Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:34:40.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The adaptive consumer: shifting attitudes, behavior change and CSA membership renewal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2008

Willow Saranna Russell*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Human Ecology, 334 Human Ecology Building, 1300 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Lydia Zepeda
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin-Madison, School of Human Ecology, 334 Human Ecology Building, 1300 Linden Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]

Abstract

A qualitative study was conducted with a subset of a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) membership base in Wisconsin, USA to examine attitude and behavior change associated with membership. Changes that were examined included: modified eating or cooking habits, increased consideration of food seasonality and associated consumer preferences for seasonal products, and an enhanced appreciation for farming. Although this study investigated ‘spillover’ attitude or behavior changes (e.g. reduced driving or increased use of environmentally friendly cleaning products), none were observed. This study indicates that attitude and behavior changes are generated by the structural elements of CSA including exposure to the farm, interactions with the farmer, and the constraints imposed by a pre-selected bundle of vegetables. There was no indication that changes occur due to the development and enforcement of social norms within the CSA membership base. Community, in the context of this CSA, is expressed primarily as a conceptual community of interest. Our results suggest that demonstrated attitude and behavior change increases the likelihood that a consumer will renew their CSA membership.

Type
Research Papers
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wilson College. 2006. Robyn Van En Center for CSA Resources. Available at Web site http://www.wilson.edu/wilson/asp/content.asp?id=804 (verified 31 May 2006).Google Scholar
2 Cone, C.A. and Myhre, A. 2000. Community-supported agriculture: a sustainable alternative to industrial agriculture? Human Organization 59(2):187197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 Delind, L.B. and Ferguson, A.E. 1999. Is this a women's movement? The relationship of gender to community-supported agriculture in Michigan. Human Organization 58(2):190200.Google Scholar
4 Farnsworth, R.L., Thompson, S.R., Drury, K.A., and Warner, R.E. 1996. Community supported agriculture: filling a niche market. Journal of Food Distribution Research 27(1):9098.Google Scholar
5 Lang, B.K. 2005. Expanding our understanding of community supported agriculture (CSA): an examination of member satisfaction. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 26(2):6180.Google Scholar
6 Lancaster, K.J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy 74(2):132157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Bregendahl, C. and Flora, C.B. 2006. The role of collaborative community supported agriculture: lessons from Iowa. North Central Regional Center for Rural Development. Available at Web site http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/index.html (verified 7 March 2007).Google Scholar
8 O'Hara, S. and Stagl, S. 2002. Endogenous preferences and sustainable development. Journal of Socio-Economics 31: 511527.Google Scholar
9 Coleman, J.S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology 94(Suppl.):S95S120.Google Scholar
10 Schor, J.B. 1998. The Overspent American. Harper Perennial, New York.Google Scholar
11 Valentine, G. 1999. Eating in: home, consumption and identity. Sociological Review 47(3):491524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Agrawal, A. and Gibson, C.C. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: the role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27(4):629649.Google Scholar
13 Madison Area Community Supported Agriculture Coalition. 2006. MACSAC Farm Profiles. Available at Web site http://www.macsac.org/profiles.php (verified 17 April 2006).Google Scholar
14 Docter, M. and Hildebrand, L. 1998. CSA success depends on retention; here's how to keep members happy. Growing for Market (April) (1):46.Google Scholar
15 Krueger, R.A. 1994. Focus Group: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
16 US Census Bureau. 2000. U.S. Census Bureau: American Fact Finder: Quick Tables. Available at Web site http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_QTP5&-ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&-redoLog=false (verified 31 May 2006).Google Scholar
17 Zepeda, L. and Li, J. 2007. Characteristics of organic food shoppers. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics 39(1):1728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18 Barnard, N.D., Nicholson, A., and Howard, J.L. 1995. The medical costs attributable to meat consumption. Preventive Medicine 24:646655.Google Scholar
19 Sabaté, J. 2003. The contribution of vegetarian diets to health and disease: a paradigm shift? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(Supp.):502S507S.Google Scholar
20 Singh, P.N., Sabaté, J., and Fraser, G.E. 2003. Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 78(Suppl.):526S532S.Google Scholar
21 Berkow, S.E. and Barnard, N. 2006. Vegetarian diets and weight status. Nutrition Reviews 64(4):175188.Google Scholar
22 Colorado College. 2006. Energy: ecological footprint. Available at Web site http://www.coloradocollege.edu/dept/ev/courses/EV112/footprint.html (verified 21 May 2006).Google Scholar
23 Fishman, P.B. 1984. Commentary: teaching consumers about food purchasing and ecology. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 16:3337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar