Community Supported Agriculture, Food Consumption
Patterns, and Member Commitment
Carol Goland
Carol Goland is assistant professor of environmental studies
at Denison University in Granville, Ohio.
Introduction
Great costs are associated with our globalized food sys-
tem and the industrial agriculture system on which it is
based, whether calculated in an environmental or social cur-
rency. The current context for agriculture in the United
States creates extreme pressures for yield increases and re-
wards economies of scale. The costs which result from these
forces include run-off of farm chemicals that has degraded
soils and polluted waterways (Gliessman 1998; Pimental et
al. 1995; Sampat 2001; Soule and Piper 1992), endangered
health of farm laborers (Pimental et al. 1992; Soule and Piper
1992), loss of farmland and family farms (Stauber et al. 1995),
and reduced vitality of rural communities (Berry 1992;
Heffernan 2000). For most U.S. food consumers, some 275
million of us, purchasing and consuming food makes us part
of that globalized food system, and unwitting contributors
to the social and environmental degradation it creates.
Given the distance our food travels and the number of
links it passes through as it travels the chain from field to
table, it is not surprising that people are largely ignorant of
the environmental and social costs associated with our food
system (Kloppenburg , Hendrickson, and Stevenson 1996).
A number of researchers and activists have advanced local
food systems to remedy this problem (e.g., Gussow 1991;
Kloppenburg, Hendrickson, and Stevenson 1996). The pro-
motion of local food systems is premised on the belief that in
order to create a more sustainable agriculture, those who eat
(not just those who produce) will need to develop a philoso-
phy and act on a set of values that are congruentwith a sus-
tainable agricultural future (Clancy 1997; Thompson 1995).
A local food system has the potential to connect consum-
ers both to the land that produces their food and to the farm-
ers who grow it for them. It also has the potential to recon-
nect and revitalize relationships between people, groups,
and institutions that have become distanced by the conven-
tional system (Kloppenburg, Hendrickson, and Stevenson
Culture & Agriculture
1996). Thus, through its social and economic benefits, a local
food system helps rebuild community (Norberg-Hodge 19%,
1998). Elements of local food systems include farmers'mar-
kets, direct marketing, food co-ops, roadside stands, "buy-
local"campaigns, institutional buying agreements, and Com-
munity Supported Agriculture (CSA).
The (re-)emergence of local food systems runs counter
to several current trends in U.S. food consumption patterns.
During the 1990s, spending on food away from home grew
much more rapidly than spending on food at home (Ciauson
2000). Of every dollar spent on food in this country, 47 cents
is spent on food eaten away from home. Much of the addi-
tional away-from-home food expenditures occur at fast food
venues (Jekanowski 2000), whose growth has vastly out-
paced other commercial dining establishments (Price 2000).
Food purchased to be eaten at home increasingly includes
quick, easily prepared meals, often relying on pre-processed
elements to reduce preparation time (e.g., already sliced veg-
etables, marinated meats, etc.) (Elitzak 2000). Only slightly
more than half of the dinners eaten in American homes have
one or more homemade dishes (Bowers 2000). Despite a sig-
nificant rise in consumer spending on food, farmers' earn-
ings on each food dollar have remained flat. This is largely
accounted for by rising marketing costs, such as the value-
added processing and packaging of at-home foods (Bowers
2000). Since the allocation of food dollars is closely related to
changes in disposable income (Blisard 2000), these trends
reflect, at least partly, the general (though certainly not uni-
versal) prosperity of the past decade. Also driving the trends
are longer workdays, and a greater number of households in
which both adults work outside the home (Jekanowski 1999).
Consumers are eating out more but, when staying home,
they seek to purchase foods that will minimize the time they
spend preparing foods. In contrast, local food systems offer
produce so minimally processed that dirt may still be cling-
ing to it. Produce available from local food sources both
beckons consumers back home to eat and increases their
food preparation time.
My focus here is on CSAs, one element of a local food
system. Specifically, I examine the ease or difficulty with
which individuals shift towards obtaining food from this
local source, given the patterns favoring convenience noted
above. My concern is whether the relative inconvenience oi
14 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2001
dealing with fresh produce impacts the experience of CSA
members, and how this relates to member commitment.
While we know that the desire for fresh organic produce
motivates many consumers to join CSAs (Kane 1997; Laird
1998) and that their diets do differ nutritionally from non-
members (Cohen et al. 1997), little attention has been given
to how the convenience factor has played out as the lived
experience of CSA members. In this paper, I briefly review
the opportunities provided by CSAs, and then turn my at-
tention to examining the challenge of high turnover among
CSA members. I hope to make three modest points: (1) CSAs
require their members to deal with food, food processing,
and meal preparation in a way which may be unfamiliar to
them; (2) The challenge of dealing with food and meal pre-
paration in new ways is responsible for much of the high
turnover rate experienced by CSAs; and (3) CSA members
who have environmental and social concerns and have con-
ceptually linked these to the food system are most likely to
endure as CSA shareholders.
What Is CSA?
Community Supported Agriculture is a direct partner-
ship between a farmer/grower and consumers. Consumers
pay an annual fee up-front (often before planting has even
occurred) in exchange for a weekly share of the future har-
vest. If the garden produces well, the consumer shareholders
will receive a bountiful array of vegetables and fruits. If the
garden or certain items in it fail, shareholders may receive
less overall, or even none of certain items. Thus, the central
element in CSA definition is that growers and consumers
share together in the food bounty as well as the risk inherent
in its production.
The first CSAs in this country were established in 1986
in the Northeast. They remain most densely located there,
although CSAs are now found in every state. But the origins
of CSA date back at least thirty years when Japanese women,
concerned with the increased price of food, asked local
farmers to grow directly for them. The farmers agreed, on
the condition that a number of families agree to support
them. In Japanese, this concept is referred to as "teikei," mean-
ing "partnership," but is literally translated to mean "food
with the farmer's face on it" (Wells, Gradwell, and Yoder
1999:38). In comparison, one face ubiquitously associated
with food in the United States, and increasingly throughout
much of the rest of the world, is Ronald McDonald's. This is
an apt contrast, since CSAs represent a movement away
from the globalized and homogenized food system so un-
flinchingly represented by Ronald (Ritzer 2000).
Culture & Agriculture
As local food systems, CSAs provide a number of bene-
fits in contrast to the global alternative. CSAs reduce the hid-
den costs associated with our food system. Food travels far
when produced and distributed in the conventional food sys-
tem. Estimates of the distance food travels on average range
from 1,129 to 2,146 miles (Pirog et al. 2001). In contrast, food
circulating in CSAs travels a maximum of 200 miles (Imhoff
1996) and typically far less. Thus, less energy is consumed
transporting food. Farmland is preserved and since CSAs
seem to be particularly successful as a link between rural
producers and urban consumers, this is especially important
on the urban fringe where development pressures are so
intense (Kelvin 1994). CSAs also reduce the waste-stream
associated with our food system, by minimizing the need for
packaging (Kittredge 1996). In contrast to conventional crop -
ping systems, CSA food is typically produced using organic,
or at least "ecological sensitive," methods (Van En 1997). As
sustainable agricultural systems, they rely on regionally ap-
propriate food varieties and production methods. These fac-
tors, in addition to the freedom to select varieties other than
those bred to transport and store well, maintain biodiversity
and local ecological knowledge. Therefore, in addition to the
direct benefits CSAs provide to their members, they also
supply externalized environmental benefits that are distrib-
uted across a wider community (Lass and Sanneh 1997). As
food dollars are kept circulating locally, the community
benefits economically (Kittredge 1996).
For those who do participate in CSAs, there are addi-
tional direct benefits. For growers, CSA provides a way for
them to share the risk of food production. It does so by guar-
anteeing them their market. They do not have to spend time
during the growing season searching for markets, they do
not have to contend with the economic risk of climate or
pests that may leave them with no product to market, nor do
they have to contend with the risk of selling produce in a
flooded market where prices will be low. And because the
annual fee is paid up-front, the CSA farmer gets an influx of
cash to cover operating expenses at the same time his or her
conventional neighbor is signing a note for a loan to cover
operating expenses.
Consumers also benefit. They are provided with food
they see as "safe," and that safety arises because of the near-
universal tendency for CSA produce to be grown using sus-
tainable, often organic, methods. The fact that it is "local,"
and has a face associated with it, provides a measure of trust
even in the absence of any certification process. Through this
arrangement, shareholders pay significantly less than they
would for comparable produce purchased retail (Cooley and
Lass 1998). At least part of this saving derives from avoiding
15 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002
spending large portions of their food dollars for long-distance
transport. And, weather and pests permitting, shareholders
are guaranteed regular, fresh, local, organic produce.
Each CSA is Different
Currently there are over 1,000 CSAs operating in the
U.S. and Canada, serving perhaps as many as 100,000 house-
holds (Center for CSA Resources). A 1992 study of CSAs
found they had between 35 and 200 members, and that the
average CSA farm was 14 hectares in size (Greer 1999). The
typical weekly share consisted of 3-5 kilograms of food, com-
monly divided between 6-12 items. Per week, prices ranged
from $10-35. The average share cost $346 for 22 weeks of pro-
duce, but the range in membership cost was $225-500 on an
annual basis (Greer 1999). Recently, CSAs have been grow-
ing larger, with 200-400 shareholders not uncommon. For ex-
ample, one CSA farm in Illinois now serves over 800 house-
holds weekly. Beyond differences in the size of the farm,
acreage, and membership, there are many variations on the
CSA theme.
CSAs have been created in various ways. In many in-
stances, the farmer initiates the CSA. The farmer may al-
ready be experienced growing food and seeks to alter his or
her marketing arrangement, switching from reliance on con-
ventional markets to a CSA arrangement. Or a new farmer
may also choose to begin with a CSA as a small-scale entry
that requires little overhead or mechanization. In either case,
the farmer must seek out shareholders. Other times, a CSA
may be initiated by a consumer or a group of consumers
who want to create a CSA. This initial group may serve as
the "core group." This "core group" later serves as a decision
making body and assumes many responsibilities for organiz-
ing the work of the CSA, including recruiting members,
scheduling on-farm work parties, organizing distributions,
setting budgets, managing accounts, and even determining
what will be grown and setting share prices. An active core
group helps ensure that the grower will know the needs of
members, and vice versa. Strong communication between
growers and members may be vital to the successful oper-
ation of the CSA (Henderson 1998).
Some CSAs offer a one-size-fits-all share, while others
may offer as many as five different options. Shares may be
sold as large (full, whole, family) or small (half, partial, indi-
vidual), basic or gourmet (differences in variety), and even
bulk or "canning" shares (with large quantities of a particu-
lar item). Another variation is whether or not shares involve
members' work. In some CSAs, shareholders may be offered
the opportunity to work a given number of hours per week,
month, or season in exchange for a partial or full reduction
Culture & Agriculture
in the cost oi their share. Some CSAs require their members
to work (22 percent of them, according to Laird's 1995 sur-
vey, cited in Henderson 1999: 80), but these appear to be in
the minority. The willingness or ability of shareholders to
contribute labor depends in part on where the farm is lo-
cated relative to its member base.
One of the biggest logistical challenges for CSAs is how
to get food from field to home. Distribution is determined by
a number of factors: distance between farm and shareholder
homes, refrigeration possibility, trucking and storage capa-
city, in addition to labor availability. One common arrange-
ment is to have shareholders come to the farm to pick up
their allotment. This arrangement provides members with
the opportunity to pack their own share, saving labor for the
grower and/or other members responsible for coordinating
the distribution. Some CSAs give members significant choice
in the composition of their weekly share, providing "mix-
and-match" possibilities among the array of items available
at that time. Other CSAs may rely on a central distribution
site (e.g., the parking lot of a school) or several different sites
(sometimes provided by shareholders) and have a 2-3 hour
period once a week when shares can be retrieved. This may
provide less opportunity for shareholder choice, but is ad-
vantageous when the distance from the shareholders' homes
to the farm is great. Finally, some CSAs may deliver bagged
shares to the shareholder's front doorstep.
Thus, CSAs vary significantly in terms of both origins
and ultimate form. Involvement of shareholders in the work
of the farm, logistics of produce delivery, and even a will-
ingness to tailor share size and composition to individual
needs, are all aspects of CSA organization that together give
each CSA a distinctive character. How these aspects of varia-
bility ultimately affect CSA success, such as shareholder
satisfaction, reduction of farmer workload, or the goal of fos-
tering a greater sense of connectedness to land is as yet
understudied.
Maintaining Membership: A Challenge to CSA Viability
Obtaining organic produce through a CSA is a money-
saving proposition, compared to purchasing organic pro-
duce at a store or even compared to purchasing conventional
produce at the store (Cooley and Lass 1998). Yet for many
shareholders, the money is a secondary consideration (Greer
1999). Obviously, shareholders join CSAs because they want
access to fresh organic produce. Because they can typically
get that in other, sometimes more convenient ways, and be-
cause saving money is not a prime incentive, other factors
are also important in this rather significant decision to pay in
advance for goods promised.
16 Vol. 24, No. I Spring 2002
 Social, political, and environmental concerns are impor-
tant in motivating people to join a CSA. Kane's interviews
with Southeastern CSA shareholders show that "desire for
organic produce" is the top reason shareholders joined a
CSA, followed by "freshness." After that, the desire for "lo-
cally grown produce/' to "support a local farmer," "concern
for the environment," and to "support a small farmer," are
all listed as important reasons for joining a CSA (Kane 1997).
Likewise, the North Carolina shareholders studied by
Andreatta (2000) joined their CSA for organic, locally grown,
fresh produce, and to support a local farmer. Laird (1998)
found a similar pattern in that the most popular reason for
joining was to obtain fresh organic food. Other reasons, such
as to support local agriculture, and to know who grows their
food, were cited much less frequently. Kolodinsky and Pelch
(1997) found that neither purchasing organic food nor
social/political awareness alone <:ould predict which Ver-
mont consumers would join CSAs. They found, instead, that
the individual who is both an organic shopper and holds par-
ticular social/political views is most likely to become a CSA
member.
Thus, many people join CSAs primarily because CSAs
provide access to fresh, often organic, produce. However,
people also join CSAs because they are concerned about the
environment in general, because they have made the link
between conventional food production and environmental
degradation, because of a concern with the loss of small
farms and farmland, and because they want to counteract
trends towards globalization with a move towards localiza-
tion. Less clear is how these different motivations may
ultimately impact the functioning of a CSA and the share-
holders experience of membership in a CSA.
Despite the gastronomic and ideological promises of
CSA, membership turnover is high, running about 50 per-
cent a year, and typically even higher in the early years of a
CSA (DeLind and Fackler 1999; Greer 1999). High turnover
uses economic, labor, and monetary resources of a CSA
which would more productively be applied to growing food
(Laird 1998). Clearly, the economic incentive of saving sub-
stantial sums of money is not sufficient to keep CSA share-
holders. For most (64 percent) shareholders surveyed in six
southeastern U.S. CSAs in 1996, the value they perceived of
their CSA experience decreased after their initial season as
a CSA member (Kane 1997). Ironically, the very thing that
most excited them in the Spring was the same thing that
drove their discontent in the Fall. In the Spring, new share-
holders expressed excited anticipation at the chance to try
new kinds of vegetables and increase their overall vegetable
consumption. Yet by Fall this excitement had turned to
Culture & Agriculture
frustration at trying to incorporate those same foods into
their diets. Such high rates of turnover and apparent dissat-
isfaction signal that, while CSAs may hold great promise,
they also must confront some serious challenges to their via-
bility. One apparent reason for turnover seems to revolve
around eating patterns. This issue provides the focus for the
present study.
Research Design
In order to examine issues related to CSA experiences
and diet, I undertook a study of a newly formed CSA in
Central Ohio. The opportunity to work with a new CSA
meant the easy identification of a group of novice CSA mem-
bers, a group most likely to be confronting the challenges of
CSA shareholding. The data gathering that took place in
1999 was initiated as a pilot project for a longer-term, multi-
faceted study of CSAs—both shareholders and growers.
Green Valley Farm (not its real name) began in 1999 on
3lA acres of organic gardens. The farmer decided to sell a
portion of the produce to CSA members, while another por-
tion of it was sold at a roadside stand. Though they had the
same name, two CSAs actually formed around the farm, re-
flecting two different networks the grower used to recruit
members. One, affiliated with a local college, had 21 mem-
bers. Faculty members assisted in recruiting via e-mail. The
other, associated with a local health food store, recruited 16
members. Brochures were passed out at the health food store
and the owners helped in recruitment. Local newspaper cov-
erage also led to several memberships in this CSA.
Because the college CSA actually crystallized a few
weeks later than the health food store CSA, its shares were
sold at a slightly discounted rate, $180 for the season, com-
pared to $200 for the season for the initial CSA. The college
CSA took delivery on Thursday afternoons in a parking lot
on campus and the health food store CSA had its delivery at
the store on Wednesdays. Both groups received essentially
the same produce. Most members (three-fourths) purchased
a full share and the remainder split a share with someone
else. About once a month a recipe list was included with
deliveries.
The season ran from early June to mid-October- Share-
holders were told to expect between 3 and 5 kilograms of
vegetables each week for 18 to 20 weeks. Each week's share
contained between five and eight different items, depending
on what the garden was producing. For example, a shipment
from June could include mixed lettuce and baby greens,
spinach or Chinese cabbage, snow peas or shell peas, rad-
ishes or scallions, broccoli or rapini, and new potatoes. A
17 Vol. 24, No. \ Spring 2002
 mid-season share would contain tomatoes (slicing and
cherry), sweet peppers, green beans, summer squash, cab-
bage, potatoes, cucumbers, chard, sweet corn, basil, or pars-
ley. The end of the season saw such items included as pars-
nips and carrots, escarole or romaine lettuce, red onions or
leeks, butternut squash, root vegetables like rutabaga, tur-
nip, or beets, and brussel sprouts, kale, or broccoli.
In collaboration with the farmer, the author (who is not
a member of either CSA) developed a survey to be sent to all
members of the two CSAs. Earlier surveys by Kane (1997) in
the Southeast were used as a model. The survey instrument
included structured and open-ended questions. All CSA
shareholders were sent mail surveys at the start of the
growing season and again after their CSA season had been
completed.
In the Spring, respondents were queried for information
on how they first heard about their CSA, if they had previ-
ously been a CSA shareholder (if so, where, when, and why
they terminated their membership), and whether or not they
knew others who had been part of a CSA. In the Spring, they
were asked about their expectations of the produce they
would receive (varieties, quality) and what proportion of
their produce needs their share or partial share would meet.
They were provided a list of possible reasons for joining a
CSA and asked to rate each one on a 1-5 scale. They were
further asked to rate a variety of sources of information used
in forming their expectations. They were then asked to indi-
cate their willingness to pay more for their share, given their
stated expectations. In the Spring, informants were also
asked to recall dinners for the previous week, and to indicate
the number of days they ate at home, the dishes they ate,
and the main ingredients in each of them. Finally, respon-
dents were asked to provide basic demographic information
(sex, household composition, community type, education,
and income) as well as additional information on habits such
as gardening, composting, recycling, etc.
In the Fall, after the conclusion of the CSA season, share-
holders were again asked to complete a questionnaire, in
which much of the same information was collected again,
retrospectively. Thus, instead of asking respondents to de-
scribe the variety and quality of produce they expected to
receive, they were asked to describe the kinds and quality of
fruits and vegetables that they did receive. They were asked
about changes in food-related behaviors as a result of being
a CSA member (e.g., if they ate more produce or not and if
they ate a greater variety or not). They were provided the
opportunity to elaborate in a more open-ended manner. Re-
spondents were asked to indicate if they had changed the
amount of time preparing food, and where they would have
Culture &• Agriculture 18
purchased produce had they not joined the CSA. As in the
Spring, they were provided a list of possible reasons for
participating in a CSA and asked to rate the importance of
each. They were also asked to rate whether or not their ex-
perience of being a CSA member exceeded, met, or fell short
of their expectations. They were provided space to indicate
which items they would like more of and those they would
like less of, and queried about why some food did not get
eaten and what they did with any excess. They were pro-
vided a specific list of aspects of the CSA experience (i.e.,
"quantity of produce," "quality of produce," "convenience
of distribution site") and asked to rate their level of satis-
faction with each. Again, they were asked to indicate their
willingness to pay more—or less—for a share than they had.
Respondents were also asked to indicate the likelihood of
rejoining Green Valley CSA or joining another CSA. Finally,
demographic information was again collected.
In both Spring and Fall, 37 surveys were mailed to CSA
members and, following Dillman's (1978) total design
method, a postcard reminder was sent one week later and
replacement surveys were sent out three weeks after the
reminder. In the Spring, 23 of 37 shareholders (62 percent)
returned their surveys and 24 of 37 (65 percent) did so in the
Fall. While the response rate was thus quite high, the overall
number of respondents is nonetheless modest. Consequently,
the findings presented below are offered as tentative and
suggestive of future studies.
Findings
Demographics
The typical shareholder is female, 50 years old, and lives
in a suburban setting with one other adult and one child
(aged 13) living in the home. The modal annual income
among respondents is between $25,000 and $49,000, and the
modal education is a graduate or professional degree (Table
1). Thus, like CSA members elsewhere (Cone and
Kakaliouras 1995; Kane 1997), the Green Valley shareholders
as a group are relatively well-educated and financially
comfortable.
Spring: Reasons for Joining and Expectations
None of the Green Valley CSA shareholders had been a
member of another CSA before joining Green Valley. Many
heard about the CSA through a friend (26 percent) or the
media (17 percent)—the local newspaper had run an article
about it. The largest proportion heard about the CSA via an
email circulating around the local college campus. Few knew
other people who have been members of a CSA or had even
Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002
 that it might be a bit dirty or have insect scars. Others, how-
Table 1 ever, also expressed the hope that it be clean and free from
Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
bugs. The majority (61 percent of respondents) expected to
Fall Spring have all or most of their produce needs met by their share
Community (or partial share). Such enthusiasm and high expectations led
Urban 3 1
Suburban 14.5 16
many shareholders in the Spring to declare that they would
Rural 4.5 6 have paid even more for a share. About half the respondents
said they would have been willing to pay 10 percent or 20
Income percent more for their produce share in Green Valley Farm.
< $25,000 1 1
25-49,000 8 9
50-74,000 4 4 Fall: Expectations Not Met
75-99,000 3 1 By Fall, few still felt willing to pay more, based on their
100-124,000 2 2
> $125,000 1 1 experience. Follow up with shareholders showed that, while
some were pleased with their experience, a sizable number
Education had been disappointed. Thirteen of 24 respondents (54 per-
H.S. or less 2 2
Some college or tech 6 7 cent) reported that the experience fell short of their expecta-
Undergrad degree 6 4 tions (Table 3), while 8 percent and 13 percent indicated that
Grad/Prof degree 10 10 their expectations were matched or exceeded, respectively
Household Composition
(the remaining respondents claimed they had no expecta-
Number of women/men responding 19/5 18/4 tions). Not surprisingly then, a large proportion (two-thirds;
Avg. age of respondent 50.5 48.5 16 of 24) of shareholders said it was unlikely that they would
Range 36-66 35-66
Avg. number of children in home 0.7 0.7
rejoin their CSA the following year. Indeed, the following
Range 0-3 0-3 year Green Valley CSA had only eight shareholders, five at
Avg. age of all children 13.1 13 the health food store and three at the college. Of these, less
than half were repeat members.
An unexpected source of dissatisfaction arose as CSA
been familiar with the concept before being introduced to it members compared the produce they received to what was
in the context of Green Valley CSA. Their reasons for joining available at Green Valley's roadside stand. Several men-
are diverse, but among those given as most important were tioned the impression that shareholders received inferior
the desire for produce which was fresh, in-season, and or- produce, while the better (bigger, cleaner) vegetables were
ganic (Table 2). Respondents also indicated that health rea- marketed at the stand. One woman who picked up her share
sons and issues of trust (that is, knowing where and how at the farm stand because of having to miss the CSA delivery
their food is grown) were important factors motivating their felt, after seeing the produce for sale at the stand, that CSA
decision to join a CSA. In other words, the most prominent members received inferior vegetables that were "more scar-
reasons for deciding to join the CSA were all related to red and less attractive." Her explanation was that "they were
qualities of the food they would receive. In contrast, environ- giving the people that prepaid the worst of the lot, while the
mental and social reasons seem to be less important to share- public selecting their own for purchase received the better
holders as a group. Shareholders were asked about the im- quality produce." Another shareholder, who had simply
portance of a general concern for the environment, reducing heard by word of mouth of the large-sized vegetables for
packaging, concern for the land, supporting a small farmer, sale at the stand, responded, "I felt that we helped float the
creating a sense of community, and having a recreational project with our money up front. That should have made a
activity in the decision to join. All of these factors were re- difference in what we got each week."
garded as substantially less important than those related to The central reason shareholders gave for not rejoining
individual diet. their CSA centered around dealing with the food they re-
In describing the quality of the produce they expected to ceived, and in particular, coping with the influx of foods
receive, they used words such as "highest quality," "supe- which they may not like, or may receive in quantities that do
rior," "fresh," "flavorful," and "top." At the same time, at not match their eating patterns. Shareholders mentioned that
least some indicated they understood that the produce might food went to waste, that they received too much of items
look different from the typical fare in the grocery store, or they or their families did not like, and that they wanted to

Culture & Agriculture 19 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002

Table 2
Importance of Various Reasons for Joining the CSA

Not Important Very Important Average

1 2 3 4 5
Desire for:
Fresh produce 0% 0% 0% 4% 96% 5.0
Locally grown produce 4% 0% 30% 26% 39% 4.0
Organic produce 0% 13% 9% 26% 52% 4.2
A sense of community 9% 9% 35% 30% 17% 3.4
A recreational activity 39% 9% 35% 13% 4% 2.3

Desire to:
Reduce packaging 17% 13% 30% 17% 22% 3.1
Educate self 17% 4% 39% 22% 17% 3.2
Support a small farmer 13% 0% 17% 43% 26% 3.7
Educate family 26% 9% 30% 22% 13% 2.9
Support a local farmer 13% 0% 13% 43% 30% 3.8
Eat produce in-season 0% 0% 9% 22% 70% 4.6
Try new foods 0% 9% 30% 22% 39% 3.9

Other factors:
Convenience 9% 9% 30% 35% 17% 3.4
Opportunity to work on a farm 45% 27% 14% 14% 0% 2.0
Concern for the land 4% 9% 39% 22% 26% 3.6
Health/Dietary reasons 0% 0% 14% 27% 59% 4.5
Knowing where/how food is grown 0% 0% 22% 22% 57% 4.3
General concern for environment 4% 9% 22% 35% 30% 3.8

exercise more choice about what foods they received.
Ninety-two percent reported that they had received food at
some point that they had not consumed. Over half the time,
the reason the food was not eaten was that there was simply
too much, or too much of items not liked (Table 4). Only
about one-third of respondents mentioned not eating items
because they were of poor quality. Several related that some
food went uneaten because they were unfamiliar with the
food item and did not know how to prepare it. Of this
unused food, some of it ended up in the compost heap (50
percent of respondents did this at least once), more fre-
quently it was thrown away (59 percent), but most often un-
wanted or unused food was given to someone else (82 per-
cent of respondents availed themselves of this strategy). In
Tucson households studied by the Garbage Project, one
Table 3
Fall—Degree to Which Expectations of Shareholders
Were Met
Number of
Statement Respondents Agreeing Percent
response to the 1973 meat shortage was to buy up large
amounts of meat when available, including unfamiliar cuts.
The result was greater meat waste during this crisis, as con-
sumers were apparently unable to store such large quantities
and unfamiliar with satisfactory ways to prepare new cuts
(Rathje and Murphy 1992:60-61). Like the Garbage Project
subjects who wasted food in a fit of crisis-buying, respon-
dents in this study often wasted food due to issues of
quantity or familiarity.
Thus, although in the Spring these rookie CSA members
expressed high hopes and eager anticipation of the experi-
ence they were about to embark upon, by the Fall many had
become disillusioned. This is not, I believe, due to some par-
ticular shortcoming of Green Valley CSA. The two-thirds
who say they will not join again is typical of CSA retention
rates, especially in the first few years. Shareholders' com-
ments make it clear that much of the dissatisfaction stems
from issues related to food processing and preparation, and
meal planning, or what Laird (1998) more generally char-
acterizes as "CSA inconvenience."

Had no expectations 6 25 Diet and Meal Preparation

Fell short of expectations 13 54 In the Spring survey, respondents were asked to recount
Matched expectations 2 8
Exceeded expectations 3 13 the prior seven dinner meals eaten at home. This was done
as a way of trying to understand their dietary patterns prior

Culture & Agriculture 20 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002


Table 4
Reasons Given for Why Some Food Was Not Eaten
Proportion of
Reason Given Respondents
There was too much of it 50%
There were food items my household doesn't like 55%
The quality was poor 32%
It spoiled before I could eat it 50%
Other 18%
Note: More than one response possible.
to being influenced by the arrival of CSA produce in their
homes. I focused on dinner as a way of limiting the amount
of recall they were asked to do, and on the assumption that
dinner was the meal of the day most likely to show changes
as a result of CSA membership. From the information pro-
vided, a main dish and side dish(es) were identified, where
appropriate. Thus, for the informant who indicated that the
"dishes eaten for dinner" on a giver, day were "chicken
paprikash, rice, tossed salad, carrots," the first was coded as
the main dish and the others were considered side dishes.
The information provided on the main ingredients used in
all dishes was also coded and tallied.
Respondents reported that, on average, they ate five
dinner meals at home during a week. For those meals con-
sumed at home the previous week they listed the dishes pre-
pared and the main ingredients used. In general, most re-
spondents indicated an eating pattern that included a main
dish of meat, poultry, or fish. Of the 83 main dishes described
by respondents, 57 were based on meat (n=28), poultry (n=21),
or fish (n=8). Main dish pastas (n=10) or salads (n=9), com-
prised much of the remainder. Hamburgers, bratwurst, and
steak were the most frequent main dishes, as were salmon
and chicken stir-fry. Vegetables were included in almost all
of the meals as side dishes and salads. Potatoes were most
commonly used (13 times), while onions, spinach, carrots,
"greens," corn, and lettuce were each mentioned as being
eaten more than five times during the previous week. Every
other vegetable was utilized five or fewer times among the
aggregate 83 meals. In short, the kind of items supplied by
the CSA do not appear to be used as mainstays of the diet of
most CSA member households. This raises the possibility
that the diverse array of vegetables provided by the CSA
may have been incorporated into many households' diets
only with great difficulty, if at all. One shareholder, who
indicated that she had spent more time preparing food as a
result of participating in the CSA, affirmed that it "forced me
Culture & Agriculture
to find new ways to prepare foods and to try more
vegetables."
Some shareholders viewed themselves as already being
heavy consumers of fresh vegetables and adventurous eat-
ers. In the Fall, they felt that their CSA membership experi-
ence did not really alter the quantity or variety of vegetables
they ate, nor did it affect the amount of time spent in food
preparation. Shareholders who identified themselves as veg-
etarians seemed to be the most satisfied with their CSA ex-
perience. There is a strong correlation (r = 0.50; p < 0.05) be-
tween being a vegetarian and likelihood of rejoining the
Green Valley CSA the following year. The vegetarians are
the CSA members most willing and able to incorporate the
variety produced into their meals.
Other shareholders expressed the strong sense that, as
a result of joining a CSA, they had altered their eating pat-
terns because they ate more and a greater variety of produce.
They also spent more time preparing food as a result of
joining a CSA. In general, these shareholders wanted to re-
ceive more of the "basic" produce items (green beans, corn,
bell peppers, and potatoes) and less leafy greens and other
"exotics." One respondent put it more generally by stating
her desire for the "opportunity to have more control over the
food I got each week."
Shareholder Satisfaction and Commitment
It would seem that despite the culinary and ideological
appeal of the CSA concept, many shareholders are not pre-
pared to deal with the unfamiliar foods, or familiar foods in
unpredicted (and from their perspective, uncontrollable)
quantities. As in CSAs studied elsewhere (Kane 1997), the
discomfort of incorporating new foods and preparations im-
pacts membership retention. When the likelihood of joining
the Green Valley CSA in the future is correlated with mea-
sures of various aspects of satisfaction with the CSA experi-
ence, the strongest correlation is found to be with satisfaction
regarding variety. That is, shareholders who expressed satis-
faction regarding the variety of produce they received were
those most likely to anticipate rejoining Green Valley CSA
again the following year (Table 5). Viewed another way,
those most dissatisfied with variety were most likely to drop
out of the CSA. The qualitative comments make clear that
points of dissatisfaction concerning variety center on having
too much of unfamiliar, "exotic" items and too little of the
staple items. One shareholder, who politely declined to join
again, stated she "felt there was too much waste of foods
[the] family would not eat." Satisfaction with taste and fresh-
ness were much less strongly correlated, because share-
21 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002
 regard to the likelihood of joining again. Ideological com-
Table 5 mitment to the environmental and social issues embodied by
Significant Correlations with the Likelihood of Joining
Again the Next Year
CSA is significant, in addition to dietary issues. Those most
likely to rejoin their CSA also expressed that they wanted to
N Correlation
be part of a CSA not just (1) for health/dietary reasons, but
Satisfaction with various aspects also to (2) support a local farmer, (3) reduce packaging, (4)
of the experience: know where and how their food is grown, and (5) because of
Quality (taste) of produce 24 .412 *
Variety/mix of produce 24 .699 "
their general concern for the environment. Each of these
Convenience of distribution day/time 24 .495 * correlations is significant (Table 5). In this study, those who
voice environmental and social concerns related to the food
Reasons for wanting to participate
in a CSA farm:
system are those most likely to remain committed to CSA
Desire to ... membership. Similarly, Cone and Myhre (2000) found a
Reduce packaging 24 .447 * strong correlation between members who articulated an un-
Support a local farmer 23 .430 * derstanding of the civic and spiritual implications of CSAs
Other
Health/Dietary reasons 24 .405 * and active participation in the farm. Andreatta studied a
Knowing where/how my food is grown 24 .459 * North Carolina CSA with very high membership retention
General concern for the environment 24 .501 * and observes that those consumers "are mostly committing
* Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) themselves to a grower, and not just to the food in a bag"
** Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) (2000:47).
These statistical abstractions illustrate the characteriza-
tion of CSAs as having a dual personality (Cone and
holders more consistently expressed relatively high satis- Kakaliouras 1995; DeLind and Ferguson 1999). On the one
faction with these factors. hand, they are seen optimistically as "a concrete example of
In the journey between field and table, the promise of economic exchanges conditioned by pleasure, friendship,
CSA loses its appeal. Unlike a CSA shareholder quoted by aesthetics, affection, loyalty, justice, and reciprocity in addi-
DeLind (1999) who stated "I used to think about what I tion to the factors of cost (not price) and quality" (Kloppen-
wanted to eat and then go to the store and buy it. Now, I burg, Hendrickson, and Stevenson 1996:115-116). In this
open my refrigerator and say 'What can I make with an view, CSAs are a political and philosophical statement about
onion, a pepper, two summer squash, and a half pound of the relationships that should inhere between producers and
chard? It's a wonderful challenge,'" many of the Green Val- consumers, between people and the land, in short, the rela-
ley CSA members seem unable, or unwilling, to adopt new tionships that form a community of people, embedded in
patterns and behaviors that allow them to eat with the rhy- place. On the other hand, CSAs are a marketing arrange-
thms of the farm. Shareholder satisfaction seems in large ment. Esteva (1994:12) voices skepticism about the promises
measure to be related to willingness to incorporate the foods made by CSAs, raising the question of whether CSAs might
provided by the CSA into meals, to use the food bounty be just another vehicle by which "'smart' consumers are
distributed by the CSA to drive menu planning. This stands finding another source of healthy, fresh, organic food; [and]
in contrast to more typical patterns, which include purchas- 'smart' producers are finding an alternative market, to get
ing foods according to planned meals, relying on prepared stability in their income and better conditions."
foods, or simply utilizing a smaller set of staple foods to cre- This dual nature of CSAs, in turn, establishes an inher-
ate familiar meals. ent tension. For some consumers, CSAs represent an act of
On the other hand, there is an additional element that rebellion, an option for withdrawing from the conventional
appears to be important to shareholder satisfaction. The marketplace and for creating a different kind of relationship
Spring survey showed that environmental and social issues between themselves and their food, the people who grow it,
did not factor prominently into most shareholders reasons and the land from which it comes. In the language of Klop-
for i?ritially joining the Green Valley CSA (although there penburg, Hendrickson, and Stevenson (1996:117), CSAs in
were some members who reported that such concerns had this context represent a "movement of self-protection," an
factored into their decision to join). In the Fall, I asked re- alternative that exists alongside the dominant system, or
spondents again to indicate the importance of various rea- "secession," "a strategic preference for withdrawing from
sons for wanting to join a CSA, and examined this with and/or creating alternatives to the dominant system." Such

Culture & Agriculture 22 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002

movements "maintain or create alternatives that will eventu-
ally bring substantive change" (Kloppenburg, Hendrickson,
and Stevenson 1996:117). CSAs may invite consumers to
challenge the assumption that food should be convenient,
and in doing so encourage members to directly confront the
premises of the global grocery and dominant consumer cul-
ture from which they have previously obtained their food.
There is reason for legitimate concern, however. While
this invitation to critical examination is an attractive poten-
tial of CSAs, such potential may be undermined by pressure
on growers or core groups to configure CSAs to more closely
fit the prevailing consumer culture. Thus, care is taken to
make available only unblemished produce, hiding that
which is scarred or has worm holes. Deliveries are made to
door steps, in order to avoid inconveniencing shareholders
with the burden of a pick-up. If, in the interest of retaining
members, the CSA must reconfigure itself to more neatly
match the expectations derived from the prevailing con-
sumer culture, its power as a change agent is diluted. This is
the territory DeLind and Fackler (1999:5) recognize as "both
attractive and treacherous, causing considerable internal ten-
sion not only between farmers and share members, but also
within individual farmers themselves." Here CSAs must ne-
gotiate whether they are "a vehicle for entrepreneurial activ-
ity" or "a venue for the creation of common wealth" (DeLind
and Fackler 1999:5). An individual may enter a CSA as an act
of resistance or as a savvy consumer. When convenience
dominates, resistance gives way to consumerism.
Conclusion
I have focused here on whether or not shareholders in a
CSA—as food preparers and food consumers—are willing to
adjust to the special characteristics of eating within a CSA
regime. My results suggest that for many consumers (prob-
ably that 50 percent which turnover each year, as a general
pattern) CSA membership is a challenge, one in which high
expectations quickly turn to disappointment. Many CSAs
have recognized this problem, and have stepped up with
solutions to it. My findings suggest that such assistance
could help alleviate some of the root causes of low member
retention. Strategies include providing information sheets to
identify new items in the weekly shares, supplying recipes
for their use, and more choice about the composition of
weekly shares, both in terms of selecting particular items
and determining for themselves quantities. As yet, there has
been no study determining if these strategies improve share-
holder satisfaction and retention rates. And we must ask,
too, if the small farmer, typical of CSA growers, is fairly
Culture & Agriculture
burdened with the additional responsibility of educating
consumers.
Even if so, educating shareholders in how to deal with
the produce they receive is at best a partial solution to the
problem of turnover. The results presented here show that
people who join a CSA simply because they want fresh or-
ganic vegetables are not likely to remain members for long.
Indeed, there are other—easier—ways to obtain such pro-
duce. These consumers confront directly the contrast noted
by Gussow (1999:17) between the packaged convenience of
the global food system and the time and skills demanded by
the sustainable food system. Gussow (1999:17) suggests that
the latter will require consumers "to change how they plan,
how they shop, how they prepare food. Many are unwilling
or unable to make this change."
Shareholders who are most likely to stay committed to
the CSA are those who joined not just to obtain a certain
kind of produce, but also because of social and environ-
mental concerns. Like other social movements, CSAs illus-
trate that successful recruitment and retention may turn on
key issues related to frame alignment (Snow et al. 1986). That
is, identifying and communicating the interests common
both to the movement (in this case, CSAs) and the individ-
ual. CSAs seeking new members should target those groups
and individuals who show concern about, and commitment
to, social and environmental issues. Recruiting new mem-
bers from these groups, by showing how those concerns are
reflected and can be acted on in the context of the food
system, will increase the likelihood of finding CSA share-
holders who will endure.
Consumers have tremendous potential for reforming the
food system, and that potential is premised on consumers
making the connection between the food they eat and the
system that supplies their food. CSAs represent an oppor-
tunity to help people make the link between the food they
eat and the environment and community around them. In
doing so, CSAs may realize their promise for creating the
kind of food system, a local food system, that can help re-
dress the environmental and social problems associated with
our current globalized food system.
Acknowledgments
The author extends thanks to Sarah Bauer and Trish Mumme
for help and collaboration in collecting the data for this study.
Thanks also go to Abram Kaplan, Katrina Korfmacher, and anon-
ymous reviewers who all offered insightful and valuable com-
ments on earlier versions of this paper.
23 Vol. 24, No. \ Spring 2002
References Cited
American Farmland Trust
1997 American Farmland Special Issue on Sprawl.
Andreatta, Susan L.
2000 Marketing Strategies and Challenges of Small-Scale Or-
ganic Producers in Central North Carolina. Culture &
Agriculture 22(3):40-50.
Berry, Wendell
1999 The Death of Rural Communities. The Ecologist 29(3):183-
184.
Blisard, Noel
2000 Food Spending by U.S. Households Grew Steadily in the
1990s. FoodReview 23(3):18-22.
Bowers, Douglas E.
2000 Cooking Trends Echo Changing Roles of Women. Food-
Review 23(l):23-29.
Center for CSA Resources
n.d. What is Community Supported Agriculture? Chambers-
burg, PA: The Center for Sustainable Living, Wilson
College.
Clancy, Kate
1997 1996 Presidential Address to the Agriculture, Food, and
Human Values Society. Agriculture and Human Values
14:111-114.
Clauson, Annette
2000 Spotlight on National Food Spending. FoodReview 23(3):-
15-17.
Cohen, Nancy L., Jack P. Cooley, Robert B. Hall, and Anne M.
Stoddard
1997 Community Supported Agriculture: A Study of Members'
Dietary Patterns and Food Practices. In Agricultural Pro-
duction and Nutrition. William Lockeretz, ed. Pp. 195-
204. Proceedings of a Conference held in Boston, MA and
organized by the Tufts University School of Nutrition
Science and Policy.
Cone, Cynthia Abbott, and Ann Kakaliouras
1995 Community Supported Agriculture: Building Moral Com-
munity or an Alternative Consumer Choice. Culture &
Agriculture 51/52:28-31.
Cone, Cynthia Abbott, and Andrea Myhre
2000 Community-Supported Agriculture: A Sustainable Alter-
native to Industrial Agriculture? Human Organization 59
(2):187-197.
Cooley, Jack P., and Daniel A. Lass
1998 Consumer Benefits from Community Supported Agricul-
ture Membership. Review of Agricultural Economics 20
(l):227-237.
DeLind, Laura B.
1999 Introduction. In The Many Faces of Community Sup-
ported Agriculture. Pp. 1-3. Hartland, MI: Michigan Or-
ganic Food and Farm Alliance.
Culture & Agriculture
DeLind, Laura B., and Anne E. Ferguson
1999 Is This a Women's Movement? The Relationship of Gen-
der to Community-Supported Agriculture in Michigan.
Human Organization 58(2): 190-200.
DeLind, Laura B., and Holly Harmon Fackler
1999 CSA: Patterns, Problems, and Possibilities. In The Many
Faces of Community Supported Agriculture. Pp. 5-9.
Hartland, MI: Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.
Dillman, Don A.
1978 Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method.
New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Elitzak, Howard
2000 Food Marketing Costs: A 1990s Retrospective. FoodRe-
view 23(3):27-30.
Esteva, Gustavo
1994 Re-embedding Food in Agriculture. Culture & Agricul-
ture 48:2-13.
Gliessman, Stephen R.
1998 Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agricul-
ture. Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
Greer, Lane
1999 Community Supported Agriculture. ATTRA Marketing
& Business Series, <http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/
csa.html>
Gussow, Joan Dye
1991 Chicken Little, Tomato Sauce, and Agriculture: Who Will
Produce Tomorrow's Food? New York: Bootstrap Press.
1999 Can a Community Have a Food System? Open Spaces 2
Henderson, Elizabeth
1998 CSAs that Quit. CSA Farm Network 2:35-36.
Heffernan, William D.
2000 Concentration of Ownership and Control in Agriculture.
In Hungry for Profit. Fred Magdoff, John Bellamy Foster,
and Frederick H. Buttel, eds. Pp. 61-74. New York: The
Monthly Review Press.
Henderson, Elizabeth, with Robyn Van En
1999 Sharing the Harvest, A Guide to Community Supported
Agriculture. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green
Publishing Company.
Imhoff, Daniel
1996 Community Supported Agriculture: Farming with a Face
On It. In The Case Against the Global Economy. Jerry
Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Pp. 425-433. San
Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Jekanowski, Mark D.
1999 Causes and Consequences of Fast Food Sales Growth.
FoodReview Qanuary-April): 11-16.
Kane, Deborah J.
1997 Maximizing Shareholder Retention in Southeastern CSAs
Santa Cruz, CA: Organic Farming Research Foundation.
24 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002
Kelvin, Rochelle
1994 Community Supported Agriculture on the Urban Fringe:
Case Study and Survey. Kutztown, PA: Rodale Institute
Research Center.
Kittredge, Jack
1996 Community-supported Agriculture: Rediscovering Com-
munity. In Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community
and Place. William Vitek and Wes Jackson, eds. Pp. 253-
260. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kloppenburg, Jack, John Hendrickson, and G. W. Stevenson
1996 Coming into the Foodshed. In Rooted in the Land, Essays
on community and place. William Vitek and Wes Jackson,
eds. Pp. 113-123. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Laird, Tim
1998 Nonrenewal of Membership and CSA Inconvenience. In
CSA Farm Network II. Steve Gilman, ed. Pp. 20-21. New
York: Northeast Organic Farming Association.
Lass, Daniel, and Njundu Sanneh
1997 Costs and Returns for CSA Operations in the Northeast,
Preliminary Results from the 1996 CSA Survey. Depart-
ment of Resource Economics, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. <http://www.umass.edu/
resec/fac+staff/csal .html>
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
1999 The Many Faces of Community Supported Agriculture.
Hartland, MI: Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.
Norberg-Hodge, Helena
1996 Shifting Direction: From Global Dependence to Local
Interdependence. In The Case Against the Global Econ-
omy. Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, eds. Pp. 393-
406. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
1998 Think Global-Eat Local! Delicious Ways to Counter Glo-
balization. The Ecologist 29(4):208-214.
Pimental, David, H. Acquay, M. Biltonen, P. Rice, M. Silva, J.
Nelson, V. Lipner, S. Giodano, A. Horowitz, and M. D'Amore
1992 Environmental and Economic Costs of Pesticide Use.
BioScience 42(10):750-760.
Pimental, David, C. Harvey, P. Resosudarmo, K. Sinclair, D. Kurz,
M. McNair, S. Crist, L. Shpritz, L. Fitton, R. Saffouri, and R. Blair
1995 Environmental and Economic Costs of Soil Erosion and
Conservation Benefits. 267:1117-1123.
Pirog, Rich, Timothy Van Pelt, Kamyar Enshayan, and Ellen Cook
2001 Food, Fuel, and Freeways: An Iowa Perspective on How
Far Food Travels, Fuel Usage, and Greenhouse Gas Emis-
sions. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture Report.
Culture & Agriculture
Price, Charlene C.
2000 Foodservice Sales Reflect the Prosperous, Time-Pressed
1990s. FoodReview 23(3):23-26.
Rathje, William, and Cullen Murphy
1992 Rubbish! The Archaeology of Garbage. New York:
HarperCollins.
Ritzer, George
2000 The McDonaldization of Society. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Sampat, Payal
2001 Uncovering Groundwater Pollution. State of the World
2001:21-42.
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, and
Robert D. Benford
1986 Frame Alignment Processes, Micromoblization, and
Movement Participation. American Sociological Review
51:466-481.
Soule, Judith D., and Jon K. Piper
1992 Farming in Nature's Image. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Stauber, Karl N , Chuck Hassebrook, Elizabeth Ann R. Bird,
Gordon L. Bultena, Eric O. Hoiberg, Harry MacCormack, and
Dario Menanteau-Horta
1995 The Promise of Sustainable Agriculture. In Planting the
Future. Elizabeth Ann R. Bird, Gordon L. Bultena, and
John C. Gardner, eds. Pp. 3-15. Ames: Iowa State
University Press.
Thompson, Paul B.
1995 The Spirit of the Soil: Agriculture and Environmental
Ethics. New York: Routledge.
Trauger, Groh, and Steven McFadden
1997 Farms of tomorrow revisited: Community Supported
Farms, Farm Supported Communities. Kimberton, PA:
Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association.
Van En, Robyn
1997 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Perspective.
In For ALL Generations: Making World Agriculture More
Sustainable. J. Patrick Madden and Scott G. Chaplowe,
eds. Pp. 115-121. Glendate, CA: OM Publishing.
Wells, Betty, Shelly Gradwell, and Rhonda Yoder
1999 Growing Food, Growing Community: Community Sup-
ported Agriculture in Rural Iowa. Community Develop-
ment Journal 34(l):38-46.
25 Vol. 24, No. 1 Spring 2002