Community Supported Agriculture Model Research Articles

A Socially-Based Redesign of Sustainable Food Practices: Community Supported Agriculture in Italy

Several grassroots initiatives in the last two decades have shown the need for different food practices that should be locally based and founded on ethical goals of social and environmental justice. Among the many “alternative food networks”, the Community Supported Agriculture model is particularly significant and interesting. By redefining meanings and social norms around food practices, this model actualizes significant processes of food re-socialization and re-territorialization. Focusing on Italy, this study aims to contribute to the understanding of the potential of this model. It does so through two investigations carried out in 2019 and 2020, aimed at analyzing, respectively, structural and organizational aspects of CSAs and the features of resilience shown by these initiatives during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. On the whole, the two surveys give us the image of a radically innovative experience, potentially capable of deeply redefining production and consumption practices, being rooted in socially-shared knowledge, motivations, willingness, commitment and sense of community. In addition to being characterized by a determination to pursue sustainability and equity goals, the model shows a remarkable character of resilience thanks to the original arrangements that the common value basis and the strong sense of interdependence and solidarity of its members can provide.

A Study on Community Supported Agriculture Model in the Context of Food Ethics

A Study on Community Supported Agriculture Model in the Context of Food Ethics

Using Text Messages to Promote Engagement in a Subsidized Community Supported Agriculture Program for Head Start Families

ABSTRACTFarm to Family is a subsidized community supported agriculture model for low-income families. This study evaluated text message reminders on Head Start parents’ farm share pickup rates. Pickup rates were high for both groups within 2 days of delivery, with 96% (SD = 0.04) of parents in the text messaging group picking up their produce vs. 92% (SD = 0.07) of parents in the no text message group, and lower on the day of delivery, with 69% (SD = 0.14) of parents in the text messaging group picking up their produce vs. 62% (SD = 0.13) of parents in the no text messaging group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups. Program coordinators reported using additional efforts to promote parent participation (e-mails or verbal reminders). Because sites used multiple methods to promote parent participation, this study could not isolate the effects of text messages.