmers on local food marketing strategies

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a widely-used approach for farmers to sell directly to consumers. We used the product, place, price, and promotion (4P) marketing mix framework to examine characteristics that help farms offering CSA maintain member satisfaction and thus competitiveness. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 CSA members and 24 CSA farmers in four states. CSA members additionally completed a modified choice experiment. Qualitative data were coded iteratively, and choice experiment data were summarized and compared across scenarios. CSA members and farmers were motivated by a range of personal, social, environmental, and economic objectives. Members favored high-quality staple vegetables (e.g., lettuce, green beans), ideally produced organically. Trust and a sense of personal connection with the farmer comprised part of the value added of CSA participation. Time and location of share pick-up were very important; thus, farmers tried to offer convenient sites or an enriched pick-up experience. Small changes in price appeared unlikely to impact participation among current members. Social networks and word-of-mouth were powerful for marketing, but may limit the ability to reach diverse populations. Future research should examine the ability of CSAs to meet the needs of those who do not currently participate

The perceived influence of cost-offset community-supported agriculture on food access among low-income families

Objective To examine perspectives on food access among low-income families participating in a cost-offset community-supported agriculture (CO-CSA) programme.Design Farm Fresh Foods for Healthy Kids (F3HK) is a multicentre randomized intervention trial assessing the effect of CO-CSA on dietary intake and quality among children from low-income families. Focus groups were conducted at the end of the first CO-CSA season. Participants were interviewed about programme experiences, framed by five dimensions of food access: Availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability and accommodation. Transcribed data were coded on these dimensions plus emergent themes.Setting Nine communities in the US states of New York, North Carolina, Washington and Vermont.Subjects Fifty-Three F3HK adults with children.Results CSA models were structured by partner farms. Produce quantity was abundant; however, availability was enhanced for participants who were able to select their own produce items. Flexible CSA pick-up times and locations made produce pick-up more accessible. Despite being affordable to most, payment timing was a barrier for some. Unfamiliar foods and quick spoilage hindered acceptability through challenging meal planning, despite accommodations that included preparation advice.Conclusions Although CO-CSA may facilitate increased access to fruits and vegetables for low-income families, perceptions of positive diet change may be limited by the ability to incorporate share pick-up into regular travel patterns and meal planning. Food waste concerns may be particularly acute for families with constrained resources. Future research should examine whether CO-CSA with flexible logistics and produce self-selection are sustainable for low-income families and CSA farms

Adults and Children in Low-Income Households That Participate in Cost-Offset Community Supported Agriculture Have High Fruit and Vegetable Consumption

This paper examines fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) in low-income households that participated in a cost-offset (CO), or 50% subsidized, community-supported agriculture (CSA) program. CSA customers paid farms upfront for a share of the harvest, and received produce weekly throughout the growing season. A cohort of adults and children 2–12 y in a summer CO-CSA were surveyed online twice: August 2015 (n = 41) and February 2016 (n = 23). FVI was measured by the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Fruit and Vegetable Screener (FVS) and an inventory of locally grown fruits and vegetables. FVI relative to United States (US) recommendations and averages, and across seasons, were tested with non-parametric tests and paired t-tests (p < 0.05). Both adults and children in the CO-CSA had higher FVI than the US averages, and more often met recommendations for vegetables. Some summer fruits and vegetables were more often eaten when locally in-season. The CO-CSA model warrants further examination as an avenue for improving vegetable consumption among adults and children in low-income households. However, causality between CO-CSA participation and FVI cannot be inferred, as CO-CSA participants may be positive deviants with respect to FVI. A multi-state randomized controlled trial is currently underway to evaluate impacts of CO-CSAs on FVI and related outcomes