Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 10 7e 117

Contents lists availableScienceDirec

at t

Journal of Rural Studies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Farm persistence and adaptation at the ruraleurban interface: Succession and farm
adjustment
Shoshanah M. Inwood a,*, Jeff S. Sharp b,1
a
The Social Responsibility Initiative, The Ohio State University, 316 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA b The
School of Natural Resources, The Ohio State University, 320 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, USA

abstract

Keywords: Despite assumptions that agriculture will automatically go into a mode of decline at the Rural Urban Interface (RUI), of ficial
Agriculture statistics suggest that agriculture as a whole remains a strong (and in some cases a growing) industry in many U.S. RUI
Succession counties. RUI scholars have acknowledged internal family dynamics can significantly influence farm persistence and
Ruraleurban-interface adaptation strategies, however, few studies have sought to document the specific role succession has on farm structure at the
Farm family
RUI. Building off rural geography models of farm organization at the RUI and succession research embedded in rural studies
Adaptation
we analyze interviews from 33 U.S. farm families to 1) explore the relationship between farm adaptation and succession at the
RUI, and 2) examine how succession is related to the different types of enterprises found at the RUI (direct marketers vs.
commodity producers) and the types of growth strategies these farm families implement. We find that families who can not
identify an heir either disinvest or enter a static management mode. Among farm families who can identify an heir we identify
a variety of horizontal and vertical growth strategies (expanding, intensifying, and entrepreneurial stacking) designed to
achieve farm reproduction goals. We discuss the theoretical and policy related implications of this research.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1
1. Introduction
Tel.: þ1 614 688 8798; fax: þ1 614 292 7007.

The relatively rural space on the edge of larger urbanized areas,

or the ruraleurban interface (RUI), is a complex landscape impacted
by a variety of social and economic processes. The future of
farming and the conversion of farmland to non-farm purposes has
been alongstandingpolicyconcerninthese areasforover 40
years(Ilbery, 1985; Lisansky and Clark, 1987; Hines and Rhoades,
1994; Abdalla and Kelsey, 1996; Shumway and Otterstrom, 2001,
2004). The persistence and adaptation of farming is obviously
impacted by land-use change and the rate of farmland loss (Ilbery,
1985), however, there are a myriad of factors that can influence
farm enterprise adaptation (the ways farm families adjust their
deployment of resources in response to changing and evolving
conditions). For example, several critical factors that might impact
farm enterprise adaptation include macro-level political and
economic processes, biophysical resources, pressures from
population growth and development, and household/family
decisions (Heimlich and
Anderson, 1987; Johnston and Bryant, 1987; Smithers
and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 614 247 4813; fax: þ1 614 292 7007.
E-mail addresses: Inwood.2@osu.edu(S.M.Inwood),Sharp.123@osu.edu(J.S.Sharp).
0743-0167/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2011.07.005
Johnson, 2004). Further complicating any attempts to understand the
influences on RUI agriculture is the fact there exist many different
types of farming enterprises in these areas, including commodity
producers, urban oriented direct marketers and small recreational
farms, each with its own goals, opportunities and constraints.
In this research we focus on the influence of family factors,
specifically how succession, affects the persistence and adaptation of
farm enterprises in several MidwesternRUI counties of the United
States. Access to farmland can be a major limitation at the RUI due to
the competition between farm and non-farm development; additionally,
several scholars have noted that more than cursory attention to
intergenerational issues at the RUI is warranted due to the particular
vulnerability of farmland being converted to non-farm uses during the
phases of succession and inheritance (Hirschl and Long, 1993; Sharp
and Smith, 2004). To guide this research, we draw on rural geography
models of farm organization to identify some of the constraints RUI
farms face and the possible adaptations they might implement.
While the role succession plays in agricultural adaptation and
persistence at the RUI has been alluded to in the rural geography
literature (Bryant, 1973; Johnston, 1989), it has not been examined in
depth. Succession has been well studied by rural sociologists and
108 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
anthropologists in rural areas and these studies consistently find that the
family cycle is related to enterprise management and that succession
has a direct influence on enterprise growth or decline (Bennett, 1982;
Salamon, 1992; Gasson and Errington, 1993; Potter and Lobley, 1996;
Stinglauer and Weiss, 2000). We anticipate that these findings are also
applicable to RUI farms and expect succession to play a meaningful
role in farm persistence and adaptation in these settings. However, we
also anticipate that the dynamic nature of agriculture at the RUI, with
substantial non-farm competition for land as well as access to urban
consumer markets, might result in a greater range of growth and
reproduction strategies than is commonly found in succession studies
of rural, commodity farm families (Salamon, 1992).
The purpose of this study, is to examine how succession moderates
the ways farms change and adapt to RUI conditions and ultimately how
they continue to persist in these locations. In our research we explore
two issues. First we simply seek to understand the relationship between
farm adaptation and succession at the RUI. Second, we seek to
understand how succession strategies are related to enterprise type
(direct marketers vs. commodity) and the types of growth strategies
farm families implement to incorporate the next generation given the
land constraints and macro-political and economic frameworks they are
embedded in.
This study of farm succession at the RUI is timely and necessary,
and provides three especially salient contributions to the academic
literature and the on-going policy dialogue regarding the future of
agriculture at the RUI. First, our exploration and description of an
important family farm-level process has implications for community
and regional policy efforts to maintain agricultural viability at the
urban edge. Second, we contribute to the process of model building and
testing in rural geography by reviewing data that enables us to validate
or refine existing conceptual models of RUI agricultural change.
Finally, we expand our sociological and anthropological understanding
of farm succession by reporting on howthe process creates distinct
adaptationpatterns across different types of farm enterprises located at
the RUI.
In the following section we explore the theoretical background for
this work. We then report on data and findings collected through
intensive interviews with Ohio and Michigan farm families located at
the RUI in the United States. Interviews with family members
associated with a variety of enterprises revealed a typology of
strategies RUI farm families utilize to reproduce the farm enterprise for
the next generation. We conclude with a summary of some of the
disciplinary and policy implications of this research.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. The structure of agriculture at the RUI e Farm adaptation and
persistence
The RUI is a zone of intermingling land-uses, characterized by an
irregular transition from farm to non-farmland. A formal definition of
the RUI is described in the methodology section below. The structure
and character of agriculture in these regions is impacted both by non-
metropolitan global agri-food system forces and by local metropolitan
growth and development pressures (Berry,1978; Ilbery, 1985;
Shumway and Otterstrom, 2001; Shumway and Otterstrom, 2004). In
addition to the influence of macro-level global factors and national
commodity price support policies, farmers at the RUI must also
contend with a number of problems arising from intermingling of
farming and non-farm interests. Challenges can include: conflicts with
non-farm neighbors over odor, noise; vandalism; local planning and
zoning laws that fail to adequately support farming; and reduced access
to suppliers, capital and traditional markets, such as grain elevators,
due to declining local demand for farm services and steady increase of
nonfarm residential and commercial business opportunities (Lopez et
al., 1988; Hines and Rhoades, 1994; Kelsey and Singletary, 1996;
Kelsey, 1998).
While these challenges can appear daunting, the seeds of this
research were planted by a disjuncture we observed (and which has
been noted by others, e.g. Daniels (1999)) between a sense of
fatalism regarding the future of agriculture that sometimes
permeates farmland preservation and land-use policy discussions
and our on the ground observations that a significant amount of
farming persists even in the face of urban encroachment. While
some farmers and non-farmers alike may believe that traditional
“family farming” is no longer viable in the modern U.S. economy,
(Jackson-Smith, 1999), official statistics indicate that agriculture
remains a strong (and in some cases growing) industry in many U.S.
RUI counties (Butler and Maronek, 2002; Jackson-Smith, 1999;
Clark et al., 2010).
Jackson-Smith and Sharp, (2008) identify a relatively large set
of counties located at the RUI with substantial agricultural
production, with 41 percent of total U.S. agricultural sales
originating from these counties in 2007 (Jackson-Smith and Sharp,
2008). These counties also represent critical food producing regions
of the U.S., accounting for 78 percent of U.S. vegetable production
and 91 percent of U.S. fruit production (Jackson-Smith and Sharp,
2008). Compared to more rural areas, farming operations at the RUI
tend to be highly diverse, with more then three-quarters of U.S.
organic and direct sales originating from RUI counties (Jackson-
Smith and Sharp, 2008). These statistics demonstrate the dynamic
nature of agriculture at the RUI as it is a location not only of
constraint but also of great opportunity. Several studies have
documented the heterogeneous nature of agriculture at the RUI by
identifying a mixture of commercial commodity farms as well as
adaptive and recreational farms (farms reporting less then $10,000
in sales (Heimlich and Brooks, 1989)) that are exploiting
opportunities to direct market farm products to nearby urban
populations. (Butler and Maronek, 2002; Johnston and Bryant,
1987; Heimlich and Brooks, 1989).
2.2. Farm adaptation models
Several models rooted in agricultural geography have emerged
to account for the structure of RUI agriculture (Ilbery, 1985;
Johnston and Bryant, 1987; Bryant and Johnston, 1992). These
models not only recognize the influence of economic factors, but
also incorporate elements of culture, land tenure, succession,
community, agroecology, biophysical resources, and
macroeconomic structural influences operating at global, national,
regional and local scales (Johnston and Bryant, 1987; Smithers and
Johnson, 2004). Additionally, an important theme implicit in these
models is the expectation that urban oriented food and fiber
production strategies are likely to emerge and succeed due to their
proximity to urban markets (Bowler, 1999; Fennell and Weaver,
1997; Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). We review the insights of
three distinct RUI models, each of which acknowledges the broad
range of adaptive strategies that can vary across different types of
farms and communities.
The first model, developed by Hemlich and Brook’s (1989),
identifies the relationship between farm type and persistence. The
model anticipates three different types of RUI farms, including: i.
alternative enterprises (small in size with high value outputs); ii.
recreational enterprises (very small scale, operated by hobby
farmers) and; iii. traditional enterprises (larger operations engaged
in conventional commodity production). Research focusing on these
various types of enterprises suggests that alternative enterprises in
metropolitan counties were most likely to persist between 1978 and
1997 compared to either traditional or recreational enterprises
(Heimlich and Anderson, 2001; Hoppe and Korb, 2001).
Alternative enterprise types can include consumer-oriented,
entrepreneurial agriculture with an emphasis on direct marketing
and value adding (Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009). We term these
consumer oriented strategies Alternative Food and Agriculture
 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
Enterprises (AFAE), in contrast to commodity-oriented production
(corn, beans, dairy). A defining feature of AFAEs is their ability to
directly service consumer demand via creative methods of retailing
or wholesaling farm products direct to the customer (Che et al.,
2005). While a series of studies have documented that farms are
actively implementing AFAE activities (Barbieri et al., 2008;
McNally, 2001) and identified varying economic and noneconomic
goals for pursuing these diversification strategies (Gilg and
Battershill, 1998; Barbieri and Mahoney, 2009), it remains unclear
how family dynamics and succession influence the specific types of
entrepreneurial adaptations pursued at the RUI.
Additionally, we anticipate that not all farms at the RUI will be
purely commodity or AFAE. Farms can simultaneously be engaged
in multiple marketing strategies diversifying income and risk
especially if they are experimenting with or shifting into new direct
marketing relationships. We therefore anticipate an additional type
of “Mixed” farm that engages in both types of commodity and
AFAE marketing systems.
The second and third models focus more on ‘holistic farmer
decision-making’, acknowledging and emphasizing that the farm
household is actively influenced by both external and internal forces
and seeks to balance family goals with market trends, capital
resources, labor resources and conditions within each commodity
sector. The models developed by Johnston and Bryant (1987) and
Smithers and Johnson (2004) examine RUI farm adaptation
strategies that emerge from the complex interplay between the farm
household and farm business. Johnston and Bryant (1987) and
Smithers and Johnson (2004) recognize the role farmer agency has
in managing change and gives credence to the farm family acting
and contributing to farm decision making. As two overlapping
spheres, the farm business and farm household jointly consider how
to allocate internal household resources (lifecycle stage, age and
health of the farm operator, personal goals, attitudes, organization of
the farm, farming philosophy, and intergenerational succession
goals), internal business resources (land quality, debt, climate,
topography, and access to capital) in order to deal with pressures
from local and macro level forces (trade conditions, commodity
prices, land-use policy etc.).
Given internal and external farm conditions, the Johnston and
Bryant (1987) model anticipates three distinct types of farm changes
that can occur at the RUI across all types of enterprises. These
changes include: i. positive adaptations that enhance farm
production (e.g. adding nontraditional business activities, urban
oriented direct marketing, or intensifying traditional production); ii.
normal or managerial adjustments (changes consistent with changes
occurring across the entire agricultural sector including, adoption of
new agricultural technologies to increase efficiency); and, iii.
negative adaptations (such as exiting farming or reducing
production intensity or farm investments, perhaps in anticipation of
a future sale to developers). These positive, normal and negative
adaptations are presented as solitary trajectories by Johnston and
Bryant (1987), but Smithers and Johnson (2004) acknowledge that
more than one type of adjustment can be made within the same farm
enterprise. In fact, Smithers and Johnson (2004) allow for multiple
adaptations to occur simultaneously on the same farm and more
broadly acknowledge the ways in which farm adaptations feed back
into the farm household, farm business, and into local and more
macro-level external conditions (Clark et al., 2010).
Although these models emphasize the role of the household in
farm change at the RUI, few studies have directly analyzed these
family factors (particularly succession). This omission was noted by
Bryant and Johnston (and still holds true today), “an aspect of
farmers’ motivation that has yet to be explored by geographers in
any detail concerns the aspirations of other family members,
particularly children” (1992 p107). While several studies have
alluded to the significant role succession can play in enterprise
adaptation and intensification at the RUI (Bryant, 1973; Johnston,
109
1989), none have examined just how the lifecycle of the farm
business and the lifecycle of the farm household intersect to
influence enterprise adaptation and persistence patterns. In this
analysis we expand and test Johnston and Bryant’s concept of
‘positive adaptations’, being attentive to how adaptations might vary
by different farm enterprise types and focusing on the influence of
family and household dynamics on the chosen farm adaptation as
highlighted by Smithers and Johnson.
2.3. Persistence: farm reproduction and enterprise adaptation
Given our focus on the role of succession, it is necessary to
recognize the rich research tradition in rural studies of examining the
link between intergenerational transfer of farmland, enterprise growth
and the persistence of family farms (Gasson and Errington, 1993;
Salamon, 1992; Burton and Walford, 2005; Keating and Munro, 1989;
Kennedy, 1991). The majority of farm succession research has focused
on the cultural and family dynamics associated with the succession
process (Kennedy, 1991; Salamon, 1992; Keating and Little, 1997;
Taylore et al., 1998). In this research tradition, Salamon (1992) begins
by encouraging researchers to be attentive to the internal household
dynamics that can include difficult negotiations between spouses,
children, and extended kin regarding the farm’s development and
various other family or individual goals. Bennet (1982) employs the
term ‘agrifamily system’ to contextualize the need for a comprehensive
inclusion of the entire family as part of the farm decision making
system.
The life cycle of the farm family is an important influence on farm
management, enterprise growth, and succession (Bennett, 1982; Potter
and Lobley, 1992; Potter and Lobley, 1996; Gasson and Errington,
1993). Numerous researchers have documented a relationship between
the existence of a farm successor and farm innovation, expansion and
diversification, while farmers without a successor are more likely to
reduce the activity of their enterprise and their enterprise mix (Bennett,
1982; Calus et al., 2008; Gasson and Errington, 1993, Johnsen, 2004;
Potter and Lobley, 1996; Stinglauer and Weiss, 2000). Farm enterprise
growth and change often climax as the farm prepares to create
additional revenue streams that will support an added family member
(Bennett,1982). For example, in Saskatchewan, Bennet (1982) found
enterprises run by young farmers with children and enterprises that
have to support a large number of people are actively managed to
increase production as a means for supporting a larger number of
individuals. In anticipation of succession, the enterprise prepares to
support another family by engaging in growth behaviors that are
marked by innovation and expansion as operators adopt new
management strategies to grow the farm business.
Succession, then, represents a critical point, testing the ability of the
farm enterprise to reproduce itself. Succession creates opportunities for
restructuring the farm enterprise, leading Johnsen (2004 p 429) to
conclude: “It appears that the resilience and entrepreneurial tendencies
of family farmers.are most visible during times of dramatic
restructuring, when the very ability of a farm family to ‘survive’ may
hinge upon its willingness to modify the farm operation.” The ability to
change and grow the farm enterprise often rests on the skill set of the
next generation, leading Jonovic and Messick (1986) to argue that a
critical revitalization strategy for the farm business hinges on a future
heir’s off-farm work experience either working on other farms and/or in
other settings, with these experiences bringing new skills, insights and
innovations back to the farm that can increase the chance of successful
farm reproduction.
The desire to farm as an occupation and way of life and the desire
to ensure the successful intergenerational transfer of farmland are just
as important as strategic business behaviors (JacksonSmith, 1999) and
often outweigh neoclassical theory defining farmers as pure profit
maximizers (Hennessy, 2002). In North America, Bennet (1982) and
Salamon (1992) have documented the relationship between family
goals, succession and changes in farm production, marketing and
110 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
survival strategies in the rural regions of central Canada and the United
States. Salamon’s (1992) research demonstrated how a farm family’s
ethnic heritages (German vs. English) create discrete land ethics that
shape the succession process, resulting in distinct strategies that these
different types of farm families employ to reproduce the farm
enterprise. Alternatively, when examining motivations for enterprise
diversification among farmers and ranchers in Texas, Barbieri and
Mahoney (2009) found keeping the farm and/or ranch in the family and
providing employment opportunities for family members were
relatively weak reasons for diversification compared to reducing
uncertainty and risk, growing markets, enhancing financial conditions,
personal aspirations and revenue enhancements. Given the unique
pressures at the RUI and opportunities to exit agriculture it stands to
reason those RUI farmers who continue to farm and diversify their
operations may be more likely to prioritize succession and family
factors, in addition to the economic motivations identified by Barbieri
and Mahoney (2009). We anticipate given the opportunities and
challenges associated with RUI agriculture, farm families prioritizing
succession and non-economic household factors will implement a wide
range of growth and farm reproduction strategies that ultimately
contribute to farm persistence and resilience in the RUI.
base and may also be appealing because of the higher value market
opportunitiesassociated with proximity tolarge, urbanpopulations.
We anticipate the distinct growth strategies (hotizontal vs. vertical)
farm families pursue at the RUI is linked to on the relationship
between farm type and succession. This expectation guides our two
research questions examining: 1) how succession influences farm
adaptation at the RUI, and 2) the relationship between succession,
enterprise type and the macro-political, economic and land
limitations farm families at the RUI face.
4. Methodology
4.1. Identifying the study population
To answer our questions, regarding farm adaptation and
succession at the RUI, we interviewed farm families in U.S.
Midwestern metropolitan regions of Columbus, Ohio and Grand
Rapids, Michigan. The research presented in this article is part of a
larger national study, “Agricultural Adaptation at the RuraleUrban
Inter-

3. Modeling farm persistence and adaptation

Linking these insights about farm succession with the agricultural

geography models noted earlier helps us understand the potentially
critical role succession might play in farm persistence and adaptation at
the RUI. Building on the succession literature (Bennett, 1982;
Salamon, 1992; Gasson and Errington, 1993; Potter and Lobley, 1996)
we present a basic model of succession’s influence (Fig. 1). We first
acknowledge that in some cases the succession plans (the process of
transferring the farm to the next generation) are not yet known. Farm
succession plans are unknown either because progeny are not yet old
enough to signal their intentions or because plans have never been
made or discussed. However, in many cases the likely course of
succession is known or can be anticipated. When succession plans are
known and no heir is available, we expect the farm to follow a path of
decline and disinvestment with an eventual exit from farming. When
succession plans are known and an heir is present we expect the heir ’s
presence will have a significant effect on enterprise adaptation,
catalyzing an active mix of adjustments depending on the type of
commodities, marketing interests and household goals these farmers
and their families are interested in pursuing 1. It is this last sphere that
we focus our research.
In the case where an heir is present we anticipate a need to
maximize revenue. In order to accommodate additional family
members (or families) in the firm, many farm businesses must
explore ways to expand the productive capacity of the farm. This
can be accomplished by either expanding the land base through
purchasing or renting more acres (what we identify as a horizontal
strategy), or by increasing production and revenue on the existing
land base of the farm (what we describe as vertical growth
strategies). Vertical strategies might include an intensification of
existing production, (such as expanding a livestock facility), or it
might include the development of new farm activities (such as
adding a nursery greenhouse operation to a grain farm) or
complementary businesses (such as a roadside market stand to an
apple orchard). Firms might also pursue a combination of vertical
and horizontal strategies simultaneously.
At the RUI, horizontal growth strategies can be problematic
given the heightened competition for and often inflated cost of land2.
As aresult,verticalgrowth strategiesthat “stack” enterprises of
varying size and intensity on the same land base may be seen as a
more attractive strategy for enterprise expansion on a limited land

1 2 We note that horizontal growth strategies can be problematic in general as access to

We acknowledge that in some cases the farm may be highly pro vigorous land and the cost of land is also an issue in rural areas but the issue may be more
growth strategies may not need to be pursued. pronounced at the RUI.
 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117 111
Farm Persistence and Adaptation at the RUI Figures

Farm Succession Plans Unknown

Vertica
l
Growth
Enterprise
Have Heir
Adaptation
Horizontal
Growth
Known

Decline and
No Heir Disinvestment
face: Can Communities Make a difference?”, which aims to identify how and under what conditions local communities are able to influence the
trajectory of agricultural change and adaptation in RUI areas (Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, USDA, Grant #2005-
35401-15272). In this paper we focus on data from two RUI regions in the Midwest that have similar climate, commodity mixes and settlement
patterns (Pfeffer, 1983). We recognize this data set reflects Midwest production and RUI growth patterns and that the context of other RUI regions
in the U.S. may lead to different adaptive patterns; however, we believe our

Fig. 1. Model of influence farm succession on enterprise adaptation and persistence.

Table 1 were conducted with 17 farm families in Columbus metro and 16
Farm and population demographics in Columbus and grand rapids metro regions. families in Grand Rapids metro. While individuals were interviewed,
Michigan Grand rapids Ohio Columbus
our goal was to understand the farm and farm family, and our
metro metro
characterization of the farm or family is based on the one or more
Census region Midwest Midwest Midwest Midwest persons interviewed in each farm family household.
Number of farms 2007 56,014 1,193 75,861 6,176 Participants were identified through a snowball sampling
Average size of farms 179 143 184 219
methodology (Berg, 2004) begun by initially contacting the local
2007 (acres)
Average farm sales 2007 $102,710 $163,226 $93,200 $111,045 county extension office, state departments of agriculture and local
focus on the Midwestern context provides a useful baseline for future farmer/grower organizations. Since the purpose of this study is to
comparative research and effectively sets the stage for further examine persistence and adaptation among commercial farmers, we
investigation of the succession and farm adaptation in other RUI intentionally did not interview farmers who grossed less then $10,000
regions. from their farm. All interviews were taped and transcribed by
professional transcriptionists. When possible, interviews were
Our two study regions represent Agriculturally Important (AI)
conducted with as many farm family members as possible, including:
counties situated at the RuraleUrban Interface (RUI) in the United
the primary farm operator, their spouse and children over 18 years old.
States . Both the Columbus and Grand Rapids metro regions are two
3
Participants were asked to complete a short survey at the end of each
areas of the Midwest, characterized by mid-sized farms and rapidly
interview. The interviews were coded and analyzed with NVivo, a
urbanizing populations that have seen considerable nonfarm population
computer program that can assist in identifying and mapping patterns
growth and development (Table 1).The importance of agriculture in
in qualitative data (Bazeley and Richards, 2000; Gibbs, 2002; Richards,
both the Grand Rapids and Columbus Metro regions is demonstrated
1999).
through higher average farm sales in these locales compared to the state
To more explicitly understand how succession influences the ways
average (Table 1).
families adapt their farms at the RUI, we analyzed social, family and
The Columbus Metro region includes a seven county area (Franklin,
economic features of the various farm enterprises studied. An analysis
Delaware, Fairfield, Licking, Madison, Pickaway, and Union Counties)
of the farm economic structure included an examination of: business
that is agriculturally diverse with farmers raising corn, soybeans, dairy,
and legal organization, business values, current and future production
livestock, fruit and vegetable crops. The Grand Rapids Metro region is
plans, growth patterns, ancillary businesses attached to the main
primarily a one county area (Kent
farming operation, business decision making processes, investments in
County), though some respondents were located on the border of
infrastructure and technology, and types of direct marketing and value
Kent, in Ottawa County which is easily in the commutershed of Grand
adding activities. In regards to the social and family dimensions of the
Rapids. In addition to traditional cornbelt commodity production, parts
farm operation we examined: how families create opportunities for the
of Kent and Ottawa Counties include the Fruit Ridge, a unique micro-
next generation, relationships between household members, individual
climate in Western Michigan where the majority of Michigan’s tree
and family commitment to the farm, gender roles, motivations for
fruit crop is grown.
farming and business organization, lifecycle effects, attitudes toward
development pressure, and succession plans. Drawing on the interview
4.2. Data collection methodology used in other succession studies (Salamon, 1992; Taylore
et al., 1998) the data was used to generate profiles of how internal
A total of 51 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were family dynamics are related to farm succession and adaptation.
conducted with individuals representing 33 farm families. Interviews
The farms studied in this research included AFAE’s engaged in
3 We define agriculturally important counties as those counties that are
direct marketing of various product types, farms focused on commodity
responsible for generating the largest share of total US farm output (top 25% of markets, and some mixed types with commodity market production and
farm sales among all counties in the U.S. in 2002). RUI counties are defined by sales directly to consumers. As previously noted, the identifying names
their metropolitan status or are connected to major metropolitan core areas through “Commodity” and “AFAE” do not refer to specific management
commuting and employment patterns. In this study we selected RUI counties in the practices (e.g. organic or sustainable) or to crop type (e.g. vegetable,
top four categories of the USDA’s Economic Research Service published Urban
fruit, corn or soybeans) only to marketing strategy. For example, a
Influence Codes (UIC) (Parker, 2003) and counties that had experienced population
growth between 1990 and 2000 greater the national median rate of 13.15 percent.
grass based organic dairy farm that sold all of its milk into a bulk
(See Clark et al., 2010 for a complete methodology of study site selection.) wholesale market would be considered a commodity farm. The key
112 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
attribute differentiating commodity from AFAE in our research is the
existence of sales directly to an end-user. For some commodity
producers a complete shift toward consumer oriented production is not
realistic, and instead a ‘Mixed’ strategy farm exists which engages in
both commodity and AFAE production. AFAE and Mixed type
respondents were engaged in some form of direct marketing to
consumers, while Commodity farms were selling their products into
bulk commodity markets.
Acloseranalysis of the family history of the AFAE farms brought to
light the existence of two distinct sets of AFAE farm families based on
the length of time their families had been farming, those who were
First-generation and those who were Multi-generation AFAE’s. The
First-generation AFAE operators did not have a farm background and
are distinguished by their beginning farmer status and the value they
place on the spiritual, health and ecological benefits of small scale
farming. Many of these farm families were highly attuned to local
marketing opportunities and maintaining a niche advantage by focusing
on direct marketing and value adding activities. Additionally, many
First-generation AFAE’s used the skills they had learned in earlier
careers or experiences outside of agriculture to enhance their
businesses. In contrast the Multi-generation AFAE’s reported at least
two generations engaged in direct marketing activities and were
characterized by a strong business orientation. This group emphasized
business strategies structured to ensure growth with income generation
and profit as primary goals. This group was more likely to farm more
acres than the First-generation AFAE’s and placed more emphasis on
the importance of being effective managers.
In total, we identified four distinct groups of farm families
characterized as:1) “Commodity” e farm families selling into
commodity markets (n ¼ 11); 2) “First-generation AFAE’s” (n ¼ 8); 3)
“Multi-generation AFAE’s” (n ¼ 6), and; 4) “Mixed” farms selling both
into commodity and AFAE markets (n ¼ 7).All farm types existed in
both the Columbus and Grand Rapids metro regions.
The demographic comparisons between groups are reported in
Table 2. The primary difference between groups was the number of
Table 2
Farm family demographics.
Commodity First-Gen AFAE Multi-Gen AFAE Mixed
Mean Mean Mean Mean
N 11 8 6 7
Acres operated (mean) 478.9 30.8 229.6 533.8
Acres operated (median) 400.0 15.5 40.0 550.0
acres operated. Commodity farmers operated the largest farms with an
average of 478.9 acres followed by Mixed farms who operated an
average of 533.8 acres. Multi-generation AFAE farms were slightly
smaller, operating an average of 229.6 acres while First-generation
AFAE’s operated the smallest sized farms with an average of 30.8
acres.
In the following section we describe, compare and contrast the
succession process and adaptation strategies of farms across these
various classifications.
5. Results succession, farm type and adaptation at the RUI
The availability of an heir represents a pivotal moment within the
farm lifecycle, representing a cross roads between Johnston and
Bryant’s conceptualization of negative adaptations (winding down in
preparation of a farm exit), normal and positive adaptations (enterprise
growth in preparation for additional family members). While only a
few of the farm families studied in this research were unable to identify
an heir, distinct differences in farm development trajectories were
visible among these families. Parallel to Johnston and Bryant’s concept
of negative adaptations, among this sample of farm families, when no
heir was identified (n ¼ 3) farmers were preparing for an eventual exit
out of agriculture. However, when an heir was present, this catalyzed
an active mix of farm business adjustments (normal and positive
adaptations) depending on farm type, marketing interests and
household goals that these farmers and their families were interested in
pursuing. More specifically, when an heir was identified three types of
adaptations were observed that correspond to our model of horizontal
and vertical growth strategies at the RUI. Farm families ‘Expanding’ (n
¼ 7) their operation were growing their operations horizontally through
land acquisition. Two types of vertical growth were observed, those
families that were ‘Intensifying’ (n ¼ 15) and those who were engaged
in ‘Entrepreneurial Stacking’ (n ¼ 10) activities. Farms were
categorized by the growth adaptations they are currently implementing
on their farms. Adaptation appears to have some association with farm
type and the known availability of an heir (Table 3) we elaborate on
these relationships in the following section.
5.1. No heir identified
On the three farms that could not identify an heir, the enterprises
had entered a static state. Recognizing they had no heir apparent, these
farms did not pursue any growth and development
Table 3
Farm type and enterprise adaptation.
Enterprise Adaptation
Expanding Intensifying Entrepreneurial stacking
N 7 15 10
Farm type
Commodity 6 3 1
First generation AFAE 0 8 0 Multi generational AFAE 1 3 2
Mixed 0 0 6
strategies. On two of these farms the families continued to manage the
current enterprise mix, and were proactively ensuring their land
remained either as farmland or open space by placing their land into a
conservation easement with a local land trust. The third family made
the conscious decision to make no new improvements to the existing
infrastructure and in a process of winding down their operation, had
begun to actively sell and auction off land. The pattern of change on
this third farm parallels findings from other studies that have
established the link between the lack of an identified successor and a
farm trajectory of disinvestment and decline (Gasson et al., 1988;
Lobley and Potter, 2004). These three cases demonstrate the link
between the absence of an heir and the stagnation of enterprise
development, and conforms to our expectation that successors (or lack
of) can have a substantial impact on enterprise trajectory.
5.2. Heir identified
In this section we explore in detail the varying types of adaptation
strategies (expanding, intensifying, and entrepreneurial stacking)
employed among the different types of RUI farm families to handle the
presence of an heir and achieve farm reproduction. One subset of farm
families, who we call Expanders, chose a strategy of pure land
expansion. Because land is an especially limited resource at the RUI
(due to competition from non-farm interests) some farms (primarily
AFAEs) were increasing production by aggressively intensifying
existing production (the Intensifiers) or stacking new and/or
complementary enterprises (the Entrepreneurial Stackers) on the
existing land base, thereby growing the farm enterprise and allowing
more family members to earn a living from the farm.
5.2.1. Expanding through horizontal growth
 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
The pattern of ‘expansion’ occurred most frequently among
Commodity farmers (grain, livestock, dairy and tree fruit). To create
opportunities for the next generation, this group of farmers expanded
the existing farm business structure by strategically increasing their
farmed acreage (through rent or purchase) in order to increase
productionvolume andthequantities theycould sellinto bulk commodity
markets. This growth strategy reflects what Johnston and Bryant (1987)
term normal adjustments mirroring the more general trend in
agriculture of increasing farm size and the substitution of capital for
labor. Engaged in commodity production,
thesefarmshavehistoricallyfollowedahorizontalgrowthpatternin order to
persist on the landscape. The period of succession exacerbates the
economic constraints these farmers face and reinforces their decision to
implement normal adaptations as growth strategies in order to support
additional family members on the farm.
Growth through land accumulation is a common occurrence among
commodity grain and livestock producers, but is also a viable strategy
for commodity fruit and vegetable growers. In the Grand Rapids metro
region where fruit growers were more prevalent, a series of inclement
weather events and increasing international competition had led to a
bifurcation of survival strategies. While one set of orchard growers
decreased their acreage to pursue direct marketing initiatives, another
set choose an expansion strategy by renting any available land and took
advantage of grower exits to purchase orchards being sold at auction by
those forced out by weather or global competition.
Orchard based expanders were also investing in new packing,
storage and processing equipment and technology oriented to the
commodity fresh market. One family expanding their apple operation
described their activity as follows: “Outside of the farm, we have
packing facilities. We have our own storage facilities as far as
controlled atmosphere goes. We’re in about three different counties that
we grow food in”. Expanders engaged in grain production discussed
how advances in technology enabled them to have an offfarm job
(allowing them to access health insurance and retirement benefits)
while pushing their operations to grow in acreage, one respondent
stated
“And now with the advent of the larger machinery and no till and
round up beans and corn, you know, [even at] 1,200 acres a guy
can farm part-time. He can have a full-time job and farm 1,200
acres on the side. So I mean, you know, what’s the limit as to how
big farms will get, I don’t know”.
The Expanders had a fairly global worldview and were cognizant of
how the larger structure of agriculture, particularly international trade
policies, global competition, and changes in technology create the need
to get big or get out. In order to ensure their survival and remain
competitive this group of farmers willingly participated in the dominant
agricultural system, investing heavily in technology and playing
commodity markets. When asked how their operation had changed one
respondent explained
“Efficiencies of orchards is probably the biggest change in our deal.
Machinery has changed quite a bit. We started with 60 acres [20
years ago] and now we have 340. Machinery has done that plus.
the need to be large enough to spread costs”.
When asked if they had ever considered adopting AFAE strategies,
Commodity farmers frequently replied they had thought about it, but
quickly dismissed the idea. Expanders frequently commented they
would rather sell their product though a broker, others preferred and
recognized the competitive advantage they could maintain through
specialization rather then being a production generalist. One such
respondent explained
“I’ve direct marketed before. Pick-your-own strawberries. My
intention was to farm, not sell. I don’t sell my fruit anymore.we’re
specialized.We are going to do everything right that we possibly
113
can do with [the tree fruit crop] because that is the only way we
can survive”.
Within this group of farmers, many voiced frustration over the lack
of understanding their neighbors (and general public) had for farming
and their ignorance of the system that allows them to have such a low
cost food supply. One respondent articulated
“I want to make $40,000 a year, I’ve got to feed 4,000 head of
hogs. If I’ve got a couple brothers and we want to make that kind
of money, we’re looking at 12,000 head of hogs a year. If people
want to keep milk down around $2 a gallon or cheap as it is, you
know. somebody’s going to have to raise it somewhere. It’s kind of
like land fills, you know, you got to have it but they don’t want it
next door”.
Additionally, the reliance on such large acreage led many of the
Commodity farmers to recognize how vulnerable their operations were
to fissures within the family. Farmland preservation activists have
emphasized the importance of estate planning as an important
mechanism for protecting farmland; in this study some families were
actively planning and structuring their operation to ensure should there
be divides in the family (e.g. divorce) the enterprise would be protected
against land fragmentation and be able to remain a viable business.
5.2.2. Intensifying through vertical growth
Since access to land is always a limiting factor in agriculture,
especially at the RUI where there are numerous non-farm competitors
for land, some farms (predominantly First-generation AFAEs but also
including some Multi-generation AFAEs and Commodity farms) were
going through a process of intensification increasing production of or
shifting into higher value crops (such as nursery crops) to support more
family members on the farm’s existing land base. These growth
strategy reflects Bryant and Johnston’s conceptualization of a positive
adaptation. A thirdgeneration AFAE farm established in 1958
illustrates this intensification process. In order to continue supporting
an expanding family solely from the farm, this family began a process
of intensification by increasing both the production of higher value
crops (i.e., shifting from vegetables to fruit and nursery crops) and
sales volume. As one family member described, “We’re growing higher
end products that maybe other people don’t have the patience to do but
we can get more of a profit – not only are we going different places, but
we’re growing different things”. By investing in new equipment and
buildings and expanding out from an on-farm roadside market they
now travel to farmers markets around the region. Another family
member explained part of the reason they needed to intensify was
because: “in 2007 we’ll probably have half the customers we had in
2001. So we have to grow more and go to more high-end products.like
nursery crops. and maybe organic vegetables”.
Many of these Multi-generation AFAE’s also considered
themselves to be in agribusiness at a very local level, conscious of
local, national and global competition. Their strong business
orientation reinforced their self-image as savvy producers, marketers,
distributors and managers whose skills set reflected a wider
professional status than the simple identifier of ‘farmer’. These farmers
encouraged their children to go to college and take advantage of
educational opportunities that would benefit the farm enterprise. The
Multi-generation AFAE’s place a great deal of emphasis on the need to
be an effective manager, especially when supervising labor. To ensure
they utilized their labor force to their maximum potential there was a
strategic effort made to stagger crops to increase and extend inventory
supplies but also to maximize available labor resources. This strong
business orientation enabled many of the Multi-generation AFAE’s to
ensure their enterprises stayed highly flexible and adaptable in order to
take advantage of new niches in the market. One fruit farmer explained
their willingness to remain open and flexible to new farm enterprises:
114 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
“Our future is to do this as long as we can, and planning different
and innovative ways. You know I’ve seen stuff about growing
lavender,.or we can branch out into alternative crops such as basil
or herbs”.
In a similar fashion, many of intensifying First-generation AFAE
farmers demonstrated an inordinate amount of market savvy. Some
First-generation AFAE’s briefly entered commodity production only to
exit very quickly, recognizing the majority of money was in niche
marketing or agritourism rather then production agriculture. As one
respondent described:
“We ran the orchard for 5 years. When we got into it was at a time
when China was .flooding our market with apple juice concentrate.
there was really not much money to be made being an apple
farmer. Finally one day I looked at it and said., I think that the
money is not asdbeing a farmer, the money is in being the direct
payments portion of it. So one of our neighbors whose a large
orchard farmer.he said he’d take the orchard over. we focus our
efforts towards the entertainment portion of farming. So really our
goal is now is to be an educational entertainment farm”.
A general trend among First-generation and Multi-generation
Intensifier farms was the recognition that more money can be made in
agritourism then in production agriculture alone. This form of direct
marketing is one strategy families can implement to fulfill their desire
to farm while simultaneously keeping land out of development.
However, the shifting focus from food production to entertainment
raises newquestionsabout thefunction andabilityof these operations to
achieve the larger food production goals of local food system
movements as compared to the educational role they play. Farms
engaged in intensification activities were composed of a more
heterogeneous group of farm types compared to the expanders, and
important differences were observed between Firstgeneration and
Mulit-generaiton AFAE intensifier farmers. Many First-generation
AFAE’s household members recognized the advantage of their RUI
location and saw their proximity to large populations as strategic
advantages to their operations. Compared to other respondents this
group of newcomers was more likely to recognize the influence zoning
and food safety regulations had on their ability to find a suitable piece
of land to farm, run a profitable farm enterprise and ensure their
lifestyle goals could be met. As one First-generation AFAE vegetable
farmer explained
“One of the plusses is that this area is. in the middle of the suburbs
– we’re seven miles from Grand Rapids.a triangle of 1.2 million
people.Our land stayed zoned agriculture.. That’s something that
you’re just not going to necessarily have., zoning is so important,
you know, as to what you can and can’t do”.
Additionally, the First-generation AFAE farms were investing in
their farms and structuring their operations under the assumption their
farms would be operating indefinitely, reflecting the larger ecological
and spiritual reasons they cited for farming. In comparison the Multi-
generation AFAE’s, characterized by a more dominant business
orientation, were designing creative solutions to enhance their
enterprise while also keeping their option to sell land open. For
example, rather then invest in a permanent roadside stand one family
sets up a ‘tent stand’ each season which not only avoids the hassle of
building permits and regulations but also avoids investing in permanent
structures. This strategy also ensured the farm could be divided more
easily should the next generation fail to take over the farm, and speaks
to the sensitivity these farms that have persisted at the RUI have to the
succession process and the vulnerability of the enterprise at this stage
in the farm cycle.
5.2.3. Entrepreneurial stacking through vertical growth
A pattern of stacking enterprises emerged primarily among Mixed
type farms, some Multi-Generation AFAEs and one Commodity farm.
With stacking, farm families were making room for the interests and
talents of the next generation by adding new enterprises to the existing
one without increasing their land base. In some cases (often in grass
based animal production systems) individual family members were
building off each other’s production systems providing for independent
yet complimentary income streams. Some families engaged in these
Entrepreneurial Stacking strategies legally structured their farms so that
each new enterprise was a different business, while others saw all
activities as part of the same farm business.
The term “Entrepreneurial Stacking” is adapted from concepts
described by Joel Salatin (2001) where farmers are encouraged to adopt
an integrated closed loop pasture based agricultural system allowing
complimentary enterprises to exist on the same land base. In a similar
vein, the term Entrepreneurial Stacking refers to families stacking
complimentary businesses as a greater number of individuals are able
to generate additional income streams off the same land base and
utilize common resources. While this growth strategy also reflects
Bryant and Johnston’s conceptualization of a positive adaptation, the
defining characteristic distinguishing Entrepreneurial Stackers from
Intensifiers are the dramatically different enterprises being added to the
farming operation. While Intensifiers were found to be expanding their
operation within a similar production/crop type, Entrepreneurial
Stackers were adding on new production systems fundamentally
different from the existing range of farm activities, for example adding
vegetables onto a livestock operation, combining a grain operation with
growing produce and an on-farm retail shop, or transforming raw
agricultural products through value-adding activities.
Many of these families, particularly the Mixed type farms were
heavily influenced by the U.S. farm crisis and began to stack
enterprises in the 1980s when falling commodity prices encouraged
them to look for alternative ways to support the family. The motivation
to implement entrepreneurial stacking strategies is rooted in the reasons
Mixed type household members farm. The Mixed type household
members interviewed in this study continuously emphasized the
importance of wanting their operation to be “a real family farm” and
their desire to ensure opportunities for all family members. Among
these respondents, the decision to adopt direct marketing strategies was
embedded in their awareness of the difficulties associated with access
to land and capital and the need to restructure the farm away from pure
commodity production in order to ensure its survival. A Mixed farm
family explained their motivations for adding a nursery greenhouse
enterprise onto their commodity grain operation.
“We are mainly corn and soybeans, we also run a seed business on
the side. We own 760 acres, plus we cash rent some surrounding
farm ground and in the last 5 years we have started a greenhouse
operation on the property..the reason we got into the greenhouse
business was 5 years ago we were hunting for ways to diversify,
increase the farm income, not so much from wife’s and my income,
but I have a son that wants to stay in farming and stay in
agriculture and we felt that this was one way that we could also
generate income without going out and renting a lot of expensive
ground. A few years ago I would have said there is no way that our
operation could sustain both boys.now they can generate enough
income to make a decent living”.
Another case typifying the Entrepreneurial Stacker system is a fifth
generation farm that until the mid 1990s was a confinement dairy
operation, barely able to support one family. Making the conscious
decision to adopt a holistic grazing system, the operation became
certified organic and sold their milk into the bulk commodity fluid
organic milk market and diversified their product line. Individual
family members have added additional enterprises including: grass
based meats (beef, pork, lamb, pastured poultry); pastured eggs; and
artisan cheese production. To capture a greater share of the consumer
 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
dollar the family built an on-farm retail store and sold their products
through local retailers throughout the region. This strategy allows the
farm to support four families full time. One family member explained
“We had gotten up to 190 cows at one time, and we decided that
we weren’t going to be able to handle getting enough cows for 3 or
4 families and we didn’t want to go down that road. We just didn’t
want to continue adding more and more cows. We wanted to do
something value added and the numbers looked really good for all
the different options we had to do value-added products from fluid
milk to lots of other things, ice cream..cheese. the pork, the
chicken, the eggs”.
Seeing the interest the next generation had in exploring alternative
production and marketing systems the family invested in their children
by sending them to courses and workshops where they could learn
skills such as cheese making and rotational grazing or taking advantage
of college degrees in business and marketing. Each added skill was
incorporated into the farm’s business structure enabling a flexible
diversification system able to add on unique income streams for each
additional child participating in the farm enterprise.
We found many Entrepreneurial Stackers to have a unique division
of labor, with some family members in charge of field crops, others in
charge of fruit and vegetable crops, while yet others turn the harvest
into value added products (jams, pie, etc) and were in charge of direct
marketing these goods. An example of this stacking strategy was found
on a second generation family farm that was a corn and bean operation
until the mid 1980s. Reacting to falling prices in the corn commodity
markets they planted berries, and when there was an overabundance of
fresh market product, the matriarch began processing the fruit into
jams, jellies and pie fillings. Today in addition to the corn and beans
the operation has grown into a full fledged fruit patch with an on farm
market and full service bakery, with school tours, pumpkin festivals,
corn maze, petting zoo, and a harvest cruise-in for the adults. The
father remains as the primary fruit producer, while the mother is in
charge of value added and retailing activities. All of the children are
employed full time off the farm, but are still involved in the farm
operation and help out on a part time basis. One son runs the grain
farming operation, while the other children and daughter in-law are
involved with marketing and running the farm market in addition to
occasional field labor.
A common pattern among the Entrepreneurial Stackers was for the
division of labor to be split across generations, with older family
members responsible for production and younger members in charge of
marketing. These families took advantage of skills developed off the
farm particularly those related to marketing and education. Describing
the contributions his wifewas making totheir family operation, one son
stated:
“She’s a graphic designer so she can take my mom and dad’s ideas
and put them into a design.if you think about it, our generation,
we’re able to utilize the internet. We’re able to utilize different
resources then my mom and dad’s generation”.
While this skill split might capitalize on unique talents and interests
of members of the operation, it does create some difficulty and
uncertainty as to the future of the farm, particularly concerning who
will be responsible for production activities once the older generation
retires. Several younger generation respondents of multi-generation
operations were unsure who would take over production
responsibilities when their parents retired or passed on; some
speculated they might take on production responsibilities, while others
anticipated they might shift into a greater managerial role, hiring a farm
manager to oversee production. This finding raises new questions
concerning the long term viability of these operations despite the initial
success at incorporating multiple generations into the farm enterprise.
115
6. Discussion
In this study we examine adaptation and succession together in
order to gain a more nuanced understanding of how succession,
enterprise type and growth strategies influence the structure of
agricultureattheRUI.Inregardsto ourfirstquestion,wefindastrong
relationship between the existence of a successor, enterprise growth
andfarmadaptation.Incontrast,farmfamilieswhocouldnotidentify an heir
placed less emphasis on increasing farm productivity; rather these
farms implemented more static management strategies or began to
disinvest in the farm by selling off land and assets. In the cases where
farm families had identified an heir, a variety of horizontal and vertical
growth strategies to achieve farm reproduction goals were observed.
Families were found to engage in three distinct types of adaptation
strategies: expanding, intensifying and entrepreneurial stacking. With
the exception of Commoditygrowers, very few farmers were choosing a
strategy of pure land expansion. The majority of farms we studied were
intensifying through an already established commodity mix (growing
higher value crops), or expanding by stacking enterprises (of varying
size and intensity) to allow more family members to earn a living from
the farm and accommodate different phases of the lifecycle. These
adaptations enabled farms to persist across generations despite the
limited land base, higherland prices, and land fragmentation that
existed in these RUI settings. Furthermore, these results demonstrate
how noneconomic priorities such as succession are related to farm
growth, adaptation and reproduction strategies at the RUI.
In examining the varying ways families organize and manage both
the household and farm enterprise this study more clearly demonstrates
the relationship that exists between the division of labor and farm
adaptation and persistence. Among some families, particularly within
the Intensifying and Entrepreneurial Stacking group, as individual
family members aged they had transitioned their roles on the farm from
producers into marketers shifting responsibilities along the life cycle
course. Farms engaged in AFAE production systems may be especially
able to take advantage of life cycle differences within the family to fill
production, marketing and childcare/household needs. However,
among some families the older members continued to retain control of
production responsibilities while the younger generation ramped up the
farms marketing functions. This specialized division of labor raises
questions about the long term viability of the production function of the
farm enterprise when the older generation with the production skills
eventually retires and pass. Will the younger ‘marketing’ generation
eventually transition into a producer role, or will they take on a
manager role, employing appropriate labor to manage production and
raise the crops? Future research should include long term panel studies
to track changes in production and management decisions and how
these in turn shape agricultural change at the RUI.
Our second question examined the relationship between succession,
enterprise type and the macro-political, economic and land limitations
faced by farm families at the RUI. We found the growth adaptations
families exhibited were partially a result of their land options but also
reflected larger trends in the general agriculture economy. Commodity
farmers were aware of and sensitive to global competition and
fluctuating commodity markets, their ability to bring on another
generation in this production system was generally based on an
expansion growth strategy, spreading costs and profits over more acres.
Families implementing Entrepreneurial Stacking growth strategies
were primarily Mixed type farmers influenced by historic farm
economics (particularly the “crisis” periods) and the risks associated
with overexpansion and debt. This group purposefully choose to
increase niche production and localize in order to avoid global
competition, while simultaneously taking advantage of their RUI
location; this group demonstrates how farmers can be motivated to shift
away from entrenched historic production practices to implement new
production and marketing practices in order to accomplish farm
reproduction goals. Additionally, these farmers also tended to operate
medium sized farms which may afford them some flexibility in
116 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117
transitioning into AFAE strategies not available to very large
Commodity producers who may have very high sunk costs.
7. Conclusion
The results of this study provide a more nuanced understanding of
the structure of agriculture at the RUI that informs both the agricultural
geography and succession literatures and contributes to agricultural and
RUI policy debates. We acknowledge the data for this analysis was
from a cross-sectional survey and that long term panel data would
enable more detailed comparisons across farm types in addition to
being able to better track the changing structure of agriculture at the
RUI. Future research should continue to investigate the spatial
relationship between diversity of farm structure and the vitality of RUI
agriculture across by examining and comparing other RUI regions. A
second question that warrants additional study is the degree to which a
greater diversity of farm types (commodity and AFAE) is associated
with the persistence and growth of agriculture in a locale, and
inversely, if RUI regions in decline are characterized by more
homogenous farm structures.
In terms of concluding observations related to our finding, we find
that connecting the succession literature with the agricultural
geography literature allowed us to discern how important farm
reproduction processes are to farm persistence at the RUI as well as to
identify the distinct strategies of developing a farm to allow for
successful reproduction. The findings presented in this research
contribute to the agricultural geography literature in two ways, by
expanding on the types of farms identified within the literature and by
more explicitly exploring the intersection of succession and adaptation.
First we build on Hemilich and Brook’s (1989) definition of farm types
found at the RUI by identifying a wider range of alternative and
traditional enterprises. Our second contribution to the agricultural
geography literature has been to expand Johnston and Bryant’s (1987)
conceptualization of normal and positive adaptations. Interviews
revealed that farmers expanding their operations were primarily
exhibiting normal adjustments paralleling wider trends in agriculture.
Two distinct types of positive adaptations were observed including
those who were Intensifying their operations and those engaged in
Entrepreneurial Stacking activities. These different strategies reflect the
multiple adaptations of the Smithers and Johnson (2004) model and
highlight the varying ways succession in combination with land
structure and enterprise structure influence growth and adaptation
strategies at the RUI.
This research reveals the continued significance of farm succession
(Salamon, 1992), and points toward the need for additional research
and policy consideration of this important agricultural process. For
instance, as farm families intensify and stack production on a limited
land base, family conflicts associated with farm inheritance have the
potential to arise and become complicated by the unique division of
labor that might have been developed among family members. The
long term survival of these enterprises is dependent on the ability to
negotiate and satisfy the increasing number of individuals and
potentially competing interests operating on these land constrained
enterprises. Future extensions of this research would be an examination
of the distinct succession strategies farms in other regional RUI settings
employ compared to non-RUI locals which might reveal if and how
succession strategies vary across space and context. Finally, since the
reproduction of the farm is intimately tied to the revitalization of the
farm enterprise, agriculture and RUI policy makers should be attentive
not only to land-use and economic policies, but also to the social
factors that impact farm persistence and growth.
Retaining a profitable and sustainable working agricultural
landscape in the face of non-farm development is an issue ubiquitous
throughout the United States and many industrialized nations. Our
work suggests that the diversity of ways that family’s organize their
farm business lead to subtle but important differences in the structure
of RUI farms, that contributes to the persistence and in some cases
growth of agriculture at the RUI despite macro-political, economic, and
land-use pressures. Reinhart and Barlett (1989) argued the cyclical
process of enterprise development, maintenance and redevelopment
associated with farm and family life cycle increase the ability of the
family farm to survive and persist on the landscape. In a similar vein,
our work examining the nuances in farmer adjustment and
diversification strategies suggests the heterogeneity of farm structure at
the RUI contributes to the resilience of agriculture at the RUI, and that
it is critical to foster this diversity through flexible policies that move
beyond one size fits all to recognize the varying needs different groups
of farmers have. The ultimate ability of these farms to persist on the
landscape is dependent on the degree to which farm policy is able to
address issues tied to social sustainability and recognize the dynamic
relationship between the household, farm structure, national, state and
local policy.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by the National Research
Initiative of the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service, USDA, Grant #2005-35401-15272., and North Central Region
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Graduate
Student Research Grant. The authors would like to express sincere
thanks to the anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their
extremely constructive and insightful comments. The authors thank
Doug Jackson-Smith, Jill Clark and Jason Parker for their insightful
suggestions.
References
Abdalla, C.W., Kelsey, T.W., 1996. Breaking the impasse: helping communities cope
with change at the ruraleurban interface. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
51 (6), 462e466.
Barbieri, C., Mahoney, E., 2009. Why is diversification an attractive farm adjustment
strategy? Insights from Texas farmers and ranchers. Journal of Rural Studies 25
(1), 58e66.
Barbieri, C., Mahoney, E., Butler, L., 2008. Understanding the nature and extent of
farm and ranch diversification in North America. Rural Sociology 73 (2), 205e229.
Bazeley, P., Richards, L., 2000. The NVivo Qualitative Project Book. Sage
Publications.
Bennett, J., 1982. Of Time and the Enterprise North American Family Farm
Management in a Context of Resource Marginality. University of Minnesota
Press.
Berg, B.L., 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, fifth ed. Allyn
and Bacon.
Berry, D., 1978. Effects of urbanization on agricultural activities. Growth and Change 9
(3), 2e8.
Bowler, I., 1999. Modeling farm diversification in regions using Expert and decision
support systems. Journal of Rural Studies 15 (3), 297e305.
Bryant, C.R., Johnston, T.R., 1992. Agriculture in the City’s Countryside. University of
Toronto Press, Toronto.
Bryant, C.R., 1973. L’agriculture face a la croissance metropolitaine: le cas des
exploitations fruitiere de Groslay et Dueil-la-Barre dans la grande banlieue nord de
Paris. Economie Rurale 98, 35e55.
Burton, R., Walford, N., 2005. Multiple succession and land division on family farms in
the South East of England: a Counterbalance to agricultural Concentration? Journal
of Rural Studies 21, 335e347.
Butler, L.M., Maronek, D.M., 2002. Urban and Agricultural Communities:
Opportunities for common ground. CAST Task Force Report No. 138. Council on
Agricultural Science and Technology.
Calus, M., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Van Lierde, D., 2008. The relationship between farm
succession and farm Assets on Belgian farms. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1), 38e56.
Che, D., Veeck, A., Veeck, G., 2005. Sustaining production and strengthening the agri-
tourism product: linkages among Michigan agri-tourism destinations. Agriculture
and Human Values 22, 225e234.
Clark, J.K., Munroe, D.K., Mansfield, B., 2010. What Counts as farming: how
classification limits regionalization of the food system. Cambridge Journal of
Regions, Economy and Society 3, 245e259.
Daniels, T., 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the
Metropolitan Fringe. Island Press.
Fennell, D.A., Weaver, D.B., 1997. Vacation farms and Ecotourism in Saskatchewan,
Canada. Journal of Rural Studies 13 (4), 467e475.
Gasson, R., Crow, G., Errington, A., Hutson, J., Marsden, T., Winter, D.M., 1988. The
farm as a family business: a review. Journal of Agricultural Economics 39, 1 e41.
Gasson, R., Errington, A., 1993. The Farm Family Business. CAB International.
 S.M. Inwood, J.S. Sharp / Journal of Rural Studies 28 (2012) 107e117 117
Gibbs, G.R., 2002. Qualitative Data Analysis Explorations With NVivo. Open Smithers, J., Johnson, P., 2004. The dynamics of family farming in North Huron
University Press. county, Ontario. Part I. development trajectories. The Canadian Geographer/Le
Gilg, A.W., Battershill, M., 1998. The role of household factors in direct selling of farm Géographe Canadien 48 (2), 191e208.
produce in France. Tijdxchrift voor Economische en Socialle Geografie 90 (3), Stinglauer, A.M., Weiss, C.R., 2000. Family and non-family succession in the
312e319. UpperAustrian farm sector. Cahiers d’economie et Sociologie Rurles 54, 6e26.
Heimlich, R.E., Anderson, W.D., 1987. Dynamics of land use change in urbanizing Taylore, J.E., Howard, W.H., Norris, J.E., 1998. Succession patterns of farmer and
areas: experience in the economic research service. In: Lockeretz, W. (Ed.), successor in Canadian farm families. Rural Sociology 63 (4), 553e573.
Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities. Iowa State University Press.
Heimlich, R.E., Brooks, D.H., 1989. Metropolitan Growth and Agriculture: Farming in
the City’s Shadow. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Washington, DC.
Heimlich, R.E., Anderson, W.D., 2001. Development at the urban Fringe and beyond.
Agricultural Economic Report Number 803. USDA e ERS.
Hennessy, T., 2002. Modelling Succession on Irish Dairy Farms. AAE Congress,
Zaragoza, Spain.
Hines, F.K., Rhoades, D.A., 1994. Farm Structural Changes in Metropolitan and
Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1978e87. Staff Report No. AGES 9408. Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Hirschl, T.A., Long, C.R., 1993. Dairy farm survival in a metropolitan area: Dutchess
county, New York, 1984e1990. Rural Sociology 58 (3), 461e474.
Hoppe, R.A., Korb, P., 2001. Farm Operations Facing Development: Results from the
Census Longitudinal File. USDA e ERS.
Ilbery, B.W., 1985. Agricultural Geography: a Social and Economic Analysis. Oxford
University Press.
Jackson-Smith, D., 1999. Understanding the microdynamics of farm structural change:
entry, exit and restructuring among Wisconsin family farmers. Rural Sociology 64
(1), 66e91.
Jackson-Smith, D., Sharp, J.S., 2008. Farming in the urban shadow: supporting
agriculture at the ruraleurban interface. Rural Realities 2 (4).
Jonovic, D.J., Messick, W.D., 1986. Passing Down the Farm: the other Farm Crisis.
Jamieson Press, Cleveland.
Johnsen, S., 2004. The Redefinition of family farming: agricultural restructuring and
farm adjustment in Waihemo, New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 419e432.
Johnston, T. R., 1989. Farmers’ adaptive behaviour in an urbanising environment:
Guelph to Toronto area, Department of Geography, University of Guelph, Masters
Thesis.
Johnston, T.R., Bryant, C.R., 1987. Agricultural adaptation: the prospects for sustaining
agriculture near cities. In: Lockeretz, W. (Ed.), Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities.
Iowa State University Press.
Keating, N.C., Little, H.M., 1997. Choosing the successor in New Zealand family
farms. Family Business Review 10 (2), 157e171.
Keating, N.C., Munro, B., 1989. Transferring the family farm: process and
implications. Family Relations 38 (2), 215e219.
Kelsey, T.W., 1998. Interdependence, rules, and rural development. Growth and
Change 29, 281e294. Summer.
Kelsey, T.W., Singletary, L., 1996. Conflict at the rural/urban interface: mushroom
farms and composting in a suburbanizing environment. Compost Science &
Utilization 4, 89e96.
Kennedy, L., 1991. Farm succession in modern Ireland: elements of a theory of
inheritance. The Economic History Review 44 (3), 477e499.
Lisansky, J., Clark, G., 1987. Farmer-nonfarmer conflicts in the urban Fringe: will
Right-to-farm help? In: Lockeretz, W. (Ed.), Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities.
Iowa State University Press.
Lobley, M., Potter, C., 2004. Agricultural change and restructuring: recent evidence
from a survey of agricultural households in England. Journal of Rural Studies 20
(4), 499e510.
Lopez, R.A., Adelaja, A.O., Andrews, M.S., 1988. The effects of suburbanization on
agriculture. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 70 (2), 346e358.
McNally, S., 2001. Farm diversification in England and Wales: what can we learn from
the farm business survey? Journal of Rural Studies 17, 247e257.
Pfeffer, M., 1983. Social origins of three systems of farm production in the United
States. Rural Sociology 48 (4), 540e562.
Parker, T., 2003. Measuring Rurality: Urban Influence Codes. United States
Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service.
Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1996. Unbroken threads? Succession and its effects on family
farms in Briton. European Society for Rural Sociology 36 (3), 286e306.
Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1992. Ageing and succession on family farms: the impact on
decision-making and land use. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (2/3), 317e334.
Reinhardt, N., Barlett, P., 1989. The persistence of family farms in United states
agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 29 (3/4), 203e225.
Richards, L., 1999. Using NVivo in Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
Salamon, S., 1992. Prairie Patrimony: Family, Farming, and Community in the
Midwest. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Salatin, J., 2001. Family friendly farming: a multi-generational home-based business
testament. Polyface, Virgina. Swoope.
Sharp, J.S., Smith, M.B., 2004. Farm operator adjustments and neighboring at the rural-
urban interface. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 23 (4), 111e131.
Shumway, J., Otterstrom, S.M., 2001. Spatial patterns of migration and income change
in the mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich counties.
Professional Geographer 53 (4), 492e502.
Shumway, J.M., Otterstrom, S.M., 2004. Spatial patterns of migration and income
change in the mountain West: the dominance of service-based, amenity-rich
counties. The Professional Geographer 53 (4), 492e502.