!
CHAPTER!1!
! ! INTRODUCTION!
Since!the!1940s,!agriculture!and!food!in!industrialized!countries!has!become!
increasingly!globalized!in!the!sense!that!the!production,!processing!and!distribution!of!
food!products!now!occur!across!the!globe!through!an!integrated!chain!of!large!
agribusiness!firms!and!food!retailers.!!As!a!result,!it!is!increasingly!uncommon!for!food!
to!be!consumed!in!the!same!place!that!it!is!produced.!!Development!of!the!global!
agrifood!system!has!been!associated!with!significant!negative!impacts!on!food!quality,!
healthy!diets,!and!environmental!quality!(Pollan!2009).!!Local!food!systems!are!often!
praised!as!solutions!to!many!of!the!problems!created!by!the!global!agrifood!industry.!!
While!the!research!literature!on!local!food!systems!is!growing!rapidly,!most!of!this!
literature!focuses!on!describing!their!diversity,!size,!scope,!and!potential!benefits.!!To!
date,!few!have!seriously!investigated!the!social!and!institutional!conditions!that!
facilitate!or!frustrate!their!development.!!The!current!research!project!attempts!to!fill!
this!gap!by!examining!the!role!of!local!collective!action!and!local!public!sector!programs!
and!policies!in!the!emergence!and!growth!of!local!food!systems.!
!
Growth!of!the!Global!Agrifood!System!
Throughout!the!20th!century,!U.S.!agriculture!has!become!increasingly!
industrialized!as!natural!production!processes,!inputs!and!outputs!have!been!
substituted!with!more!industrial‐like!farm!production!processes,!manufactured!inputs,!
and!greater!processing!of!food!products!(Goodman!2002).!!Machinery!has!replaced!
!
!
2!
most!animal!and!human!labor!traditionally!used!in!agriculture.!!Hybrid!seeds,!chemical!
fertilizers!and!pesticides!have!replaced!or!modified!reliance!on!natural!biological!
processes!and!on‐farm!resources.!!Many!agricultural!products!also!have!been!replaced!
by!synthetic!manufactured!products!(e.g.,!nylon!for!cotton)!(Ilbery!and!Bowler!1998).!!!
As!agriculture!has!become!more!industrialized,!agricultural!production!and!
processing!has!become!more!concentrated!in!the!hands!of!fewer!farms!and!businesses.!!
Increased!concentration!among!farmers!has!led!to!the!domination!of!production!of!
many!important!commodities!by!a!small!number!of!very!large!farms.!!Meanwhile,!
concentration!in!the!rest!of!the!agrifood!system!(e.g.,!among!the!firms!providing!inputs!
to!farmers!and!those!processing!and!distributing!food!products)!has!increased!their!
control!over!commodity!prices,!the!types!and!quality!of!food!products,!and!the!location!
and!types!of!farm!production!processes!(Howard!2006).!!For!example,!large!food!
retailers!in!the!US!have!expanded!into!Latin!America!and!Asia!to!the!point!where!they!
now!control!roughly!50%!of!the!consumer!retail!market!(Howard!2006).!!This!not!only!
gives!retailers!control!of!retail!prices,!but!also!over!the!ways!that!food!commodities!are!
produced,!processed,!and!distributed.!!For!example,!Wal‐Mart!is!the!world’s!largest!
retailer!and!is!able!to!dictate!the!price!it!will!pay!to!its!suppliers.!!If!suppliers!want!to!
access!Wal‐Mart’s!large!market!share!of!consumers!worldwide,!they!are!forced!to!make!
changes!to!their!production!process,!labor!arrangements,!inputs,!etc.,!to!accommodate!
Wal‐Mart’s!demands!(Fishman!2003).!
!
!
!
3!
Impacts!on!Farmers!and!Consumers!
The!impacts!of!industrialization!and!consolidation!of!agriculture!on!farms!and!
farmers!in!the!US!is!well!documented.!!First,!there!are!many!fewer!farms!and!much!
larger!average!farm!sizes!(Gardner!2002).!!Farm!numbers!peaked!in!1935!at!
approximately!6.8!million!farms!(USDA!2008).!!This!has!steadily!declined!to!2.2!million!
farms!in!2008!(USDA!2008).!!The!total!amount!of!land!used!for!cropland!and!pasture!
declined!by!just!10%!between!1945!and!2002,!but!the!average!farm!size!has!increased,!
from!213!to!240!acres,!during!the!same!period!(USDA!2008).!!Second,!the!number!of!
farm!operators!and!agricultural!employment!has!decreased!as!a!share!of!total!
employment.!!Total!farm!employment!declined!from!9.9!million!in!1950!(USDA!1995)!to!
approximately!3!million!in!2006!(Kandel!2008).!!There!has!also!been!an!increase!in!part‐
time!farming.!!In!1950!about!36%!of!farm!operators!worked!off‐farm!and!about!21.8%!
of!those!worked!100!days!or!more!off!of!their!farm.!!In!2007,!about!54%!of!farm!
operators!report!something!other!than!farming!as!their!primary!occupation!(USDA!
2009).!!Finally,!because!they!buy!and!sell!from!powerful!agribusiness!firms!that!control!
the!majority!of!the!agricultural!input!and!commodity!markets,!farmers!in!the!United!
States!face!a!growing!cost‐price!squeeze!where!profit!margins!are!steadily!diminishing!
due!to!rising!costs!of!production!and!lower!real!prices!received!for!their!products!
(Gardner!2003;!Guptill!2008b).!!!
There!have!been!many!vocal!critics!of!the!industrialization!and!consolidation!of!
the!agrifood!system.!!Many!have!documented!negative!effects!of!a!more!industrialized!
!
!
4!
agriculture!on!rural!community!well!being!(Goldschmidt!1968;!Labao!1990;!Lyson!2004,!
2007;!Panelli!2006;!Slack!and!Jensen!2004),!farmers!and!farm!households!(Bartlett!2000;!
Guptill!2008a;!Reinhardt!and!Bartlett!1989;!Shiva!2000;!Van!derPloeg!2006),!farm!
worker!rights!and!safety!(Ladd!and!Edwards!2002;!Moses!1993),!and!environmental!
quality!(Buttel!2006;!Evans,!Gaskill,!and!Winter!2003;!Foster!1999;!Knight!2007;!Shiva!
2000).!!!
The!consolidation!of!the!agrifood!system!has!also!impacted!consumers!by!
decreasing!consumer!choices,!making!food!inaccessible!to!some!people,!and!reducing!
health!and!safety!(Hinrichs!2008).!!For!example,!recent!E.#coli#and!mad!cow!scares!have!
increased!concern!about!the!vulnerability!of!large‐scale!agricultural!production!to!food!
safety!and!brought!attention!to!the!lack!of!transparency!in!the!agrifood!system!(Green,!
Draper,!and!Dowler2003).!!In!another!example,!food!store!access!varies!by!location!and!
income!groups!such!that!rural!and!central!city!areas!with!concentrations!of!low‐income!
and!minorities!pay!higher!prices!and!have!less!access!to!fresh!foods!(Kantor!2001).!!!
#
Rise!of!Local!Food!Systems!
In!response!to!many!of!these!critiques!there!have!been!frequent!calls!for!a!re‐
localized,!re‐socialized!agriculture!(Lyson!2004,!2007;!Ostrom!2007;!Stevenson!et!al.!
2007).!!Scholars!have!responded!by!documenting,!describing!and!studying!the!
emergence!of!various!alternatives!to!the!dominant!agrifood!system,!with!a!particular!
focus!on!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!Alternative!food!systems!are!often!
organized!around!two!key!ideas:!providing!labels!or!traceability!that!assures!consumers!
!
!
5!
that!food!is!produced!in!a!particular!way!(called!“value‐trait!food!systems”)!and!
providing!alternative!distribution!networks!which!enable!consumers!to!directly!buy!food!
from!farmers!(called!“short‐supply!chain”!food!systems).#
Examples!of!value‐traits!that!are!important!to!consumers!in!alternative!food!
chains!include!the!use!of!specific!production!practices,!including!organic,!natural,!free‐
range,!or!sustainable!farming!techniques.!!They!also!include!food!produced!by!farms!
with!particular!organizational!characteristics!(e.g.,!small!or!mid‐sized!farms;!family!
owned!and!operated!farms,!non‐industrial!farms,!etc.).!!Finally,!they!might!include!foods!
that!were!produced!in!particular!geographic!regions!(either!because!those!regions!are!
famous!for!producing!quality!products,!or!because!foods!are!produced!from!the!state,!
region,!or!community!in!which!the!consumer!lives).!!Value‐trait!foods!have!become!a!
significant!component!of!the!U.S.!food!market!over!the!past!decade.!!Government!
estimates!suggest!that!the!organic!food!market!alone!has!grown!at!roughly!20%!per!
year!and!exceeded!$21!billion!in!sales!in!2008!(Dimitri!and!Oberholtzer!2009;!Greene!et!
al.!2009).!!Interest!in!natural!and!sustainable!foods!more!broadly!is!considered!to!be!
one!of!the!most!important!trends!in!the!food!sector.!!!
Short‐supply!chain!(SSC)!food!systems!usually!involve!direct!sales!of!farm!
products!by!producers!to!consumers.!!SSCs!are!designed!to!increase!the!economic!
returns!captured!by!farmers!(by!eliminating!intermediate!processors!and!distributors)!
and!also!to!improve!levels!of!trust!and!transparency!between!consumers!and!farmers!
(Conner,!Campbell‐Arvai,!and!Hamm!2008).!!For!farmers!and!consumers,!the!depth!and!
!
!
6!
quality!of!relationships!with!one!another!can!be!a!key!element!of!why!they!choose!to!
buy!or!sell!their!food!products!locally!(Hinrichs!2000).!!!
Most!short‐supply!chains!are!market‐based!distributive!institutions!in!which!
consumers!and!producers!buy!and!sell!agricultural!products!(or!processed!foods)!
through!normal!competitive!retail!markets.!!Examples!can!be!simple!market!
transactions!between!individuals,!such!as!purchases!made!at!roadside!farm!stands!or!
from!vendors!at!regularly!scheduled!farmers’!markets.!!In!the!case!of!community!
supported!agriculture!(CSA)!arrangements,!the!consumer!becomes!a!‘member’!in!a!
collective!enterprise!and!makes!an!upfront!payment!(a!‘membership!share’)!in!exchange!
for!regular!delivery!of!farm!products!throughout!the!growing!season.!!Many!producers!
also!sell!food!through!wholesale!markets!under!longer‐term!contract!arrangements,!
such!as!the!sale!of!food!to!local!restaurants,!schools!and!hospitals,!or!sales!through!local!
health!food,!specialty,!or!grocery!stores!(Bagdonis,!Hinrichs,!and!Schaft!2009;!Watts,!
Ilbery,!and!Maye!2005).!!!
By!contrast,!some!examples!of!short!supply!chains!distribute!food!through!non‐
market!based!local!food!institutions.!!Examples!include!backyard!or!community!gardens!
where!local!residents!can!raise!their!own!food!and!community!food!security!programs!
designed!to!make!local!food!available!to!disadvantaged!populations!at!below!market!
rates!(Correia!2005;!Guthman,!Isaacs!2003;!Kantor!2001;!Morris!and!Allen!2006).#
Multiple!forms!of!SSCs!tend!to!develop!in!tandem!in!single!communities!so!that!
it!is!possible!to!talk!about!them!collectively!as!local!food!systems.!!These!food!systems!
!
!
7!
are!typically!distinguished!from!conventional!food!systems!by!the!short!food!supply!
chains!between!producers!and!consumers.!
In!practice,!most!local!food!systems!also!involve!providing!‘value‐trait!foods’!to!
consumers.!!This!is!because!most!consumers!who!care!about!buying!from!local!
producers!are!also!motivated!to!buy!foods!that!are!perceived!as!healthier,!raised!with!
more!environmentally!beneficial!practices!and!that!also!support!local!farm!families.!!
While!most!SSC!food!systems!embrace!value‐trait!foods,!it!is!increasingly!common!for!
value‐trait!food!markets!to!be!absorbed!into!the!mainstream!global!industrial!agrifood!
system.!!For!example,!the!organics!sector!has!become!consolidated!in!the!same!ways!as!
conventional!commodity!agriculture!described!above!(Bonanno!and!Constance!2008;!
Guptill!2008b;!Howard!2006).!!In!this!research,!I!will!use!the!phrase!local!food!systems!
to!refer!to!short!food!supply!chains!that!limit!the!distance!between!the!sites!of!
production!and!consumption.!!Local!food!includes!small‐scale!agricultural!production!of!
agricultural!products!and!services!that!do!not!travel!great!distances!to!markets!such!
that!the!majority!of!distribution!is!geographically!close!to!the!producer!with!either!face‐
to‐face!contact!between!producers!and!consumers,!or!spatially!proximate!contact!
between!producers!and!consumers!(Sage!2003).!!Although!local!food!systems!may!also!
possess!some!value‐traits!such!as!organic!or!natural,!the!key!feature!of!a!local!food!
system!is!the!short!food!supply!chain.!
!
Profile!of!Local!Food!Systems!in!the!United!States!
Two!of!the!most!common!forms!of!SSCs!are!farmers’!markets!and!community!
!
!
8!
supported!agriculture!arrangements!(Gillespie!et!al.!2007).!!Farmers’!markets!can!be!
organized!by!producers,!civil!society!groups!or!local!government!staff,!and!typically!
involve!designating!a!specific!time!and!space!for!vendors!to!set!up!stalls!and!sell!various!
products.!!Most!farmers’!markets!hire!a!market!manager!to!allocate!space!at!markets,!
make!arrangements!for!public!parking!and!facilities,!and!enforce!rules!about!the!types!
of!vendors!that!can!participate!or!products!that!can!be!sold.!!For!example,!it!is!common!
for!some!markets!to!require!that!vendors!only!sell!products!that!they!themselves!
produced,!or!that!products!must!come!from!within!a!specified!geographic!area!
surrounding!the!market.!!Many!markets!offer!combinations!of!raw!farm!products,!
processed!food!and!drinks,!and!art!or!craft!items.!!!
The!number!and!scale!of!farmers’!markets!has!increased!dramatically!in!recent!
years.!!According!to!the!most!recent!USDA!study!on!farmers’!markets,!from!2000!to!
2005!farmers’!markets!have!increased!43%!from!2,863!to!4,093.!!About!30%!of!all!
farmers’!markets!are!less!than!five!years!old!(Raggland!and!Tropp!2009).!!Farmers’!
market!sales!have!increased!annually!by!2.5%!since!2000,!from!about!$888!million!in!
2000!to!more!than!$1!billion!in!2005.!!Additionally,!the!average!number!of!vendors!per!
market!site!has!increased!from!27!in!2000!to!31!in!2005!(Raggland!and!Tropp!2009).!
Farmers’!markets!can!contribute!significantly!to!local!and!state!economies!in!
terms!of!income!and!employment!(Gillespie!et!al.!2007).!!For!example,!Henneberry!et!al.!
(2008)!found!that!total!gross!sales!for!a!single!season!in!Oklahoma!farmers’!markets!was!
$3.3!million!with!a!total!of!$7.8!million!in!impacts!on!the!state’s!economy.!!In!a!study!by!
!
!
9!
Varner!and!Otto!(2008)!farmers’!markets’!sales!totaled!more!than!$21!million!in!a!
season,!which!they!estimated!to!be!a!total!economic!impact!of!$31.5!million!to!the!state!
of!Iowa.!!Most!producers!at!farmers’!markets!have!small!sales,!averaging!around!
$5,000;!indicating!participation!in!farmers’!markets!is!a!part‐time!or!partial!income!
source!(Brown!and!Miller!2008).!!!
Another!type!of!SSC!is!a!Community!Supported!Agriculture!(CSA)!group.!!CSAs!
consist!of!individuals!who!commit!to!sharing!the!risks!and!benefits!of!food!production!
by!local!farmers!by!paying!an!upfront!fee!and/or!providing!ongoing!labor!during!the!
growing!season!to!receive!a!portion!of!the!food!produced.!!CSAs!emerged!in!the!United!
States!in!the!late!1980s!with!two!CSA!operations!in!New!England!(National!Research!
Council!2010).!!According!to!Local!Harvest,!a!website!for!the!dissemination!of!
information!about!local!food!systems,!there!are!almost!3,000!CSAs!registered,!operating!
in!all!50!states!(Local!Harvest!2009).!!However,!the!2007!Census!of!Agriculture!included!
a!question!about!participation!in!CSAs!for!the!first!time.!!According!to!this!more!than!
12,000!farms!report!direct!involvement!in!a!CSA!(USDA!2009).!!!
CSA!farms!can!be!an!important!source!of!income!for!local!farmers.!!In!one!recent!
national!study,!CSA!farmers!reported!an!average!gross!income!of!$15,000,!which,!while!
low,!is!higher!than!the!average!U.S.!farm!(Ostrom!2007).!!Although!many!CSA!operators!
are!dissatisfied!with!their!income!they!are!very!satisfied!with!their!quality!of!life!
(Ostrom!2007).!
Rather!than!significant!economic!gains,!farmers'!participation!in!both!farmers’!
!
!
10!
markets!and!CSAs!appears!to!be!motivated!as!much!by!a!desire!to!have!direct!
personal!relationships!with!their!consumers!than!as!a!way!to!increase!profits!(Brown!
and!Miller!2008;!Ostrom!2007).!!Consumers!report!both!economic!and!non‐economic!
benefits!from!participating!in!local!food!systems,!including!saving!money!and!
encouraging!healthier!eating!habits!(Ostrom!2007).!!!
Another!important!type!of!SSC!is!the!sale!of!local!foods!to!local!institutional!
buyers,!such!as!local!schools,!restaurants,!universities,!and!hospitals.!!Spurred!by!
national!legislation,!farm‐to‐school!programs!are!one!of!the!most!rapidly!growing!
institutional!buying!schemes!(Bagdonis!et!al.!2009).!!These!programs!typically!involve!
schools!buying!fresh!produce,!meat,!dairy!and!other!products!from!local!farmers.!!In!
some!cases,!schools!have!incorporated!farm!visits!into!nutrition!education!to!educate!
kids!about!food!production!and!rural!livelihoods!(Bagdonis!et!al.!2009).!!There!are!2,051!
farm‐to‐school!programs!in!43!states!serving!8,943!schools!(Farm!to!School!2009).!!
Although!other!forms!of!institutional!buying!have!not!been!as!well!documented,!the!
USDA!is!actively!promoting!farm‐to‐healthcare!and!farm‐to‐college!initiatives!(USDA!
2009).!!Additionally,!there!are!two!high!profile!institutional!buying!programs!initiated!by!
federal!agencies!that!may!generate!more!activity!in!the!future.!!The!USDA!cafeterias!in!
Washington,!DC!and!the!California!Environmental!Protection!Agency’s!food!service!in!
Sacramento,!CA!purchase!food!for!their!cafeterias!from!local!producers!(National!
Research!Council!2010).!
!
!
11!
Data!on!the!overall!economic!importance!of!each!of!these!different!types!of!
short!supply!chains!in!the!U.S.!is!not!readily!available,!but!the!U.S.!!Census!of!Agriculture!
has!collected!information!about!the!frequency!and!scale!of!direct!farm!sales!–!measured!
as!the!“value!of!agricultural!products!sold!directly!to!individuals!for!human!
consumption”!(USDA!2009).!!The!results!of!the!most!recent!Census!of!Agriculture!
suggest!that!there!are!136,817!U.S.!farms!reporting!$1.2!billion!in!direct!sales!to!
consumers!in!2007,!three!times!the!value!reported!in!1992!(Figure!1).!!While!significant,!
direct!sales!remain!a!small!percentage!(roughly!0.4%)!of!total!U.S.!farm!sales,!which!
exceeded!$276!billion!in!the!same!year.!!!
!
#
Figure!1.!!Importance!of!Direct!Sales!to!U.S.!Agriculture,!1992‐2007!
!
!
!
!
12!
These!census!data!also!suggest!that!most!farms!reporting!direct!sales!are!
much!smaller!than!typical!commercial!farms!in!the!U.S.!!Table!1!shows!the!number!and!
percent!of!farms!with!direct!sales!by!the!size!of!farm.!!A!larger!share!of!the!smallest!
farms!is!participating!in!direct!sales.!!Ninety‐seven!percent!of!farms!involved!in!direct!
sales!in!2007!included!farms!making!less!than!$50,000!annually!(Table!1).!!Despite!this!
medium!and!large!farms!are!still!generating!the!largest!share!of!direct!sales!income.!!In!
2007,!58%!of!total!direct!sales!came!from!farms!making!more!than!$50,000!annually!
(Table!1).!
!
Table!1.!!Contributions!of!Different!Sized!Farms!to!Total!U.S.!Direct!Farm!Sales,!2007!
!
Total!Amount!
!
Percent!of!U.S.!Total!
!
Farms!with!
Any!Direct!!
Farm!Sales!
Dollar!Value!
of!Direct!Farm!
Sales!($1,000)!
Farms!with!
Any!Direct!!
Farm!Sales!
Dollar!Value!
of!Direct!Farm!
Sales!
Gross!Farm!Sales!Class!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
$1!to!$499!
35,440!
$7,217!
26!
1!
!
!
!
!
!
$400!to!$999!
20,547!
$14,013!
15!
1!
!
!
!
!
!
$1,000!to!$4,999!
49,957!
$113,960!
37!
9!
!
!
!
!
!
$5,000!to!$9,999!
13,060!
$88,174!
10!
7!
!
!
!
!
!
$10,000!to!$24,999!
10,032!
$151,063!
7!
12!
!
!
!
!
!
$25,000!to!$49,999!
3,903!
$133,328!
3!
11!
!
!
!
!
!
$50,000!or!more!
3,878!
$703,515!
3!
58!
!
!
!
!
!
All!Farms!
136,817!
$1,211,270!
100!
100!
!
!
!
!
!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture#
#
#
!
!
13!
While!concerns!about!social!justice!and!increasing!access!to!healthy!
affordable!food!in!underserved!communities!are!important!to!many!local!food!system!
advocates,!progress!on!these!goals!has!been!relatively!slow!(Allen!and!Hinrichs!2007;!
Hinrichs!2000,!2003).!!Most!of!the!customers!that!participate!in!market‐based!local!food!
systems!tend!to!be!wealthier!and!more!highly!educated!than!typical!local!residents.!!
Many!of!the!local!food!institutions!listed!above!are!not!available!in!places!with!low‐
income!or!disadvantaged!groups!(Kantor!2001).!!Also,!many!local!food!institutions!are!
incompatible!with!government!nutrition!assistance!programs.!!For!example,!many!
recipients!of!federal!nutrition!programs!make!large!purchases!once!a!month!when!their!
benefits!become!available!(Kantor!2001).!!Once!a!month!purchases!are!incompatible!
with!the!weekly!cycle!and!seasonality!of!many!markets!and!CSAs.!!Also,!many!
disadvantaged!groups!do!not!have!money!to!invest!in!CSAs,!community!gardens!or!
other!institutions!that!require!up‐front!payments!for!membership.!!!
!
Local!Foods!Systems!in!the!Rural‐Urban!Interface!
CSAs!and!farmers’!markets!are!concentrated!in!approximately!10‐15!states!
(Brown!and!Miller!2008;!Kantor!2001).!!There!are!a!number!of!factors!that!might!affect!
the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!Obviously,!it!helps!to!be!proximate!to!large!
concentrations!of!potential!customers!who!are!both!interested!in!and!able!to!pay!for!
locally!produced!foods.!!A!favorable!biophysical!environment!(like!long!growing!season,!
good!climate,!and!productive!soils)!and!the!size!and!diversity!of!local!farms!appear!to!be!
related!to!the!likelihood!of!producers!participating!in!local!food!systems!(Barlas!et!al.!
!
!
14!
2001;!Jussaume!and!Kondoh!2008).!!Some!producer’s!ability!to!participate!in!local!
food!markets!can!also!be!limited!by!the!availability!of!local!businesses!able!to!process!
their!products!(Jussaume!and!Kondoh!2008).!!Jarosz!(2008)!found!transportation!costs!
and!market!membership!fees!prevented!some!producers!from!participating!in!farmers’!
markets.!!Additionally,!some!small‐scale!farmers!cannot!compete!on!price!with!larger!
farms!from!outside!the!community!that!sometimes!provide!products!to!local!food!
markets.!
Because!of!these!factors,!local!food!systems!are!most!common!and!most!well!
developed!at!the!rural‐urban!interface!(RUI)!–!especially!in!areas!where!significant!
agricultural!production!capacity!is!located!in!or!near!urbanized!areas!(Jackson‐Smith!and!
Sharp!2008).!!RUI!communities!are!typically!in!the!midst!of!a!transition!from!rural!to!
urban!population!densities,!land!uses,!economic!activities,!cultures,!and!landscape!
aesthetics.!!While!population!and!rural!housing!development!can!create!challenges!to!
some!forms!of!commercial!agricultural!production,!population!growth!also!creates!the!
potential!for!a!concentrated!base!of!local!consumers!that!might!be!interested!in!and!
supportive!of!local!food!systems.!!Many!RUI!residents!value!the!aesthetic!qualities!and!
open!spaces!associated!with!working!agricultural!landscapes.!!Local!food!systems!are!an!
important!way!for!the!non‐farming!community!to!interact!with!and!support!their!area!
farmers.!
Data!from!the!Census!of!Agriculture!confirms!the!importance!of!the!RUI!for!
agricultural!production!(in!general)!and!value‐trait!and!short‐supply!chain!food!systems!
!
!
15!
(in!particular).!!In!fact!there!is!a!subset!of!RUI!counties!that!are!considered!
agriculturally!important!(AI).!!These!counties!are!in!the!top!quartile!of!agricultural!sales!
or!counties!that!are!in!the!top!quartile!for!sales!per!acre!of!farmland!and!cropland!
(Inwood!2008).!
!
Table!2.!!Percent!of!Farms,!Farmland!and!Farm!Sales!by!RUI!and!AI!Status,!2007!
!
Percent!of!U.S.!Total!
!
RUI!+!AI!
RUI/Not!
AI!
Not!RUI!
+!AI!
Not!RUI/Not!
AI!
100%!
Total!
Farms!
24.8!
32.9!
17.5!
24.9!
100!
Farmland!
15.4!
22.2!
22.3!
40.0!
100!
Farm!Sales!
40.7!
11.0!
34.2!
14.1!
100!
Farms!with!Direct!Sales!
31.9!
36.4!
12.1!
19.5!
100!
Direct!Sales!($)!
48.6!
29.2!
9.7!
12.5!
100!
Farms!with!Organic!Sales!
41.7!
24.9!
16.8!
16.6!
100!
Farms!with!Organically!Certified!
Land!
41.0!
25.6!
16.3!
17.0!
100!
Acres!of!Organically!Land!
32.9!
12.1!
25.4!
29.7!
100!
Dollar!Value!of!Organic!Farm!Sales!
71.4!
5.5!
16.1!
7.0!
100!
Counties!
16.1!
33.5!
15.6!
34.8!
100!
Note:#RUI!=!Rural!Urban!Interface,!AI!=!Agriculturally!Important!
Source:!US!Census!of!Agriculture!Data!2007!!
#
#
Table!2!shows!the!percent!of!farms,!farmland,!and!farm!sales!in!RUI/AI!counties!
in!2007.!!Only!16%!of!all!counties!are!considered!RUI/AI,!but!the!majority!of!agricultural!
activity!occurs!in!these!counties.!!In!2007,!40.7%!of!farm!sales!occurred!in!RUI/AI!
counties.!!!
Studies!of!agricultural!activity!in!RUI!counties!have!found!that!the!industry!is!
often!extremely!productive!and!can!be!distinguished!from!agricultural!activity!that!
occurs!in!more!rural!counties!in!several!important!ways!(Table!2).!!First,!farms!are!
typically!smaller!and!host!more!land!intensive!rather!than!land!extensive!operations.!!
!
!
16!
For!example,!in!2007!about!15%!of!US!farmland!is!found!in!RUI/AI!counties!compared!
to!the!40%!of!farmland!found!in!non‐RUI/non‐AI!counties,!but!there!are!approximately!
the!same!number!of!farms!in!both!RUI/AI!and!non‐!RUI/non‐AI!counties!(24%).!!
Specialty!crops!such!as!vegetables,!fruits,!nuts,!nursery!and!greenhouse!crops,!and!
large‐scale!hog!and!poultry!operations!are!more!common!in!RUI!counties,!whereas,!row!
crops,!grain,!and!beef!cattle!are!more!common!in!rural!areas!where!a!greater!amount!of!
land!is!available!at!lower!cost!(Jackson‐Smith!and!Sharp!2008).!!Second,!a!larger!
percentage!of!all!RUI!counties!participate!in!urban‐oriented!marketing!compared!to!
non‐metro!counties.!!For!example,!48.6%!of!direct!sales!took!place!in!RUI/AI!counties!
compared!to!9.7%!in!non‐!RUI/AI!counties,!in!2007.!!Additionally,!since!the!U.S.!Census!
of!Agriculture!has!tracked!this!information,!approximately!75%!of!organic!sales!and!
direct!sales!to!consumers!are!accounted!for!in!RUI!counties!(Jackson‐Smith!and!Sharp!
2008).!!Some!have!suggested!that!these!characteristics!are!indicators!of!the!
development!of!a!local!food!system!and!present!the!best!potential!for!the!continued!
persistence!of!agriculture!in!the!rural‐urban!interface.!
!
National!and!Local!Programs!and!!
Policies!Promoting!Local!Food!Systems!
A!wide!range!of!interest!groups!at!the!local!and!national!level!have!organized!to!
promote!more!local!food!systems!in!the!United!States.!!These!include!consumer!groups!
concerned!about!the!nutritional!quality!and!safety!of!food!produced!by!large‐scale!
industrial!agriculture!because!of!potentially!dangerous!chemical!inputs,!biological!
!
!
17!
engineering,!and!food!contamination.!!These!groups!argue!that!local!food!is!safer,!
fresher,!and!has!higher!nutritional!value!because!the!food!does!not!travel!far!to!market!
(Renting,!Marsden,!and!Banks!2003).!!Environmental!groups!are!concerned!with!the!
negative!impacts!of!industrialized!agriculture!on!land,!waterways!and!wildlife.!!They!
have!argued!that!local!food!systems!are!more!likely!to!consist!of!smaller‐scale,!less!
intensive!and!more‐diversified!farming!systems!that!are!better!adapted!to!local!climate!
and!topography.!!Social!justice!advocates!concerned!with!food!insecurity!for!many!poor!
and!minority!residents!of!communities!have!worked!with!local!farmers!and!local!food!
markets!to!increase!access!to!fresh!and!healthy!food!for!these!disadvantaged!groups.!!
People!concerned!about!the!impacts!of!rapid!population!growth!and!development!on!
open!space!have!supported!local!agriculture!as!a!way!to!protect!traditionally!rural!
landscapes.!
At!the!national!level,!the!growing!interest!in!local!food!systems!has!led!to!a!wide!
range!of!new!federal!programs!and!policies!designed!to!encourage!value‐trait!and!short‐
supply!chain!food!systems.!!These!include!programs!designed!to!promote!development!
of!local!food!markets,!including!the!Federal‐State!Market!Improvement!Program!
(FSMIP),!the!Farmers!Market!Promotion!Program!(FMPP),!the!Farmers!Market!Nutrition!
Program!(FMNP),!the!Seniors!Farmers!Market!Nutrition!Program!(SR!FMNP),!the!
Community!Food!Security!Act!–!community!food!grants!(CFSA),!and!the!Hunger!Free!
Communities!(HFC)!program,!which!supports!integrated!projects!linking!community!
gardens,!CSAs,!and!other!markets!for!local!farmers!in!underserved!or!disadvantaged!
!
!
18!
communities.!!Combined,!these!programs!received!over!$40!million!in!federal!
appropriations!in!the!2008‐2009!fiscal!year!(FY09)!(National!Sustainable!Agriculture!
Coalition!2009).!!A!new!federal!block!grant!program!to!support!local!food!initiatives!
would!add!almost!$50!million!more!to!that!total!if!approved!for!the!2010!fiscal!year.!!
Federal!efforts!also!include!programs!designed!to!help!facilitate!more!on‐farm!
processing!of!farm!products!through!the!Value‐Added!Producer!Grant!program,!which!
received!almost!$19!million!in!2009.!!Since!the!creation!of!a!National!Organic!Farming!
Program!in!1990,!federal!support!for!organic!certification,!marketing,!and!production!
reached!almost!$5!million!in!2008,!and!an!additional!$22!million!is!slated!to!be!spent!on!
helping!farmers!transition!to!certified!organic!production!in!the!present!fiscal!year.!!#
Similar!coalitions!of!groups!have!encouraged!development!of!local!programs!and!
policies!to!support!local!food!systems!at!the!city,!county,!or!state!level.!!For!example,!
many!communities!have!organized!food!policy!councils!that!view!local!food!systems!as!a!
way!to!simultaneously!support!local!farmers!and!address!local!food!security!challenges.!!
Some!communities!have!created!agricultural!advisory!boards!and!other!groups!to!
develop!programs!or!policies!to!increase!opportunities!for!local!farmers!and!assist!in!
development!of!new!markets!for!local!products.!!Recognizing!that!many!farmers!lack!
the!necessary!marketing!and!business!skills,!or!are!too!busy!to!do!the!work!necessary!to!
create!local!markets!and!promote!their!products,!many!have!argued!for!public!
investments!to!help!coordinate!local!efforts!to!get!new!local!food!markets!off!the!
ground!(Barlas!et!al.!2001;!Conner!et!al.!2007;!Gellynck!and!Viaene!2002).!!Some!state!
!
!
19!
agricultural!extension!systems!and!local!economic!development!offices!have!created!
paid!staff!positions!to!help!link!farmers!to!local!individual!and!institutional!food!
customers.!!For!example,!Frederick!Maryland!has!an!Agriculture!Economic!Development!
Specialist!who!works!with!local!farmers!to!develop!new!enterprises!and!products,!
coordinate!real!and!virtual!farmers’!markets,!and!overcome!production!challenges!in!
urban‐oriented!farming!sectors!(e.g.,!agritourism,!specialty!crops,!and!hobby!farming).!
At!the!same!time,!local!laws!may!restrict!some!forms!of!local!food!sales.!!For!
example,!dairies!are!limited!in!their!ability!to!participate!in!small!local!markets!because!
of!laws!requiring!licensed!processors!and!laws!prohibiting!raw!milk!sales!in!some!states!
(Guptill!2008b).!!In!other!cases,!restrictive!land!use!ordinances!can!make!it!difficult!for!
farmers!to!set!up!food!processing!or!retail!sales!facilities!on!their!farms.!!For!example,!
agricultural!zones!in!many!counties!do!not!allow!temporary!farm!stands!or!require!
setbacks!from!highways!that!make!visibility!difficult!(Somers!2009).!
!
Research!Problem!
In!the!previous!sections,!I!have!discussed!the!characteristics!of!local!food!
systems.!!I!have!described!their!importance!to!a!variety!of!actors!for!both!economic!and!
non‐economic!reasons.!!I!have!discussed!their!importance!to!communities,!particularly!
in!the!RUI.!!I!also!have!described!the!considerable!resources!dedicated!to!their!
development.!!Despite!all!of!the!importance!ascribed!to!local!food!systems,!and!the!
considerable!efforts!devoted!to!their!promotion!and!development,!there!has!been!little!
systematic!research!on!the!social!and!institutional!conditions!that!facilitate!or!frustrate!
!
!
20!
their!emergence!and!growth.!!Given!this!the!current!study!poses!the!following!inter‐
related!research!questions:!
1. How!important!are!structural!opportunities!and!constraints!as!drivers!of!
variation!in!local!food!systems?!
2. Is!market!oriented!collective!action!by!producers!and!consumers!necessary!
for!the!emergence!of!local!food!systems?!
3. Is!policy‐oriented!LFS!collective!action!required!to!create!LFS‐oriented!
policies/programs?!
4. How!do!local!land!use!struggles!and!politics!influence!the!emergence!of!local!
food!systems?!
5. Are!institutionalized!LFS‐oriented!policies!and!programs!helpful!in!the!
emergence!and!growth!of!local!food!systems?!
In!the!following!chapter!I!review!the!theoretical!and!empirical!literatures!from!
sociology,!geography,!and!land!use!policy!research!to!provide!a!framework!for!thinking!
about!the!relationship!between!collective!action,!local!institutions!and!local!food!
systems.!!In!the!third!chapter,!I!describe!the!methods!used!to!address!these!questions!in!
the!current!study.!!The!fourth!chapter!presents!detailed!case!studies!of!the!five!RUI/AI!
study!counties.!!The!fifth!chapter!compares!and!contrasts!the!case!study!results!and!
identifies!patterns!and!relationships!among!the!core!variables.!!Finally,!in!chapter!6!I!
discuss!implications!of!the!research!findings!and!directions!for!future!research.!
!
!
21!
!
CHAPTER!2!
LITERATURE!REVIEW!
There!are!several!research!literatures!that!touch!on!important!theoretical!and!
empirical!issues!that!are!relevant!to!the!study!of!local!food!systems.!!The!sociology!of!
agriculture!provides!a!theoretical!framework!focused!on!the!relative!influences!of!
structure!and!agency!in!agricultural!change.!!Rural!geography!provides!an!important!
focus!on!local!land!use!politics!in!rural‐urban!communities.!!Finally,!land!use!and!
agricultural!policy!research!makes!a!case!for!the!importance!of!policy!in!the!persistence!
of!agriculture!in!the!face!of!population!growth!and!urbanization!in!RUI!communities.!!!
!
The!Sociology!of!Agriculture!
The!sociology!of!agriculture!has!long!sought!to!explain!the!social,!economic!and!
institutional!conditions!that!affect!patterns!of!change!in!the!farm!sector.!!One!persistent!
tension!in!this!literature!is!a!debate!over!the!relative!influences!of!structural!economic!
forces!versus!autonomous!human!agency.!!This!debate!has!several!important!
implications!for!a!study!of!local!food!systems.!!First,!it!is!clear!that!structure!matters:!
economic!forces!and!institutional!conditions!are!important!drivers!of!the!trajectories!of!
agriculture!in!advanced!industrialized!societies.!!Second,!it!is!also!true!that!human!
actors!have!a!range!of!choices!available!to!them!within!the!opportunities!and!
constraints!presented!by!these!larger!structures.!!Third,!human!agents!are!likely!to!act!
from!a!variety!of!economic!and!non‐economic!motivations!that!will!produce!diverse!
!
!
22!
agricultural!trajectories.!!Finally,!the!presence!or!absence!of!collective!action!and!
social!organizations!can!influence!the!configuration!of!markets!and!policies,!and!also!
affect!the!ability!of!individual!producers!to!pursue!different!paths.!
#
The#structure#of#agriculture#
The!sociology!of!agriculture!(as!a!subfield)!emerged!amidst!debates!over!the!
dynamics!of!structural!change!in!the!agricultural!economy.!!Specifically,!although!Marx!
and!others!predicted!the!imminent!demise!of!non‐capitalist!forms!of!production!in!the!
late!19th!century,!historical!trends!suggested!that!the!farm!sector!was!unusually!
resistant!to!traditional!capitalist!social!relations,!and!peasant!or!family!farm!producers!
remained!key!players!well!into!the!late!20th!century.!!Debates!around!the!persistence!of!
non‐capitalist!farms!took!center!stage!among!U.S.!sociologists!of!agriculture!in!the!
1970s!and!1980s,!as!scholars!rediscovered!the!early!Marxist!literature!and!applied!these!
ideas!to!contemporary!patterns!of!agrarian!change!in!advanced!industrial!societies!
(Buttel,!Larson,!and!Gillespie!1990c).!
Scholars!in!this!new!sociology!of!agriculture!adopted!a!wide!range!of!theoretical!
stances.!!Some!focused!on!exploring!ways!that!family!farm!persistence!could!be!made!
consistent!with!the!broader!Marxist!approach!to!understanding!dynamics!of!capitalist!
societies.!!For!these!scholars,!several!types!of!explanations!were!common.!!Initially,!
some!argued!that!because!agricultural!production!is!dependent!on!biological!processes!
and!environmental!conditions,!it!is!an!unattractive!sector!for!investing!scarce!capital!
and!precludes!normal!modes!of!exploitation!of!labor.!!Mann!and!Dickinson!(1978)!were!
!
!
23!
first!to!identify!the!disjuncture!between!production!time!and!labor!time!in!
agriculture,!and!argued!that!this!"creates!a!barrier!to!the!routinization!of!the!labor!
process!and!makes!agriculture!less!profitable!than!other!branches!of!industry"!(Buttel!et!
al.!1990a:!80).!!As!labor!creates!surplus!value!and!there!are!interruptions!to!the!labor!
process,!the!ability!to!exploit!surplus!value!via!capital!investment!is!restricted.!!While!
mechanization!may!replace!labor!with!capital,!it!cannot!eliminate!natural!crop!or!
livestock!growth!and!maturation!periods!(Reinhardt!and!Bartlett!1989).!!Thus!it!is!not!
always!possible!to!appropriate!natural!processes!for!more!efficient!technological!
processes!in!order!to!maximize!capital!accumulation!(Bunker!1989;!Goodman!1991).!!
Additionally,!agricultural!production!is!much!more!risky!than!industrial!or!manufacturing!
processes.!!Not!only!are!farms!vulnerable!to!weather!or!pests,!but!also!agricultural!
products!are!perishable!and!sometimes!need!to!be!stored!for!significant!amounts!of!
time.!!!
A!second!form!of!explanation!popular!among!neo‐Marxist!scholars!was!that!the!
family!character!of!many!agricultural!production!units!created!the!possibility!of!“self‐
exploitation”,!particularly!during!periods!of!market!downturns!when!family!farmers!can!
reduce!consumption!or!pay!themselves!below!market!rates!to!survive.!!Friedmann!
(1981)!argues!that!family!farms!have!historically!shown!an!ability!to!compete!with!or!
even!outcompete!capitalist!farms!in!global!grain!markets.!!She!argues!that!during!the!
periods!of!biological!maturation!of!crops!and!livestock,!family!farms!can!persist!because!
they!do!not!have!to!earn!a!profit!to!remain!in!business.!!Family!farmers!only!need!to!
!
!
24!
subsist!to!remain!in!business,!whereas!capitalist!farms!must!earn!a!normal!rate!of!
return!on!their!capital!to!avoid!being!forced!from!the!market.!!!
A!third!perspective!argues!that!capitalist!relations!of!production!have!actually!
deeply!penetrated!the!family!farm!sector,!but!have!done!so!indirectly!through!a!number!
of!channels.!!First,!the!willingness!of!small‐scale!producers!to!exploit!their!own!and!
family!members’!labor!to!remain!on!the!farm!can!be!seen!as!a!way!to!reduce!the!cost!of!
food,!and!hence!lower!the!cost!of!social!reproduction!for!industrial!workers.!!Hence!
capital!might!find!it!more!attractive!to!leave!the!farm!sector!to!family!producers!since!
this!reduced!the!wages!they!needed!to!pay!industrial!workers.!!Capitalist!exploitation!of!
family!farmers!was!also!accomplished!through!increasing!farmers’!reliance!on!input!and!
credit!markets,!where!family!farms!have!become!increasingly!dependent!on!purchased!
inputs!and!borrowed!capital!from!capitalist!firms!in!mainstream!sectors!of!the!industrial!
economy!(agribusiness!and!banking).!!Similarly,!the!consolidation!of!the!food!processing!
and!distribution!sectors!(discussed!above)!creates!a!situation!in!which!independent!
family‐scale!farms!are!easily!exploited!when!they!are!forced!to!sell!their!products!to!
highly!integrated!and!oligopolistic!firms!in!the!rest!of!the!agrifood!system.!
De!Janvry!(1980)!has!also!argued!that!public!policies!regarding!state!subsidies!of!
research,!labor!and!immigration!policies,!and!farm!commodity!subsidy!programs!each!
serve!to!improve!the!relative!competitiveness!of!industrial!or!capitalist!farms!relative!to!
small!scale!family!farms.!!Depending!on!the!level!of!mechanization,!the!availability!of!an!
exploitable!hired!labor!force,!and!the!ability!to!control!the!labor!process,!certain!
!
!
25!
commodity!sectors!are!more!prone!to!capitalist!development!than!others!(Friedland!
1991).!
While!scholars!in!the!sociology!of!agriculture!have!struggled!to!apply!
conventional!Marxist!structuralist!explanations!to!the!dynamics!of!agriculture!in!
capitalist!society,!they!have!demonstrated!ways!in!which!structural!features!of!the!
agricultural!production!process,!state!policies,!and!the!consolidation!of!larger!
agricultural!input!and!output!sectors!contribute!to!the!gradual!demise!of!traditional!
family‐labor!farms.!!However,!changes!in!the!structure!of!agriculture!vary!by!
commodity,!by!market!and!labor!conditions,!by!the!types!of!policies!and!programs!
guiding!production,!and!by!the!biological!and!environmental!characteristics!of!different!
types!of!agricultural!production.!!
!
Agricultural#change#in#the#RUI#
! Several!scholars!have!argued!in!the!structuralist!tradition!that!the!specific!
conditions!associated!with!the!RUI!result!in!a!distinctive!pattern!of!agricultural!
adaptations.!!Specifically,!scholars!have!argued!that!population!growth!and!density,!
proximity!to!urban!centers,!income,!biophysical!conditions,!farm!size!and!structure,!and!
commodity!mix!affect!the!ability!of!farmers!to!adapt!in!the!RUI!(Alig!and!Healy!1987;!
Bowler!and!Ilbery!1987;!Bryant!1973,!1981;!Bryant!and!Russwurm!1982;!Sinclair!1967).!!
For!example,!Sinclair!(1967)!found!that!the!value!of!agricultural!land!increases!by!
increasing!competition!between!different!land!uses!in!the!urban!fringe!which!leads!to!
more!intensive!and!profitable!forms!of!production!locating!closer!to!cities!and!land‐
!
!
26!
extensive!and!lower!net!value!crops!farther!away.!!Bryant!(1973)!found!that!farms!
growing!different!commodities!have!different!responses!to!urban!development!and!only!
certain!types!of!agricultural!production!respond!negatively!by!exiting!agriculture.!!
Bryant!and!Russwurm!(1982)!argued!that!metropolitan!conditions!that!are!specific!to!
the!RUI!(the!availability!of!off‐farm!income,!urban!development!pressure,!proximity!to!
markets,!and!increased!living!standards)!could!lead!to!the!persistence!of!farming!in!the!
RUI.!!They!also!suggest!that!the!biophysical!environment!(soil!quality)!influences!
farmers’!decisions!to!leave!or!remain!in!farming.!!It!should!be!noted!that!some!of!these!
factors!might!also!influence!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!
!
From#structure#to#agency##
While!neo‐Marxist!scholars!ultimately!argue!that!the!ability!of!producers!to!
make!decisions!is!fundamentally!constrained!by!larger!structural!forces!within!a!
capitalist!society,!a!second!strain!of!thought!in!the!sociology!of!agriculture!adopted!a!
more!agency‐centered!model!of!agricultural!change!that!highlights!the!role!of!producers!
in!directing!their!own!path.!!This!work!highlights!the!fact!that!most!producers!have!a!
variety!of!economic!and!non‐economic!motivations!that!shape!their!decisions!and!result!
in!a!variety!of!agricultural!outcomes.!!Additionally,!this!perspective!argues!that!human!
agency!and!the!actions!of!individuals!and!groups!are!important!ways!that!social!and!
institutional!structures!are!produced!and!reproduced.!!To!the!degree!that!the!logic!of!
social!action!extends!beyond!capitalist!imperatives,!the!possibility!exists!that!policies,!
markets,!and!other!institutional!arrangements!can!reflect!multiple!objectives.!
!
!
27!
Arguing!from!a!neo‐Weberian!position,!Mooney!(1988)!asserts!that!farmers!
are!actors!that!can!choose!from!several!options!that!might!avoid!a!process!of!pure!
capitalist!transformation!(e.g.,!either!being!forced!from!agriculture!or!becoming!hired!
agricultural!laborers).!!Those!options!include!tenancy,!contract!farming,!part‐time!
farming!with!the!addition!of!off‐farm!income,!and!acquiring!debt.!!Although!these!
options!do!result!in!exploitation!of!the!farmer!by!some!capitalist!interests,!many!
farmers!might!prefer!these!options!since!they!maximize!the!non‐economic!benefits!of!
farming,!or!reflect!the!dominance!of!substantive!rationality!over!instrumental!
rationality.!!Whatmore!and!Munton!(1987)!argued!that!the!degree!of!agency!by!farm!
families!depends!on!the!organization!of!the!farm!enterprise,!including!ownership,!
control!of!the!farm!capital,!labor,!land!and!management,!and!the!balance!between!
family!and!hired!labor.!!As!long!as!farmers!control!most!of!their!means!of!production,!
they!might!be!free!to!pursue!multiple!strategies!to!continue!farming!including!off‐farm!
work,!minimizing!debt,!and!or!–!importantly!for!this!study!‐‐!direct!marketing!of!high‐
value!crops!or!livestock!products!to!consumers!outside!of!conventional!agrifood!
channels!(Buttel!et!al.!1990d).!!!
!
From#producers#to#consumers#–##
the#consumption#turn#
Beginning!in!the!late!1980s!and!continuing!through!the!early!2000s!there!was!a!
major!shift!in!the!sociology!of!agriculture!from!a!focus!on!the!sphere!of!agricultural!
production!to!a!focus!on!the!importance!of!food!consumption.!!A!number!of!researchers!
!
!
28!
have!argued!that!a!key!driver!of!patterns!of!change!in!agriculture!might!be!changes!in!
the!preferences,!buying!habits,!or!political!demands!of!food!consumers.!!One!indicator!
of!this!shift!is!the!renaming!in!the!late!1990s!of!the!major!specialty!area!group!within!
the!Rural!Sociological!Society!to!the!Sociology!of!Agriculture!and#Food!Research!and!
Interest!Group!(SAFRIG).!
Early!research!leading!to!the!focus!on!consumption!began!by!analyzing!
agriculture!through!an!analysis!of!farm!commodity!chains,!particularly!in!the!context!of!
the!globalized!agrifood!system!that!links!production!(of!both!farm!commodities!and!
food)!with!consumption!(Buttel!et!al.!1990b;!Friedmann!1991;!Friedmann!and!
McMichael!1989;!Heffernan,!Hendrickson,!and!Gronski!1999).!!National!agricultural!
production!systems!have!been!transformed!into!modern!international!‘food!regimes’!or!
‘commodity!complexes’!in!which!transnational!corporations!control!specific!sectors!of!
agricultural!production!through!a!process!of!both!vertical!and!horizontal!integration.!!
These!trends!have!been!linked!to!national!and!international!policies!including!the!
General!Agreement!on!Tariffs!and!Trade!(GATT),!and!development!policies!of!the!
International!Monetary!Fund!(IMF),!the!World!Bank!and!the!U.S.!Agency!for!
International!Development!(USAID)!(Friedmann!1982,!1991;!Friedmann!and!McMichael!
1989).!!Thus!in!addition!to!the!penetration!of!capital!into!the!sphere!of!farm!production!
through!the!substitution!of!industrialized!products!for!raw!materials!and!the!
appropriation!of!various!parts!of!the!production!process!by!scientific!and!technological!
changes,!agriculture!is!being!transformed!through!its!integration!into!long!commodity!
!
!
29!
chains!with!global!reach.!!In!many!sectors,!inputs!for!modern!farming!systems!might!
come!from!one!country,!actual!farm!production!might!occur!in!a!different!country,!
value‐added!food!products!might!be!manufactured!in!a!third!place,!and!marketing,!
distribution!and!consumption!in!still!other!places!around!the!world.!!One!implication!of!
the!growth!of!global!agrifood!chains!is!that!farmers!have!received!increasingly!smaller!
portions!of!the!retail!value!of!food!products.!!!
Once!sociologists!recognized!the!integrated!aspects!of!global!food!commodity!
chains,!a!logical!step!was!to!propose!a!shift!in!focus!from!production!to!consumption!
entirely!(Fine!2004).!!Several!scholars!have!noted!that!shifts!in!consumer!preferences!
appear!to!reverberate!down!these!new!commodity!chains!and!have!created!new!
rewards!and!incentives!for!farmers!who!are!able!to!produce!products!that!meet!
consumers’!needs.!!The!most!common!evidence!for!a!consumption‐centered!approach!
is!the!rapid!rise!of!consumer!demand!for!organic!or!natural!foods,!and!the!
corresponding!restructuring!of!parts!of!the!agrifood!system!that!are!aimed!to!satisfy!
these!emerging!markets!(Goodman!and!DuPuis!2002).!!Consumption‐oriented!theories!
argued!that!the!influence!of!Marxist‐theories!in!the!early!sociology!of!agriculture!
blinded!analysts!to!the!possibility!that!human!agency!outside!of!the!sphere!of!
production!could!be!important!(Lockie!and!Kitto!2000).!!Goodman!and!DuPuis!(2002)!
argue!for!a!dialectical!approach!that!privileges!neither!consumption!nor!production.!!
Instead!they!argue!that!production!and!consumption!are!linked!through!food!
knowledge!systems!that!are!created!simultaneously!by!consumers,!producers,!
!
!
30!
agribusiness,!and!other!actors!in!the!global!agrifood!system.!!!
The!introduction!of!consumption!(and!consumers)!into!the!sociology!of!food!and!
agriculture!has!led!to!a!proliferation!of!studies!regarding!the!possibilities!and!limitations!
of!consumer!social!action!–!such!as!shifts!in!purchasing!patterns!–!as!a!source!of!
fundamental!change!in!the!organization!of!agrifood!systems!(Wright!and!Middendorf!
2008).!!Research!on!consumption!and!consumer!agency!has!focused!on!local!and!
alternative!food!systems,!and!the!degree!to!which!local!food!consumers!may!play!a!role!
in!changes!to!the!dominant!industrial!agriculture!system!through!their!individual!and!
collective!actions!within!geographically!bounded!locations.!!Within!this!literature,!two!
central!questions!have!received!considerable!attention.!!First,!what!kinds!of!consumer!
actions!might!constitute!examples!of!agency!capable!of!changing!the!structure!of!
agrifood!systems?!!Second,!what!impacts!have!consumer!actions!had!on!the!
development!of!mainstream!and!alternative!agrifood!networks?!!!
There!are!at!least!two!main!forms!of!social!action!by!food!consumers.!!First,!
individuals!may!act!as!independent,!autonomous!actors!that!express!their!preferences!
within!markets,!either!by!refusing!to!buy!food!products!that!were!produced!in!
industrialized!or!global!agrifood!chains,!or!by!choosing!to!buy!foods!produced!with!
certain!attributes!(e.g.,!the!value‐trait!foods!discussed!above).!!Consumers!have!the!
power!to!make!choices!about!food!that!demonstrates!the!values!they!hold!such!as!
environmental!health,!farm!worker!rights,!food!safety,!etc.!!Although!directed!at!the!
market,!this!kind!of!reflexive!consumption!is!considered!by!some!to!be!a!social!and!
!
!
31!
political!act!even!if!it!is!not!part!of!organized!social!movement!(Goodman!and!DuPuis!
2002;!Miele!2006).!!If!sufficiently!large!in!scale,!individual!consumer!actions!may!serve!
to!create!economic!incentives!for!structural!change!within!agriculture!toward!more!
sustainable!farming!practices!or!food!production!systems.!!!
A!key!question!is!whether!uncoordinated!individual!consumption‐based!action!
qualifies!as!true!social!or!political!agency!and!is!an!effective!way!to!change!the!structure!
or!operation!of!the!mainstream!agrifood!system!or!the!continued!dominance!of!
powerful!capitalist!actors!(Buttel!2006;!Buttel!and!Goodman!1989).!!Schreck!(2008)!
argues!that!individual!producer!and!consumer!actions!can!be!considered!effective!
agency!if!"survival!under!oppressive!and!exploitive!conditions!is!in!and!of!itself!an!act!of!
resistance"!(132).!!In!her!study!of!fair!trade!food!networks,!she!argues!that!there!are!
three!types!of!actions!that!are!effective:!nonparticipation!in!conventional!markets;!
decisions!by!consumers!or!producers!to!use!fair!trade!channels,!purchase!fair!trade!
products,!or!incorporate!fair!trade!principles!into!policy!because!of!the!redistributive!
effects;!and!radical!actions!that!are!explicitly!transformative.!!She!concludes!however,!
that!the!degree!to!which!individual!consumer!or!producer!actions!can!be!considered!
transformative!depends!on!the!degree!to!which!those!actions!depend!on!the!capitalist!
structure!or!consumerist!ideology!(Schreck!2008).!!!
A!second!form!of!consumer!action!reflects!the!emergence!of!collective!and!
organized!social!movements!around!sustainable!farming!and!‘good!food’!issues!(Wright!
and!Middendorf!2008).!!Initially,!it!is!important!to!consider!whether!social!activism!
!
!
32!
around!food!constitutes!a!real!social!movement.!!According!to!Stevenson!et!al.!
(2007),!social!movements!are!"consciously!formed!associations!with!the!goal!of!bringing!
about!change!in!social,!economic!or!political!sectors!through!collective!action!and!the!
mobilization!of!large!numbers!of!people"!(35).!!A!large!literature!in!political!sociology!
suggests!that!the!success!of!social!movements!depends!on!at!least!three!factors:!the!
availability!of!political!opportunities,!success!in!creating!mobilizing!structures,!and!
framing!processes!(MacAdam,!MacCarthy,!and!Mayer!1996;!Stevenson!et!al.!2007;!
Tarrow!1989).!!!
Political!opportunities!refer!to!the!structure!of!political!opportunities!and!
constraints!facing!the!movement!as!a!result!of!interaction!between!the!movement!and!
institutionalized!politics.!!For!example!there!may!be!more!opportunities!in!one!
community!to!create!local!food!policy!because!of!a!strong!alliance!between!local!food!
collective!action!and!dominant!institutional!interests.!!In!other!cases!political!
opportunities!can!arise!when!dominant!interests!are!in!crisis!or!when!the!legitimacy!of!
dominant!interests!are!in!question.!!So!in!a!community!in!which!traditional!agricultural!
has!lost!power,!local!food!system!interests!may!find!space!in!the!public!agenda!to!gain!
support!and!develop.!!In!either!case!opportunities!and!constraints!are!the!result!of!the!
specific!political!context!in!which!the!movement!is!embedded!and!therefore!shape!the!
form!of!the!movement!(MacAdam!et!al.!1996).!!Political!opportunities!are!openings!for!
change!within!social!structures!and!institutions!and!shape!the!likelihood!of!the!social!
movement!contributing!to!long‐term!structural!change!(Tarrow!1989).!!!!!
!
!
33!
Mobilizing!structures!refer!to!informal!and!formal!groups,!organizations,!and!
networks!through!which!people!can!organize!and!engage!in!collective!action!(MacAdam!
et!al.!1996).!!In!terms!of!local!foods,!these!might!be!groups!operating!outside!of!the!
state!in!civil!society!and!can!include!non‐profits,!networks!of!producers,!community!
groups,!or!other!groups!with!an!interest!in!local!food.!!Mobilizing!structures!also!refer!to!
the!mobilization!processes!groups!use!to!engage!in!collective!action!and!enact!social!
change.!!Mobilizing!processes!reflect!the!ability!of!groups!to!access!resources!in!order!to!
push!their!agenda.!!Resources!can!include!knowledge,!money,!media,!labor,!legitimacy,!
as!well!as!external!and!internal!support!from!powerful!elite!(MacAdam!et!al.!1996).!!
Again,!in!terms!of!local!foods!this!can!include!things!such!as!initiating!a!buy!local!label!
and!campaign,!using!the!media!to!increase!public!awareness!of!local!food!issues,!using!
the!political!position!of!producer!groups!to!influence!a!policy!decision‐maker,!etc.!
Framing!processes!refer!to!discourses!or!the!shared!meanings!and!definitions!
that!describe!social!problems,!identify!causes!of!problems,!suggest!solutions!and!
mobilize!people!(Tarrow!1989).!!Frames!used!in!food!movements!include!environmental!
sustainability,!economic!justice!for!farmers,!community!food!security,!and!health!and!
food!safety!(Stevenson!et!al.!2007).!!!
So,!in!what!ways!are!local!food!systems!the!product!of!effective!social!
movements?!!Efforts!to!create!local!food!systems!may!be!social!movements!to!the!
degree!that!they!frame!issues!in!salient!ways!to!mobilize!resources!and!utilize!political!
opportunities!that!challenge!the!perceived!hegemony!of!the!global!agrifood!system!
!
!
34!
(Bonanno!and!Constance!2008;!Hendrickson!and!Heffernan!2002;!Hinrichs!and!
Kremer!2002;!Lyson!2004;!Stevenson!et!al.!2007;!Wright!and!Middendorf!2008).!!They!
may!also!be!perceived!as!movements!to!the!degree!that!they!frame!issues,!mobilize!
resources!and!utilize!political!opportunities!to!effect!local!changes!in!policy,!politics!and!
markets.!!
In!most!cases,!groups!working!on!alternative!agrifood!systems!have!worked!to!
create!public!policies!and!programs!in!which!consumer!practices!and!habits!designed!to!
systematically!change!market!conditions!can!be!encouraged!and!facilitated!(Miele!
2006).!!The!effectiveness!of!collective!consumer!action!has!been!evaluated!in!terms!of!
the!degree!to!which!it!challenges!the!structure!of!capitalist!agriculture!and!addresses!
social!injustice.!!Some!scholars!conceived!of!consumer!agency!as!having!the!potential!to!
be!counter‐hegemonic!to!the!degree!that!consumers!choose!intentionally!to!resist!
conventional!markets!through!non‐participation,!use!of!alternative!markets,!and/or!
some!other!radical!actions!that!bring!producers!and!consumers!closer!together!(Schreck!
2008).!!However,!others!argue!that!consumer!actions!can!never!be!effective!agency!
because!they!are!based!on!the!capitalist!ideology!and!structure,!which!preferences!
individual!economic!gain!over!public!and!non‐economic!goods!(Johnston!2008).!!For!
example,!as!certain!sectors!of!alternative!agriculture!have!become!profitable,!such!as!
organics,!they!have!been!quickly!co‐opted!by!agribusiness!firms!(Guptill!2008b).!!In!this!
case,!consumer!demand!and!individual!consumption!has!not!led!to!significant!change!in!
the!structure!and!injustices!of!the!agrifood!system!(Hinrichs!and!Allen!2008).!!!
!
!
35!
Generally!speaking,!solely!consumer‐driven!social!movements!have!had!little!
effectiveness!at!changing!the!larger!economic!and!political!structures!guiding!the!
dominant!global!agrifood!system!(Friedland!2008;!Hess!and!Winner!2007;!Hinrichs!and!
Allen!2008;!Johnston!2008;!Millen!and!Holtz!2000;!Moses!1993).!!However,!they!are!
believed!to!have!been!moderately!effective!in!changing!markets!for!particular!food!
commodities!and!encouraging!the!development!of!local!food!systems!in!individual!
communities.!!Guptill!(2008a)!describes!how!activists!and!farmers!in!Puerto!Rico!
developed!local!food!systems!that!failed!to!challenge!the!structure!of!the!Puerto!Rican!
agrifood!system!overall,!but!did!lead!to!the!creation!of!important!social!networks!and!
relationships!of!activists!that!get!continuously!renewed!through!market!transactions,!
meetings,!etc.!!Hinrichs!(2000)!found!that!farmers’!markets!do!not!normally!forge!
sufficiently!close!relationships!between!producers!and!consumers!to!generate!
momentum!toward!broad‐scale!change!in!agrifood!systems.!!Rather,!farmers’!markets!
were!most!successful!at!creating!modest!changes!in!the!quality!of!community,!
encouraging!the!formation!of!new!social!networks,!and!increasing!collaboration!among!
vendors,!producers,!and!consumers.!!Meanwhile,!buy‐local!campaigns!are!seen!as!an!
effective!consumer‐driven!social!movement!that!lends!to!the!development!of!local!food!
systems!(Allen!and!Hinrichs!2007;!Hinrichs!and!Allen!2008;!Kantor!2001).!!!
Overall,!it!would!appear!that!both!autonomous!and!collective!consumer!action!is!
limited.!!Consumer!actions!oriented!toward!value‐trait!foods!(e.g.,!organics,!natural!
foods,!etc.)!are!more!easily!co‐opted!by!the!conventional!agrifood!system!than!efforts!
!
!
36!
to!develop!alternative!short‐supply!chain!systems.!!Local!food!systems!are!defined!by!
direct!connections!between!consumers!and!producers!and!thus!(unlike!organic!foods)!
cannot!easily!be!integrated!into!large‐scale!national!or!global!agrifood!systems!(Lyson!
2004).!!Also,!collective!action!involving!both!producers!and!consumers!has!shown!to!be!
effective!in!changing!local!community!conditions,!increasing!the!strength!and!quality!of!
community!networks!through!local!food!markets!(Guptill!2008a;!Hinrichs!2000).!!!
#
Producer‐driven#collective#action#
Most!of!the!literature!on!alternative!agrifood!systems!(including!local!food!
systems)!has!emphasized!the!role!of!autonomous!consumer!action!and!consumer!social!
movements!in!the!development!of!alternative!farming!and!agrifood!systems.!!However,!
there!is!significant!reason!to!believe!that!small‐!and!medium‐sized!farmers!have!both!
economic!and!non‐economic!reasons!for!preferring!local!food!systems.!!Much!of!the!
critique!of!the!global!agrifood!system!demonstrates!how!these!types!of!farmers!are!not!
well!positioned!to!capture!the!economic!benefits!associated!with!large‐scale!agrifood!
commodity!chains.!!Considering!that!these!producers!would!receive!significant!benefits!
from!the!expansion!of!local!food!systems,!it!seems!unusual!that!there!has!been!
relatively!little!focus!in!the!sociology!of!agriculture!literature!on!the!role!of!producers!in!
consumption‐oriented!social!movements!surrounding!alternative!food!issues.!!!
As!with!consumers,!producers!can!‘act’!as!both!autonomous!market!actors!or!
through!organized!social!movements!and!collective!action.!!As!independent!agents,!they!
might!decide!to!improve!the!economic!viability!of!their!farm!by!taking!steps!to!
!
!
37!
participate!in!short‐supply!chain!and!value‐trait!food!markets.!!Without!producers!
interested!in!serving!these!markets,!it!is!impossible!to!create!a!critical!mass!of!suppliers!
ready!to!satisfy!consumer!demand.!!However,!the!creation!of!alternative!marketing!
channels!often!requires!more!time,!energy,!and!coordination!than!individual!producers!
are!capable!of!providing.!!As!such,!producers!may!need!to!act!collectively!to!create!new!
markets,!but!also!to!use!local!political!and!organizational!institutions!to!remove!barriers!
or!create!more!incentives!for!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!
It!can!be!argued,!in!fact,!that!producers!are!in!a!unique!position!to!frame!issues!
around!local!food!systems!that!are!salient!for!both!producers!and!consumers,!and!to!
mobilize!private!and!public!resources!necessary!to!create!local!food!systems.!!For!
example,!most!consumer!action!is!directed!at!the!market!by!creating!demand!for!
products!with!different!values.!!However,!most!consumers!have!little!time!or!interest!in!
creating!the!institutional!arrangements!necessary!to!create!new!markets.!!By!contrast,!
producers!would!be!expected!to!care!both!about!the!goal!of!developing!alternatives!to!
global!agrifood!systems,!have!a!deep!personal!stake!in!the!success!of!new!market!
outlets,!and!have!greater!familiarity!with!and!access!to!local!government!officials!and!
institutions!that!might!influence!the!development!of!new!local!food!markets.!!Producers!
may!well!be!more!likely!to!harness!their!collective!political!clout!to!influence!local!rules!
and!institutional!arrangements!that!guide!land!use,!economic!development,!and!
infrastructure!development!at!the!community!level.!!Considering!the!role!of!producers!
in!both!the!market!and!political!spheres,!it!would!make!sense!to!bring!the!producer!
!
!
38!
back!into!the!study!of!local!food!systems!and!local!food!collective!action.!
!
Rural!Geography!!
Productivist#and#post‐productivist#landscapes#
Distinct!from!the!sociology!of!agriculture,!rural!geographers!have!long!been!
concerned!with!explaining!spatial!and!economic!dimensions!of!changes!in!agricultural!
landscapes,!particularly!as!a!consequence!of!urbanization!(Clark!2008,!2009;!
Vandermeulen!et!al.!2006)!and!industrialization!(Ilbery!and!Bowler!1998;!Marsden!1998;!
Van!derPloeg!2006).!!Much!of!the!literature!on!agriculture!in!rural!geography!parallels!
the!sociology!of!agriculture!debates!discussed!above!(though!there!is!remarkably!little!
cross‐referencing!of!the!two!literatures).!!!
In!recent!years,!a!central!contribution!of!rural!geography!has!been!to!recognize!
the!transition!of!the!rural!countryside!from!a!so‐called!“production”!to!a!“consumption”!
landscape!(Ilbery!and!Bowler!1998;!Marsden!1998).!!A!production!landscape!refers!to!
the!traditional!use!of!land!for!production!(most!commonly!the!production!of!agricultural!
commodities).!!In!contrast,!a!consumption!landscape!refers!to!the!fact!that!rural!
landscapes!have!come!to!be!valued!by!rural!residents!and!society!for!attributes!other!
than!agricultural!production,!such!as!aesthetics,!biodiversity,!environmental!health,!
rural!lifestyles,!recreation,!etc.!!In!essence,!the!consumption!of!these!rural!landscape!
attributes!by!rural!residents!(both!farmers!and!non‐farmers)!is!argued!to!have!become!a!
central!economic!and!social!driver!of!many!rural!or!exurban!communities.!!!
The!transition!to!post‐productivism!in!the!US!and!Europe!began!in!the!1970s!and!
!
!
39!
continues!to!the!present!time!(Ilbery!and!Bowler!1998).!!As!a!societal!phenomenon,!it!
is!often!characterized!at!the!national!level!by!decreased!food!output,!the!withdrawal!of!
state!subsidies!for!traditional!farm!commodity!production,!and!rising!concern!over!
environmental!issues!(Marsden!1998).!!At!the!local!level,!it!is!related!to!a!rural!
renaissance!or!“counter‐urbanization”!trend!found!in!most!advanced!industrial!
societies,!in!which!there!has!been!significant!net!migration!from!urban!to!rural!areas,!
and!a!related!increase!in!demand!for!rural!land!for!low‐density!housing!development!
(Beyers!and!Nelson!2000).!!!
!
National#and#local#policy#
The!shift!from!productivist!to!post‐productivist!landscapes!is!mirrored!in!the!
evolution!of!rural!and!agricultural!policies!in!most!advanced!industrial!nations.!!
Specifically,!traditional!farm!commodity!subsidy!programs!and!public!research!and!
extension!programs!were!oriented!toward!improving!agricultural!output!and!technical!
efficiencies,!with!the!goal!of!improving!the!competitiveness!of!national!agriculture!on!
international!markets.!!In!recent!decades,!many!countries!have!adopted!new!programs!
and!policies!designed!to!address!some!of!the!social,!economic,!and!environmental!
problems!that!have!been!linked!to!the!modern!global!agrifood!system.!!In!Europe,!these!
policies!are!built!on!a!recognition!that!agricultural!activities!have!a!“multifunctional”!
character!–that!produces!not!only!food,!fuel,!and!fiber,!but!also!can!be!used!to!maintain!
open!space,!rural!landscape!aesthetics,!wildlife!habitat,!water!and!air!quality,!and!other!
“non‐productivist”!outcomes!(Durand!and!Huylenbroeck!2003).!!An!elaborate!set!of!
!
!
40!
national!rural!and!agricultural!policies!have!been!developed!in!the!European!Union!to!
reward!farmers!who!manage!their!lands!to!maximize!non‐production!multifunctional!
outputs.!
While!the!connections!are!not!always!made!in!the!literature,!it!is!apparent!that!
local!food!systems!share!positive!qualities!with!many!multifunctional!farming!systems!or!
post‐productive!landscapes.!!Indeed,!Watts!et!al.!(2005)!explicitly!define!multifunctional!
agriculture!to!include!efforts!to!reduce!the!distance!between!producers!and!consumers!
and!give!consumers!better!information!about!agricultural!production!processes.!!They!
also!believe!that!multifunctional!farming!will!inevitably!take!place!on!small‐scale!farms!
that!produce!a!diverse!array!of!products,!many!of!which!are!processed!to!add!value!
before!sale!to!local!consumers.!!Early!research!on!post‐productivism!focused!on!the!
effects!of!national‐level!policy!and!extra‐local!actors!on!the!development!of!
multifunctional!agriculture!(Barlas!et!al.!2001;!Gellynck!and!Viaene!2002;!Ilbery!and!
Bowler!1998)!arguing!generally!that!state‐level!policies!do!not!go!far!enough!to!fully!
develop!multifunctional!agriculture!as!a!rural!development!tool.!!More!recent!research!
has!focused!on!the!importance!of!local!actors,!local!networks,!local!social!dynamics,!and!
competing!interests!in!the!development!of!multifunctional!agriculture!(Batterbury!2002;!
Fonte!2008;!Marsden!1999;!Panelli!2006;!Sonnino!and!Marsden!2006;!Vandermeulen!et!
al.!2006).!!The!general!conclusion!is!that!the!applicability!of!multifunctional!policy!is!
dependent!on!the!social!and!political!conditions!of!each!place.!!For,!example!Marsden!
(1999)!argues!that!single‐sector!policies!are!no!longer!applicable!in!places!where!
!
!
41!
multiple!demands!are!made!of!the!landscape.!
Research!has!also!shown!that!local!land!use!and!agricultural!policies!are!not!
created!and!do!not!exist!in!vacuums.!!The!local!context!determines!how!policies!are!
shaped!and!which!policies!are!adopted.!!Competing!interests!and!discourses!that!
struggle!for!dominance!exist!in!all!places!(Potter!and!Tilzey!2005).!!Policy!is!the!
institutionalization!of!such!struggles,!but!these!struggles!result!in!contradictory,!
overlapping!and!uneven!policies.!!Rarely!does!one!discourse!completely!dominate!the!
policy!field.!!Policies!come!to!existence!in!a!variety!of!ways,!sometimes!through!a!formal!
policy‐making!process,!and!in!other!cases!through!ad!hoc!decision‐making!that!becomes!
institutionalized!later!(Gilg!1998).!!Therefore!it!is!important!to!understand!that!the!
socio‐cultural!context!not!only!says!something!about!the!effectiveness!of!policy,!but!
also!the!processes!leading!to!the!existence!of!certain!policies.!!And!as!policy!is!the!result!
of!competing!interests,!many!studies!acknowledge!the!importance!of!public!or!
stakeholder!support!(Alterman!1997;!Bengston,!Fletcher,!and!Nelson!2004;!Daniels!
2000).!!!
!
Stakeholders#in#local#post‐productivist#politics#
The!transition!from!rural!to!urban!land!uses!has!been!linked!to!greater!conflict!
over!local!land!use!and!development!interests,!and!increasing!competition!between!
productivist!and!post‐productivist!interests!over!different!visions!for!how!agricultural!
production!should!be!organized!at!the!local!level!(Durand!and!Huylenbroeck!2003;!Ilbery!
and!Bowler!1998).!!In!many!cases,!there!has!been!increased!environmental!regulation!
!
!
42!
and!local!land!use!governance!in!an!attempt!to!manage!both!the!structural!and!
cultural!changes!occurring!in!rural!communities!(Ilbery!and!Bowler!1998).!!!
Marsden!(1998)!has!suggested!that!balance!between!productivist!and!post‐
productivist!interests!in!different!rural!landscapes!has!led!to!the!emergence!of!at!least!
four!distinct!“ideal!types”!of!rural!communities:!the!preserved!countryside,!the!
contested!countryside,!the!paternalistic!countryside!and!the!clientist!countryside.!!
Places!that!fit!the!definition!of!“preserved!countrysides”!have!been!so!dominated!by!
post‐productivist!actors!that!their!local!political!scene!is!oriented!toward!addressing!
interests!in!preserving!open!space,!rural!aesthetics!and!environmental!quality.!!A!
contested!countryside!refers!to!places!where!traditional!agriculture!combines!with!pro‐
development!interests!to!dominate!local!politics,!though!as!the!name!suggests,!there!is!
an!organized!group!of!post‐productivists!that!contests!their!domination!of!local!
decisions.!!The!idea!of!a!paternalistic!countryside!refers!to!places!where!large!farms!and!
estates!dominate!the!landscape,!but!where!landed!interests!are!beginning!to!become!
invested!in!the!sale!or!leasing!of!their!land!for!residential!development.!!There!is!
typically!far!less!conflict!and!debate!over!land!use!decisions!in!these!paternalistic!
communities,!in!part!because!they!are!at!an!earlier!stage!in!the!transition!process.!!A!
clientist!countryside!refers!to!more!remote!rural!areas!where!traditional!agriculture!and!
associated!institutions!dominate!land!use!and!local!government,!and!where!
conventional!commodity!production!is!still!heavily!dependent!on!global!agrifood!
markets!and!state!farm!subsidies.!!Marsden!describes!change!between!these!types!as!a!
!
!
43!
linear!progression!from!the!clientist!to!the!preserved!countryside.!
There!are!two!general!conclusions!that!we!can!draw!from!this!body!of!literature.!!
First,!there!is!a!growing!tension!between!policies!that!support!traditional!agricultural!
production!and!land!use!and!those!that!support!the!development!of!multifunctional!
agriculture,!local!food!systems,!and!post‐productivist!landscapes.!!Second,!land!use!
politics!and!battles!between!pro‐!and!anti‐!development!groups!define!much!of!the!
political!agenda.!!Taken!as!a!whole,!tension!between!policy!types!and!land!use!interests!
help!define!the!local!political!structure!in!many!post‐productivist!landscapes!and!
communities.!!The!balance!of!power!between!these!interests!will!shape!the!ability!of!
local!food!collective!action!groups!to!act,!the!policy!environment!and!ultimately!land!
use!change.!
From!the!rural!geography!literature!we!can!conclude!that!local!land!use!struggles!
and!debates!between!commodity!and!multifunctional!agriculture!are!important!
elements!of!communities!at!the!rural‐urban!interface.!!What!is!not!clear!is!how!local!
food!system!advocates!intersect!with!these!other!stakeholder!groups.!!In!many!ways,!
local!food!systems!share!many!features!of!multifunctional!agricultural!systems,!and!they!
are!also!likely!to!appeal!to!post‐productivist!rural!residents.!!One!goal!of!the!current!
research!is!to!determine!how!the!balance!of!power!between!these!stakeholder!groups!
influences!the!development!of!collective!action,!policy,!and!ultimately,!outcomes!for!
local!food!systems.!
!
!
!
!
44!
Local!Land!Use!and!Agricultural!Policy!
In!Europe!and!the!United!States,!a!considerable!amount!of!local!government!
policy!has!been!developed!to!plan!for!and!manage!the!effects!of!population!growth!and!
urban!development.!!Over!the!last!few!decades!in!the!U.S.!a!wide!range!of!land!use!and!
agricultural!programs!and!policies!have!been!implemented!in!towns,!cities,!counties!and!
state!governments.!!!
#
Exurban#population#growth#and#local#policy#
The!United!States!has!experienced!several!periods!of!rapid!population!growth!in!
rural!and!exurban!areas!since!the!1970s.!!Particularly!in!the!1970s!and!1990s,!when!
there!was!net!migration!into!rural!areas!from!urban!centers,!the!pressure!to!
accommodate!new!urban!residents!in!rural!landscapes!has!been!a!defining!feature!of!
local!politics!in!many!parts!of!the!country.!!Rapid!population!growth!in!rural!areas!
adjacent!to!or!in!close!proximity!to!metropolitan!areas!spurred!a!range!of!local!land!use!
and!agricultural!policies!intended!to!control!or!limit!development!in!rural!areas,!
especially!on!farmland!or!other!lands!considered!sensitive!to!development!or!important!
to!preserve!(Gilg!1998).!!These!policies!have!been!most!typically!directed!at!managing!
land!use!change!and!growth!or!facilitating!agricultural!development.!!!
Land!use!policies!include!incentive‐based,!regulatory,!and!government!control!
policies.!!Incentive‐based!policies!are!voluntary!and!involve!either!positive!or!negative!
economic!or!non‐economic!incentives!(or!disincentives)!to!change!landowner!behavior!
(Bengston!et!al.!2004).!!Incentive‐based!policies!are!implemented!at!the!local!level,!but!
!
!
45!
often!require!the!authority!of,!or!coordination!with!the!state.!!Examples!of!typical!
incentive‐based!policies!used!to!manage!urban!growth!and!protect!agriculture!in!RUI!
communities!include!use‐value!tax!assessment;!impact!fees!and!exactions;!purchase!or!
transfer!of!development!rights;!conservation!easements;!infill,!redevelopment!and!
brownfield!development!incentives;!agricultural!districts;!and!capital!gains!tax!on!land!
sales!(Bengston!et!al.!2004;!Duke!and!Lynch!2003).!!Most!negative!incentive‐based!
policies!do!not!prohibit!land!use!decisions.!!Rather!they!attempt!to!mitigate!some!of!the!
impacts!by!transferring!the!cost!of!development!to!developers.!!Positive!incentive‐based!
policies!work!in!the!reverse!by!providing!tax!breaks!or!protection!from!development!to!
landowners!who!promote!desired!land!uses.!!For!example,!transfer!of!development!
rights!involves!the!purchase!of!the!development!rights!of!farmland!and!their!
transference!to!a!location!that!is!more!desirable!for!development!such!as!within!an!
urban!boundary.!
Regulatory!policies!are!obligatory!and!often!backed!by!the!threat!of!negative!
sanctions.!!Regulatory!policies!to!manage!rapid!population!growth!and!urbanization!are!
developed!and!implemented!mostly!at!the!local!level.!!Examples!of!common!regulatory!
policies!to!manage!urban!growth!and!protect!agriculture!in!RUI!communities!include!
agricultural!protection!zoning;!agricultural!use!zoning;!right‐to‐farm!laws;!urban!growth!
and!service!boundaries;!state!executive!orders;!cluster!development!zoning;!
development!moratoria;!rate!of!growth!controls!or!growth!phasing;!adequate!public!
infrastructure!ordinances;!minimum!density!zoning;!greenbelts;!large!lot!zoning;!
!
!
46!
exclusive!agricultural!or!forestry!zoning;!development!guidelines!presented!in!
comprehensive!or!master!plans;!and!mitigation!ordinances!(Bengston!et!al.!2004;!Duke!
and!Lynch!2003).!!Generally,!regulatory!policies!attempt!to!cap!development!or!control!
the!rate!and/or!pattern!of!development!by!dictating!allowable!land!uses.!
Public!or!government!control!policies!involve!the!protection!of!public!goods!and!
services!that!are!not!protected!by!the!market.!!Public!ownership!of!land!to!manage!
urban!growth!and!protect!agriculture!includes!the!acquisition!of!parks,!recreation!areas,!
forests,!wildlife!refuges,!nature!preserves,!wilderness!areas,!greenways!and!green!
infrastructure!(Bengston!et!al.!2004).!!Specific!public!acquisition!policies!include!eminent!
domain;!fee‐simple!sale!and!purchase;!right!of!first!refusal;!and!land!banks!(Duke!and!
Lynch!2003).!!This!approach!has!a!long!history!of!use!at!the!national,!state,!and!local!
levels.!
Agricultural!economic!development!policies!have!not!received!as!much!attention!
in!the!literature!as!the!other!types!of!policies!for!at!least!two!reasons.!!First,!local!
agricultural!economic!development!policies!have!not!been!in!use!at!the!local!level!for!
the!length!of!time!that!local!land!use!policies!have!been.!!Historically!in!the!United!
States,!agricultural!policy!was!made!primarily!at!the!federal!level,!particularly!through!
the!Farm!Bill.!!Within!the!last!two!decades!there!has!been!increasing!devolution!of!
authority!and!policy!from!federal!to!state!and!local!governments.!!At!the!same!time,!
there!have!been!growing!calls!by!local!stakeholders!for!more!active!efforts!to!promote!
positive!agricultural!economic!development!as!a!way!of!encouraging!local!farmers.!!
!
!
47!
Second,!as!was!noted!in!the!rural!geography!section!above,!rapid!population!growth!
in!RUI!communities!has!brought!increasing!focus!on!the!alternative,!non‐economic,!non‐
agricultural!(i.e.,!post‐productivist)!values!provided!by!some!rural!landscapes.!!For!many!
advocates!of!rural!places,!perhaps!especially!non‐agricultural!residents!in!RUI!
communities,!the!most!pressing!concern!has!been!preserving!open!space!for!a!variety!of!
competing!uses!and!quelling!or!controlling!population!growth!and!development.!!
Preserving!agricultural!productivity!has!been!less!of!a!focus!in!these!places!than!simply!
preserving!the!land!base.!!As!discussions!have!progressed,!however,!there!is!increasing!
interest!in!finding!ways!to!preserve!rural!land!by!making!some!desired!forms!of!local!
agriculture!more!economically!viable.!!!
There!are!several!categories!of!local!agricultural!economic!development!policies!
including!agricultural!business!development!programs!and!staff,!programs!to!increase!
local!value‐added!and!processing!capacities,!sector‐specific!programs,!and!programs!to!
develop!local!food!systems!and!direct!sales.!!Agricultural!business!development!
programs!aid!commercial!farmers!by!cultivating!business!management!skills!and/or!
facilitating!access!to!credit!and!markets.!!Typical!programs!include!farm!business!
management!training,!programs!to!facilitate!access!to!farm!credit,!and!beginner!farm!
programs.!!In!addition!communities!may!hire!staff!dedicated!to!agriculture!economic!
development!and/or!develop!an!agricultural!advisory!committee!that!can!collectively!
advocate!for!policies!and!programs!that!increase!the!economic!viability!of!agriculture.!!!
Value‐added!and!local!processing!programs!are!intended!to!increase!the!local!
!
!
48!
capacity!of!farmers!to!do!on‐farm!processing!of!raw!agricultural!products!(e.g.,!
processing!milk!into!cheese),!or!develop!independent!local!processors!that!operate!at!
small!scales.!!Some!examples!include!programs!to!develop!a!biofuels!plant,!a!dairy!
processor!or!co‐op,!small‐scale!meat!processors,!and!incubator!kitchens!that!farmers!
can!use!to!develop!new!value‐added!products.!!!
Sector‐specific!programs!are!tailored!towards!farmers!who!specialize!in!certain!
crops!or!livestock.!!These!programs!are!intended!to!either!help!producers!to!transition!
to!new!production!techniques,!diversify!production!or!build‐up!particular!sectors.!!Some!
sector‐specific!examples!include!programs!to!support!crop!diversification!and!
alternative!production!techniques,!programs!to!develop!nursery/greenhouse!industry,!
programs!designed!for!hobby!farmers,!and!programs!to!promote!agritourism.!!!
Programs!and!policies!to!develop!local!food!systems!and!direct!sales!are!a!subset!
of!agricultural!economic!policies!that!involve!building!the!market!capacity!for!local!foods!
by!either!creating!places!for!local!selling!or!changing!laws!to!facilitate!local!selling.!!
Examples!include!adopting!local!ordinances!to!facilitate!on‐farm!sales!or!farmers’!
markets,!publishing!a!directory!of!local!food!producers,!helping!develop!farmers’!
markets,!establishment!of!programs!to!promote!direct!sales!of!local!farm!products,!
development!of!local!food!labels,!linking!farmers!to!local!institutional!buyers,!and!
formation!of!local!food!policy!councils!to!work!on!food!security!and!access.!!
#
#
#
#
!
!
49!
The#uniqueness#of#agricultural#economic##
development#policies#
It!is!important!to!understand!that!land!use!policy!in!many!RUI!communities!
ultimately!affects!farmers!and!local!food!systems,!but!the!land!use!and!agricultural!
economic!development!policies!described!above!may!have!different!impacts!on!the!
development!of!local!food!systems.!!For!example,!many!farmland!protection!policies!are!
concerned!with!preserving!the!land!base.!!Research!suggests!that!maintaining!a!critical!
mass!of!affordable!land!is!essential!to!preserving!agriculture!(Daniels!2000;!Daniels!and!
Friedman!1999).!!While!many!conventional!agriculturalists!require!large!expanses!of!
land,!many!local!food!producers!–!CSAs,!small‐scale!farmers!and!gardeners!–!produce!
food!on!much!smaller!plots!of!land.!!While!land!must!still!be!affordable,!local!food!
suppliers!are!more!easily!incorporated!into!residential!and!urban!landscapes.!!Acre,!half‐
acre,!even!quarter‐acre!plots!or!smaller!can!be!used!by!local!food!producers.!!Expansion!
is!not!necessarily!a!requirement!or!goal!for!small‐scale!producers.!!Therefore,!policies!
that!preserve!large!amounts!of!land!may!not!address!the!needs!of!small‐scale!
producers.!!Local!food!producers!may!be!more!concerned!with!proximity!to!markets!and!
therefore!more!interested!in!policies!that!allow!small‐scale!agricultural!production!to!be!
integrated!with!other!land!uses.!!!
Some!research!has!also!cited!a!sense!of!permanence!as!an!important!
precondition!for!farmers!to!invest!in!their!operations!(Daniels!2000).!!While!this!may!be!
true!for!local!food!producers!as!well,!the!loss!of!large!expanses!of!farmland!may!not!be!
the!condition!that!triggers!a!sense!of!impermanence!and!the!subsequent!unwillingness!
!
!
50!
to!invest!in!their!operations.!!For!smaller!producers,!a!sense!of!impermanence!may!be!
created!by!a!lack!of!local!markets!in!which!to!sell!their!products!(which!may!change!for!
the!better!with!the!onset!of!intense!urban!development).!!Therefore!policies!that!focus!
on!the!establishment!of!local!markets!and!a!local!food!culture!may!be!more!important!
sources!of!support!for!local!food!systems!than!generic!farmland!preservation!policies.!!It!
is!important!to!consider!how!the!unique!characteristics!of!agricultural!economic!
development!policies!affect!local!food!systems.!!What!has!worked!for!farmland!
preservation!may!not!work!for!the!promotion!of!local!food!systems.!
!
Research!Questions!
As!discussed!in!the!introduction,!there!is!a!great!deal!of!activity!surrounding!the!
development!of!local!food!systems,!particularly!in!RUI!communities.!!Both!consumers!
and!producers!may!be!actively!engaged!with!local!community!leaders!to!develop!
programs!or!policies!to!expand!local!food!systems.!!At!the!same!time,!these!efforts!may!
be!linked!to!local!political!discussions!surrounding!programs!designed!to!assist!
traditional!commodity!farmers,!to!manage!patterns!of!residential!growth!and!
development,!and!to!protect!local!open!space!or!environmental!quality.!!This!
dissertation!explores!the!conditions!under!which!local!efforts!to!promote!local!food!
systems!serve!to!frustrate!or!facilitate!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!
Specifically,!it!will!seek!to!document!the!effectiveness!of!local!collective!action!and!local!
policies!and!programs!designed!to!encourage!local!food!systems.!!Figure!2!is!a!
conceptual!depiction!of!how!I!expect!structural!conditions,!collective!action!and!
!
!
51!
institutional!arrangements!to!influence!the!development!of!local!food!systems!in!RUI!
communities.!!!There!is!likely!some!degree!of!autonomous!and!uncoordinated!local!food!
system!market!activity!that!develops!as!a!result!of!the!appropriate!structural!conditions!
(growing!urban!population,!increased!population!density,!higher!incomes,!the!right!
commodity!mix,!a!decline!of!traditional!agriculture,!an!abundance!of!small!farms!and!
part‐time!farmers,!etc.)!and!without!the!intentional!efforts!of!the!civil!society!collective!
action!groups!or!from!the!policies!and!programs!developed!by!the!state.!!I!also!expect!
that!in!some!cases!civil!society!groups!will!have!successfully!generated!local!food!
markets!through!market‐oriented!collective!action.!!This!includes!all!private!sector!
efforts!to!create!or!grow!local!food!markets!working!directly!with!producers!and!
consumers.!!Further,!I!expect!that!in!some!cases!civil!society!groups!will!have!
successfully!developed!the!local!food!system!via!their!efforts!to!advocate!for!public!
programs!and!policies!that!facilitate!LFS!development.!!!Finally,!I!also!expect!that!some!
policies!and!programs!will!have!a!negative!effect!on!local!food!systems.!!!
!
Figure!2.!!Conceptual!Model!
!
!
52!
!
The!core!of!sociology!of!agriculture!is!a!debate!over!the!relative!influences!of!
structural!economic!forces!versus!autonomous!human!agency.!!This!debate!has!several!
important!implications!for!a!study!of!local!food!systems.!!Certain!conditions!in!RUI!
communities!may!support!the!development!of!local!food!systems!independently!of!
intentional!efforts!to!develop!local!food!systems.!!Specifically,!increased!population!and!
population!density,!proximity!to!urban!centers,!higher!values!crops,!small!diversified!
farms,!and!a!long!growing!season!could!influence!the!ability!or!desire!of!local!producers!
to!take!advantage!of!local!food!marketing!opportunities.!!As!a!result,!this!study!begins!
with!the!following!question.!
1. How!important!are!structural!opportunities!and!constraints!as!drivers!of!
variation!in!local!food!systems!development?!
This!question!attempts!to!understand!the!influence!of!certain!structural!
conditions!of!the!RUI!on!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!Although!many!
characteristics!of!RUI!communities!would!suggest!that!agriculture!should!decline,!
certain!conditions!such!as!population!growth!and!density,!proximity!to!urban!centers,!
commodity!mix,!farm!size!and!the!biophysical!environment!may!actually!influence!
producers!to!take!advantage!of!local!food!opportunities.!!Therefore!I!expect!that!
communities!that!have!growing!populations,!are!close!to!urban!centers,!have!an!
abundance!of!small!farms!with!a!diversity!of!high!value!crops,!and!a!long!growing!
season!are!likely!to!have!more!local!food!activity.!!!
!
!
53!
Meanwhile,!the!most!recent!literature!in!the!sociology!of!agriculture!and!rural!
geography!looks!to!consumers!or!post‐productivist!non‐farming!rural!residents!to!be!
engines!of!change!in!favor!of!local!food!systems.!!However,!there!are!reasons!to!believe!
that!producers!could!play!a!significant!role.!!There!are!two!ways!in!which!we!can!
conceive!of!producer’s!role!in!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!First,!local!food!
system!development!is!the!result!of!autonomous!actions!by!producers!to!provide!goods!
and!services!to!willing!pools!of!consumers.!!Second,!producers!can!be!collective!actors!
either!as!part!of!informal!farmer!networks!that!facilitate!the!development!of!local!food!
markets,!or!as!part!of!formal!social!movement!or!advocacy!organizations!that!seek!to!
influence!local!food!policy.!!To!date,!there!is!little!research!on!the!locally!oriented!
collective!actions!of!producers!intended!to!develop!local!food!systems.!!To!that!end,!this!
dissertation!seeks!to!answer!the!following!two!questions!which!attempt!to!understand!
if!collective!action!directed!at!the!market!or!state!are!essential!to!develop!local!food!
system!markets!and!policies:!
2. Is!market!oriented!collective!action!by!producers!and!consumers!necessary!
for!the!emergence!of!local!food!systems?!
3. Is!policy!oriented!local!food!system!collective!action!required!to!create!LFS‐
oriented!policies/programs?!
Although!the!role!of!producers!in!the!development!of!local!food!systems!has!not!
received!as!much!attention!recently,!a!review!of!the!sociology!of!agriculture!suggests!
we!should!expect!several!results.!!First,!producers!have!both!economic!and!non‐
!
!
54!
economic!interests!in!maintaining!their!farms!and!they!have!traditionally!been!well!
organized!into!commodity!groups!and!other!organizations!that!influence!both!the!
market!and!political!institutions!guiding!agriculture.!!This!places!farmers!in!the!unique!
position!to!favor!local!food!systems!and!have!the!capacity!to!drive!their!development.!!
Second,!the!general!consensus!is!that!collective!action!is!more!effective!than!
autonomous!action!in!creating!change!in!the!agrifood!system.!!Finally,!collective!action!
that!effectively!mobilizes!resources,!takes!advantage!of!existing!political!opportunities,!
and!successfully!frames!local!food!issues!in!ways!salient!to!decision‐makers!and!
supporters!should!be!able!to!effectively!create!local!food!markets!and!influence!policy.!!
Therefore,!I!expect!that!in!cases!where!local!food!producers!are!more!organized,!have!
successfully!mobilized!resources,!framed!issues!and!taken!advantage!of!existing!political!
opportunities!there!will!be!a!more!well!developed!local!food!system!and!set!of!local!
food!system!policies.!!
A!review!of!the!rural!geography!literature!and!the!land!use!policy!research!
reveals!that!land!use!struggles!and!local!food!institutions!(defined!as!a!collection!of!
public!sector!programs,!policies,!and!personnel!designed!to!support!the!emergence!and!
development!of!local!food!systems)!are!important!but!there!are!some!limitations!in!the!
research!that!need!further!exploration.!!There!is!a!distinction!between!the!institutional!
arrangements!and!interest!groups!that!support!conventional!agriculture,!land!use!and!
growth!management,!local!foods,!and!non‐agricultural!business,!real!estate!and!
development.!!The!struggle!between!interest!groups!and!the!tension!between!different!
!
!
55!
types!of!policies!may!result!in!a!variety!of!outcomes!for!local!food!systems.!!
Considering!this,!the!proposed!project!will!ask!the!following!two!questions.!!!
4. How!do!local!land!use!struggles!and!politics!influence!the!emergence!of!local!
food!systems?!
5. Are!institutionalized!local!food!system!policies!and!programs!helpful!in!the!
emergence!and!growth!of!local!food!systems?!
The!fourth!research!question!seeks!to!understand!how!the!balance!of!power!
between!various!land!use!interests!affects!the!development!of!local!collective!action!
and!institutional!arrangements!that!favor!local!food!systems.!!Specifically,!I!will!be!
looking!at!the!influence!of!LFS!collective!action!and!institutional!arrangements!relative!
to!other!interests!such!as!pro‐development,!antidevelopment,!preservationist,!and!
traditional!agricultural!interests.!
Based!on!a!review!of!the!rural!geography,!I!expect!that!the!influence!of!local!
food!interests!will!likely!depend!on!the!balance!of!power!with!other!interests!in!
communities.!!Therefore,!I!expect!in!cases!where!local!food!interests!are!dominant,!or!
have!been!aligned!with!other!dominant!interests,!there!will!be!a!well‐developed!local!
food!system!and!these!interests!will!have!played!a!significant!role!in!that!development.!!
Alternatively,!in!cases!where!the!political!power!of!the!dominant!land!use!interests!has!
declined!or!is!in!crisis!it!is!possible!for!local!food!interests!to!gain!space!in!the!public!
agenda. Aside!from!this,!there!is!little!known!about!the!intersection!of!various!land!use!
interests!with!local!food!interests!and!the!resulting!impact!on!the!institutional!context!
!
!
56!
and!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!Therefore,!I!expect!this!analysis!to!
uncover!previously!unknown!dimensions!of!these!relationships.!
The!fifth!research!question!attempts!to!understand!if!local!food!system!policies!
are!important!for!the!development!of!local!food!systems!or!if!local!food!systems!can!
develop!in!their!absence.!!Based!on!a!review!of!the!land!use!and!agricultural!
development!policy!research,!I!expect!that!there!are!some!unique!characteristics!of!
local!food!systems!that!may!conflict!with!many!land!use!and!traditional!agricultural!
policies!designed!to!preserve!agricultural!land,!control!growth!or!develop!commodity!
agriculture.!!Therefore!I!expect!local!food!system‐specific!policies!to!be!important!in!the!
development!of!local!food!systems.!
!
!
!
!
57!
CHAPTER!3!
METHODS!
In!this!chapter!I!describe!the!methods!that!were!used!to!undertake!this!study.!!
First,!I!describe!a!mixed!method!research!design!using!several!different!types!of!data.!!
This!is!followed!by!a!description!of!the!data!and!data!collection!techniques.!!Following!
this!I!describe!the!steps!I!followed!to!do!a!comparative!case!study.!!
!
Research!Design!
! I!used!a!multi‐method!triangulation!approach!to!assess!the!impact!of!the!
presence!or!absence!of!collective!action!and!institutional!arrangements!on!local!food!
systems.!!I!used!a!comparative!case!study!approach!to!provide!depth!and!strong!internal!
validity!to!the!analysis!of!the!research!questions.!
! I!focus!on!counties!as!the!unit!of!analysis!for!this!research.!!Although!an!
imperfect!reflection!of!the!concept!of!community,!I!am!interested!in!the!development!
of!local!food!systems!within!a!bounded!geographic!region.!!The!county!as!the!unit!of!
analysis!is!a!logical!choice,!for!at!least!two!reasons.!!First,!there!is!a!significant!amount!of!
agricultural!data!available!at!the!county!level.!!Second,!many!of!the!institutional!
arrangements!that!affect!local!food!systems!and!land!use!dynamics!exist!at!the!county!
level.!!!
! There!are!four!core!concepts!that!I!focus!on!in!this!research:!local!food!system,!
collective!action,!institutional!arrangements,!and!political!landscape.!!Local!food!system!
!
!
58!
is!defined!as!a!short!food!supply!chain!(SSC)!that!limits!the!distance!between!the!sites!
of!production!and!consumption.!!Local!food!includes!small‐scale!agricultural!production!
of!agricultural!products!and!services!that!cannot!travel!great!distances!to!markets!such!
that!the!majority!of!distribution!is!geographically!close!to!the!producer!with!either!face‐
to‐face!contact!between!producers!and!consumers,!or!spatially!proximate!contact!
between!producers!and!consumers.!!!
! Although!local!food!systems!may!also!possess!some!value‐traits!such!as!organic!
or!natural,!the!key!feature!of!a!local!food!system!is!the!short!food!supply!chain.!!Sage!
(2003)!describes!three!types!of!short!food!supply!chains.!!First!he!describes!a!face‐to‐
face!food!supply!chain!in!which!consumers!purchase!directly!from!the!producer!or!
processor!and!a!relationship!is!established.!!Second!he!describes!a!spatially!proximate!
food!supply!chain!in!which!products!are!sold!in!a!region!by!people!who!have!expertise!in!
the!product!and!regard!for!the!seller’s!knowledge!is!established.!!These!third!party!food!
experts!often!act!as!mediators!for!the!producers.!!Third!he!describes!a!food!supply!chain!
that!is!spatially!extended!in!which!products!are!sold!to!consumers!outside!the!region!
but!information!about!the!origin!of!production!and!producers!is!integrated!into!the!
product!aesthetic!and!transmitted!to!consumers.!!I!focus!only!on!the!first!two!types!of!
food!supply!chains!because!my!definition!of!local!food!system!involves!the!link!between!
the!production!and!consumption!of!agricultural!products!and!services!in!a!
geographically!bounded!area.!!Spatially!extended!consumption!increases!the!distance!
between!the!sites!of!production!and!consumption!and!the!relationship!between!
!
!
59!
producers!and!consumers!is!based!more!on!the!value‐trait!of!the!food!rather!than!the!
relationship!between!the!two!parties.!
Collective!action!is!defined!as!civil!society!groups,!such!as!food!and!agricultural!
groups,!environmental!groups,!policy!advocacy!groups,!non‐profits,!etc.,!that!act!
formally!or!informally!to!frame!issues,!mobilize!resources!and!take!advantage!of!
political!or!market!opportunities!to!effect!change.!!There!are!several!categories!of!
collective!action!depending!on!the!focus!issue!of!particular!groups.!!For!example!there!
are!environmental!collective!action!groups!that!work!to!affect!changes!in!the!market!or!
in!policy!that!benefit!environmental!causes.!!Or!there!are!land!use!collective!action!
groups!that!advocate!for!land!use!policies!that!parallel!their!particular!interests.!!In!
terms!of!local!food!collective!action!there!are!two!general!types:!market‐oriented!
collective!action!and!policy!oriented!collective!action.!!Market!oriented!collective!action!
can!include!producer!and!consumer!groups,!non‐profits,!community!foundations,!etc.,!
that!try!to!nurture!and!coordinate!local!food!markets!without!government!support.!!
Policy!oriented!collective!action!can!include!advocacy!groups,!farm!organizations,!
environmental!groups,!etc.,!that!work!towards!creating!or!changing!policy!and!
influencing!political!decision!makers.!!Once!identified,!collective!action!groups!were!
categorized!by!the!type!of!group!and!the!intent!of!their!actions.!!!
Institutional!arrangements!are!defined!as!local!public!sector!programs,!policies,!
ordinances,!and!other!rules!that!affect!patterns!of!land!development,!economic!
development,!local!foods,!and!environmental!quality.!!Local!institutional!arrangements!
!
!
60!
are!inevitably!the!result!of!political!struggles!among!various!interest!groups!in!a!
community.!!As!with!collective!action,!there!can!be!several!categories!of!institutional!
arrangements!depending!on!the!purposes!toward!which!they!are!directed!and!the!type!
of!interests!they!support.!!For!example,!institutional!arrangement!can!include!policies!
and!programs!that!are!intended!to!guide!the!development!of!residential!communities!
such!as!a!residential!zoning!ordinance.!!Alternatively,!institutional!arrangements!can!
include!policies!and!programs!that!are!intended!to!be!favorable!to!local!foods!such!as!a!
farmers’!market!ordinance!or!mixed!use!agricultural!and!residential!zoning!in!urban!
centers.!
Political!landscapes!reflect!the!balance!of!power!between!different!interest!
groups!that!are!contesting!for!control!of!local!governments.!!Following!Marsden!(1998),!
landscape!types!include!the!preserved!countryside,!the!contested!countryside,!the!
paternalistic!countryside!and!the!clientist!countryside!(as!described!above).!!In!my!own!
work,!I!modify!this!typology!to!reflect!two!distinct!tensions:!one!between!productivist!
versus!post‐productivist!agricultural!interests,!and!the!other!between!pro‐development!
versus!preservationist!interests.!!Moreover,!rather!than!accept!a!linear!process!of!
evolution!from!a!clientist!to!a!preserved!countryside,!this!new!characterization!allows!
for!potential!movement!in!four!directions!depending!on!the!outcomes!of!the!two!kinds!
of!struggles.!!Figure!3!represents!the!direction!of!movement!between!interests!in!RUI!
communities!that!are!associated!with!land!use!change.!
!
!
!
61!
Figure!3.!!Tensions!that!Define!Political!Landscapes!in!Modern!Rural!and!Exurban!Spaces!
!
!
Background:!The!Agricultural!Adaptation!Project!
This!research!comes!out!of!a!larger!research!project!entitled!“Agricultural!
Adaptation!at!the!Rural‐Urban!Interface:!Can!Communities!Make!a!Difference?”!
(Funded!by!the!USDA!NRI!Rural!Development!Project!Grant!#2005‐35401‐15272).!!The!
goal!of!this!project!was!to!understand!the!range!of!variations!in!agricultural!adaptation!
given!the!RUI!context!and!how!community‐level!factors!influence!those!trajectories.!!!
The!focus!was!on!agriculturally!important!RUI!counties.!!Agriculturally!Important!
(AI)!is!defined!as!“counties!that!have!a!well‐developed!commercial!farm!sector!relative!
to!both!the!regional!and!national!average!when!controlling!for!the!size!and!quality!of!
the!resource!base”!(Jackson‐Smith!and!Jensen!2009).!!RUI!counties!were!defined!using!
the!USDA's!Economic!Research!Service!Urban!Influence!Codes!(UIC)!(Parker!2003).!!
These!codes!were!used!to!distinguish!those!agriculturally!important!counties!that!are!
!
!
62!
under!urban!influence.!!Intersecting!these!two!categories!identified!619!counties!in!
the!U.S.!that!meet!both!AI!and!RUI!criteria!(Clark!2008).!!!
There!were!three!stages!of!the!original!project!on!which!the!current!research!is!
based.!!In!the!first!stage,!agricultural!census!data!were!analyzed!for!all!619!AI/RUI!
counties!to!determine!the!overall!trajectory!of!the!agricultural!sector!in!each!place.!!
Trends!in!the!number!of!farms,!sales,!and!acres!of!farmland!were!combined!to!
categorize!each!of!the!619!counties!into!one!of!five!farming!trajectory!classifications:!
growth,!intensification!(growth!in!sales!per!acre),!stable,!de‐intensification!(decline!in!
sales!per!acre),!and!decline.!!!
!
Case#studies#
In!the!second!stage,!eight!counties!in!six!states!were!selected!from!the!original!
619!AI/RUI!counties!to!conduct!in‐depth!case!studies!(Figure!4).!!The!case!study!counties!
included:!Frederick!County,!Maryland;!Yamhill!County,!Oregon;!Cache!County,!Utah;!
Kent!County,!Michigan;!Forysth!and!Hall!Counties!in!Georgia;!and!Spencer!and!Shelby!
Counties!in!Kentucky.!!These!counties!were!chosen!as!research!sites!because!they!were!
considered!agriculturally!important!and!were!located!within!the!rural‐urban!interface!as!
defined!above.!!Additionally!each!county!was!chosen!as!a!case!study!county!because!it!
represented!different!types!of!agricultural!trends!that!are!dominant!in!various!regions!
of!the!United!States.!!Two!paired!counties!were!selected!in!Georgia!and!Kentucky!!
!
!
63!
Figure!4.!!Location!of!RUI/AI!Counties!and!Case!Study!Counties!
!
because!they!presented!examples!of!contrasting!trajectories!in!neighboring!RUI/AI!
counties.!
Trajectories!of!change!in!the!farm!sector!of!each!county!were!classified!for!two!
agricultural!census!periods!from!1987!to!1997!and!from!1997!to!2007.!!Table!3!shows!
the!agricultural!trends!in!each!of!the!case!study!counties!for!these!two!periods.!!A!
county!with!each!possible!agricultural!trajectory!was!included!in!order!to!uncover!the!
underlying!dimensions!that!might!capture!differences!in!agricultural!trends!in!RUI/AI!
counties.!!Table!4!shows!the!incidence!of!different!agricultural!trajectories!among!the!
total!sample!of!619!AI/RUI!counties!as!a!benchmark!to!evaluate!the!representativeness!
of!the!selected!cases.!!According!to!these!data,!the!majority!of!RUI/AI!counties!(56.8%)!
!
!
64!
were!intensifying!during!the!1997‐2007!period.!!!Almost!20%!of!the!RUI/AI!counties!
were!stable!between!1997!and!2007.!!!The!smallest!percentage!of!RUI/AI!farms!were!de‐
intensifying!(4.7%).!!The!study!counties!were!chosen!based!on!the!1987‐1997!trends!to!
represent!the!dominant!agricultural!trends!in!each!region!of!the!United!States.!!Despite!
this!the!case!study!counties!are!fairly!representative!of!the!dominant!trends!in!RUI/AI!
counties.!!
!
Table!3.!!Agricultural!Trend!Types:!1987‐1997!and!1997‐2007!
!
#
1987‐1997!
1997‐2007!
Cache!County,!UT!
Intensify!
Stable!!
Frederick!County,!MD!
De‐intensify!
Stable!!
Forsyth!County,!GA!
Decline!
Decline!
Hall!County,!GA!
Decline!
Stable!!
Kent!County,!MI!
Stable!
Intensify!
Shelby!County,!KY!
Decline!
De‐intensify!
Spencer!County,!KY!
Decline!
Decline!
Yamhill!County,!OR!
Growth!
Intensify!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture:!1987,!1997,!and!2007#
#
#
Table!4.!!Agricultural!Trends!in!RUI/AI!communities,!1997‐2007!
#
RUI!+!AI!
RUI/Not!AI!
Not!RUI!+!
AI!
Not!
RUI/Not!AI!
Total!
Declining!
8.3!
24.6!
3.8!
13.4!
14.7!
De‐intensifying!
4.7!
21.2!
3.5!
18.6!
14.8!
Stable!
19.7!
21.9!
15.4!
20.4!
20.0!
Intensifying!
56.8!
21.7!
62.8!
35.6!
38.9!
Growing!
10.5!
10.6!
14.4!
11.9!
11.7!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture:!1997,!2007!
#
#
#
#
!
!
65!
There!were!several!sources!of!data!collected!for!the!case!studies.!!Secondary!
data!from!the!U.S.!Census!of!Population!and!the!U.S.!Agricultural!Census!were!used!to!
develop!fuller!demographic!and!agricultural!profiles!of!each!county.!!Websites!were!
used!to!collect!background!information!about!each!county!and!to!identify!key!
informants!to!interview.!!Field!visits!were!made!to!each!county!by!a!team!of!researchers!
to!interview!key!informants,!make!observations!about!agriculture!and!land!use!change!
in!each!place,!and!to!collect!policy!documents!and!other!important!print!material!
related!to!agriculture!and!land!use.!!Finally,!a!random!sample!mail!survey!of!farmland!
owners!and!commercial!farmers!was!conducted!in!each!case!study!county.!!!
#
Interviews#
Approximately!sixty!potential!key!informants!were!identified!in!each!county!
through!a!snowball!sampling!technique.!!One!researcher!began!by!contacting!an!
agricultural!extension!agent!and/or!a!planner!in!each!county!to!request!help!identifying!
possible!participants!that!would!fall!within!each!of!several!categories.!!These!categories!
included!institutional!generalists,!community‐based!landscape!activists,!growth!
generators,!agriculture!service!providers,!non‐agriculture!service!providers,!and!
farmers.!!These!individuals!were!included!because!of!their!perceived!role!in!land‐use,!
agriculture,!and!development!in!the!county.!!For!a!complete!list!of!the!types!of!people!
recruited!for!the!study!see!Appendix!A.!!!
One!researcher!then!called!each!potential!participant!and!scheduled!interviews!
with!one!of!our!research!team!members.!!From!the!initial!60‐person!list,!the!research!
!
!
66!
team!interviewed!approximately!20!people!in!each!site.!!In!total,!169!participants!
were!interviewed!across!the!eight!counties.!!!
The!most!participants,!36,!were!interviewed!in!Frederick!County.!!Twenty‐five!
individuals!were!interviewed!in!Yamhill.!!Twenty‐one!individuals!participated!in!Kent!
County,!twenty!people!in!Spencer!County,!eighteen!people!in!Hall!County,!sixteen!in!
Forsyth!County,!thirteen!people!in!Shelby!County.!!Twenty!individuals!were!interviewed!
in!Cache!County.!!!
Interviews!were!semi‐structured.!!An!interview!protocol!was!developed!based!on!
previous!relevant!research!and!the!research!team’s!experience.!!The!interview!protocol!
was!used!as!a!loose!guide!for!the!researchers.!!It!was!intended!to!remind!the!researcher!
to!touch!on!all!of!the!included!topics.!!However,!researchers!and!participants!were!not!
restricted!to!the!interview!protocol.!!Researchers!pursued!alternative!and!related!topics!
as!they!emerged!in!conversation!with!the!participants.!!!
Additionally,!the!researchers!required!the!flexibility!of!the!semi‐structured!
format!and!open‐ended!questions!because!of!the!variation!of!interview!participants.!!
Each!participant!had!a!unique!role!and!perspective!in!regards!to!land‐use!and!
agricultural!change.!!To!access!each!participant’s!unique!knowledge!it!was!necessary!to!
probe!beyond!the!structured!questions.!!See!Appendix!B!for!a!copy!of!the!interview!
protocol.!!Interviews!were!conducted!in‐person!and!lasted!between!thirty!minutes!and!
two!hours.!!All!interviews!were!recorded!and!additional!notes!were!taken!during!the!
interviews.!!Each!researcher!typed!up!a!summary!of!their!field!notes!aided!by!digital!
!
!
67!
audio!recordings.!!The!interviews!summaries!were!then!used!to!produce!a!case!study!
narrative!profile!for!each!county.!!!
!
Characteristics#of#interview#participants#
Participants!were!asked!to!describe!their!dominant!occupation!or!role!in!the!
county.!!Often!two!distinct!roles!were!provided!for!a!single!person.!!This!information!
was!divided!into!primary!role!and!secondary!role,!as!described!by!participants.!!Thirteen!
different!general!role!classes!were!identified!including:!farmer,!elected!official,!USDA!
employee,!planner,!community!organizer,!media!employee,!vet,!surveyor/real!
estate/developer,!employed!in!economic!development!at!the!city!or!county!level,!law!
enforcement,!member!of!a!local!elected!board!or!member!of!a!local!citizen!organization!
or!nonprofit.!!Table!5!shows!the!percent!of!informants!in!each!role!type.!
Table!5.!!Interviewees!by!Positions/Occupation!
!
Percent!of!Total!
Informant!Roles!
Cache!
Frederick!
Kent!
Yamhill!
Forsyth!
Hall!
Shelby!
Spencer!
! Farmer!
45.0!
34.3!
55.0!
45.8!
43.8!
50.0!
76.9!
60.0!
! Elected!Official!
15.0!
5.7!
10.0!
8.3!
0.0!
5.6!
0.0!
0.0!
USDA,!Extension,!
etc.!
5.0!
8.6!
15.0!
16.7!
25.0!
16.7!
7.7!
5.0!
! Planner!
10.0!
8.6!
5.0!
8.3!
12.5!
22.2!
7.7!
5.0!
Community!
Organizer!
5.0!
17.1!
20.0!
8.3!
6.3!
0.0!
7.7!
15.0!
! Media!
0.0!
2.9!
0.0!
4.2!
6.3!
5.6!
0.0!
5.0!
! Vet!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
6.3!
0.0!
0.0!
5.0!
Surveyor/Real!
Estate/Dev.!
5.0!
5.7!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
16.7!
15.4!
40.0!
! Economic!
Development!
5.0!!
17.1!
5.0!
4.2!
12.5!
5.6!
7.7!
5.0!
! Local!Boards!
5.0!!
0.0!
10.0!
4.2!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
Local!Organizations!
5.0!!
0.0!
5.0!
8.3!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
0.0!
Source:#Interview!Data!
#
!
!
68!
The!majority!of!participants!in!every!county!were!farmers,!ranging!from!34.3%!
in!Frederick!to!76.9%!in!Shelby.!!USDA!employee!and!planner!were!the!next!most!
frequently!cited!roles!in!all!of!the!counties!except!for!Frederick!and!Kent!County,!which!
had!larger!numbers!of!community!organizers!(17.1%!and!20%,!respectively).!!Frederick!
County!also!had!a!larger!percentage!(17.15)!of!economic!development!participants.!!
Hall,!Shelby!and!Spencer!counties!all!had!larger!percentages!of!surveyor/real!estate!
developers!(16.7%,!15.4%,!and!40%).!
! In!specific!counties!certain!role!gaps!can!be!identified!among!participants.!!There!
were!no!elected!officials!interviewed!in!Forsyth,!Shelby,!or!Spencer,!counties.!!No!
community!organizers!were!interviewed!in!Hall!County.!!In!Yamhill,!Kent!and!Forsyth!
counties,!no!surveyor/real!estate/developers!were!included.!!No!individuals!involved!in!
economic!development!participated!in!Kent!and!Spencer!counties.!!There!were!no!
members!of!local!boards!included!in!Forsyth,!Hall,!Shelby,!Spencer,!and!Frederick!
counties.!!And!only!in!Cache,!Yamhill!and!Kent!counties!were!individuals!of!local!
organizations!included.!!In!some!cases!these!role!gaps!indicate!the!absence!of!that!role!
in!the!community.!!In!other!cases,!the!research!team!was!unable!to!secure!interviews!
with!every!potential!key!informant.!!To!address!these!role!gaps!in!the!current!study!I!
gathered!additional!data!about!local!boards,!elected!officials,!community!organizations!
and!economic!development!efforts!through!Internet!research,!local!newspapers!and!
phone!calls!to!individuals!and!organizations!in!each!county.!!
!
!
!
!
69!
Farm#characteristics#of#the#interview#participants#
Among!the!key!informants!who!cited!themselves!as!farmers!or!owning!farms,!
livestock!was!the!dominant!primary!commodity!across!all!counties!except!in!Yamhill,!
where!crops!were!cited!as!the!dominant!primary!commodity.!!In!Kent!County,!crop!and!
livestock!were!equally!cited.!!Frederick!and!Kent!counties!had!the!most!local!food!
farmers!with!five!each.!!In!Yamhill!County!there!were!four!local!food!farmers!
represented!in!the!interview!participants.!!There!were!three!local!food!farmers!in!Cache!
and!Shelby!counties.!!There!were!two!local!food!farmers!in!Hall!County.!!There!was!one!
local!food!farmer!in!Spencer!County.!!There!were!no!local!food!farmers!represented!
among!the!interview!participants!in!Forsyth!County.!!
!
Landowner#and#commercial#farmer#survey#
A!mail!survey!of!landowners!and!commercial!farmers!was!conducted!in!each!of!
the!eight!case!study!counties!(See!Appendix!C).!!The!samples!for!each!group!were!drawn!
from!two!types!of!sampling!frames.!!First!the!research!team!obtained!from!county!tax!
assessment!offices!the!complete!lists!of!landowners!who!owned!parcels!of!agricultural!
land!at!least!five!acres!in!size!in!the!county.!!Second,!local!agricultural!extension!agents!
and!local!commodity!groups!provided!the!research!team!with!mailing!lists!of!known!
commercial!farming!operations!that!raised!commodities!that!are!particularly!important!
in!our!study!counties.!!Local!food!system!farmers!were!oversampled!in!Kent,!Yamhill!and!
Frederick!counties.!!For!logistical!reasons,!no!commercial!farmer!lists!were!used!in!
Cache!and!Spencer!counties.!!!
!
!
70!
Approximately!300!potential!respondents!(combined!from!the!two!sample!
frames)!were!sampled!in!each!county.!!Overall!2,176!surveys!were!sent!to!randomly!
selected!owners!of!agricultural!parcels!in!the!landowner!samples!across!the!eight!
counties.!!These!sample!points!represent!an!unbiased!and!representative!pool!of!
owners!of!more!than!five!acres!of!farmland.!!Because!many!of!these!landowners!are!
also!active!farmers,!the!landowner!sample!frame!serves!as!the!best!source!for!
estimating!population!characteristics!of!the!farm!enterprises!present!in!each!county.!
The!research!team!also!randomly!sampled!from!the!“supplemental”!lists!of!
commercial!farms!provided!by!agricultural!extension!agents,!local!farmer!associations,!
or!other!expert!sources!in!six!of!the!eight!counties.!!This!produced!a!supplemental!
sample!of!no!more!than!100!commercial!farms!per!county.!!In!total,!475!surveys!were!
sent!to!targeted!commercial!farms!in!five!of!the!eight!counties.!
Standard!mail!survey!administration!procedures!followed!guidelines!outlined!in!
Dillman!(2000).!!Overall,!the!landowner!sample!response!rate!was!48.9%!of!eligible!
respondents.!!Response!rates!varied!by!county!and!state.!!The!best!response!rate!
(62.5%)!was!achieved!in!Cache!County,!Utah.!!Response!rates!were!over!50%!in!
Frederick,!MD!and!Yamhill,!OR.!!Response!rates!were!particularly!low!in!the!two!Georgia!
counties!(34.2%!in!Forsyth!and!39.4%!in!Hall).!!Overall,!the!response!rate!for!the!
commercial!farmer!sample!was!51.1%!of!eligible!respondents.!!The!highest!response!
rate!was!found!in!Frederick!County!(59.3%),!while!the!response!rate!for!Hall!County,!GA!
was!extremely!low!(16.7%).!!Most!of!the!other!county‐level!response!rates!were!close!to!
!
!
71!
50%.!
!
Comparative!Case!Studies!
! The!current!research!uses!data!from!narrative!summaries!of!key!informant!
interviews,!the!results!from!the!landowner!survey,!data!from!population!and!agriculture!
censuses,!information!gleaned!from!websites!and!internet!sources,!and!documents!
obtained!during!field!visits!to!address!the!proposed!research!questions.!!First,!the!eight!
case!study!counties!were!characterized!using!the!four!key!concepts!described!above:!
local!food!systems,!collective!action,!institutional!arrangements,!and!political!landscape.!!
Five!case!study!counties!were!selected!and!analyzed!in!depth!using!all!of!the!data!
described!above.!!Following!this,!a!cross‐case!analysis!was!done!to!compare!patterns!
collective!action,!institutional!arrangements!and!local!food!system!development.!
!
Case!Characterization!
!I!began!by!characterizing!local!food!system!development!by!the!existence,!
extent!and!scale!of!local!food!systems.!!The!existence!of!local!food!system!activities!
includes!the!presence!or!absence!of!key!local!food!system!markets!such!as!farmers’!
markets!and!CSAs.!!Existence!was!measured!with!data!about!both!individual!farmer!
outlets!and!cooperatively!managed!local!food!markets.!!The!extent!of!local!food!system!
development!is!indicated!by!the!proportion!of!farmers!participating!in!local!food!system!
activities.!!The!scale!of!local!food!system!development!was!estimated!by!the!dollar!value!
of!direct!sales!in!the!county.!!Indicators!of!existence,!extent!and!scale!of!local!food!
!
!
72!
systems!came!from!several!data!sources!including!the!landowner!survey,!the!
agricultural!census!data,!the!key!informant!survey,!field!observations,!and!website!
listings!of!local!food!markets.!
Collective!action!includes!civil!society!groups!and!actions!operating!outside!of!
the!public!sector.!!In!practice!it!was!sometimes!difficult!to!find!a!clear!distinction!
between!civil!society!and!public!sector!groups.!!For!this!study!I!choose!to!classify!groups!
acting!in!any!way!under!the!authority!of!a!local!or!state!government!as!an!institutional!
group!and!therefore!outside!of!civil!society.!!I!used!several!sources!of!data!including!
websites!and!newspapers,!key!informant!interviews,!the!landowner!survey,!and!the!key!
informant!survey.!!To!identify!collective!action,!I!looked!for!evidence!of!the!presence!of!
civil!society!groups!including!food!and!agricultural!groups,!environmental!groups,!policy!
advocacy!group,!non‐profits,!etc.!!I!also!looked!for!evidence!of!these!groups’!abilities!to!
mobilize!resources,!raise!money,!the!ability!to!frame!issues!to!gain!support,!the!level!of!
producer!participation!or!representation,!ability!to!influence!policy,!develop!LFS!
programs,!and/or!collaborate!with!the!public!sector.!
Institutional!arrangements!include!the!policies!and!programs,!individuals!and!
groups!that!are!part!of!the!public!sector!or!operating!with!the!authority!of!the!state.!!
Institutional!arrangements!were!characterized!using!several!data!sources!including!
websites!and!official!policy!documents,!key!informant!interviews,!and!
landowner/farmer!surveys.!!I!looked!for!evidence!of!programs!and!policies!created!and!
operated!by!the!public!sector!for!the!development!of!local!food!systems.!!I!also!looked!
!
!
73!
for!evidence!that!local!food!system!development!is!a!part!of!official!county!planning!
or!economic!development.!!This!includes!evidence!of!staff!or!committees!who!have!
responsibility,!as!part!of!their!job,!for!LFS!development!and/or!planning!documents!
intended!to!guide!LFS!development.!!!
I!characterized!the!political!landscape!using!a!modified!version!of!Marsden’s!
(1998)!community!typology:!the!preserved!countryside,!the!contested!countryside,!the!
paternalistic!countryside,!and!the!clientist!countryside.!!I!modified!this!typology!to!
express!two!sets!of!binary!tension!between!production!versus!post‐production,!and!
development!versus!preservation.!!This!more!accurately!reflects!the!type!and!position!of!
land!use!interests!and!the!resulting!development!of!the!case!study!communities.!!The!
political!landscape!was!characterized!using!data!from!several!sources!including!websites!
and!newspapers,!the!key!informant!interviews!and!the!key!informant!survey.!
!Shelby!and!Spencer!counties!were!eliminated!from!further!analysis!because!
neither!was!an!AI!county!as!described!earlier!in!the!methods!section.!!Forsyth!was!
eliminated!from!selection!because!agriculture!is!simply!not!part!of!the!local!political!
discussion.!!Land!use!debates!center!around!open!space!preservation!for!exurban!
residents,!while!agriculture!has!literally!been!zoned!out!of!the!county.!!The!remaining!
five!case!study!counties!represent!different!configurations!of!local!food!system!
collective!action!and!institutional!arrangements.!!Figure!5!shows!the!remaining!case!
study!counties!on!a!continuum!from!low!to!high!according!to!the!two!key!independent!
variables:!local!food!system!collective!action!and!institutional!arrangements.! !
!
!
74!
!
Figure!5.!!Case!Study!County!Collective!Action!and!Institutional!Arrangements!
!
! Frederick!County!appears!to!have!a!high!degree!of!institutional!development!
related!to!local!food!but!a!relatively!low!amount!of!local!food!system!collective!action.!!
While!Frederick!is!known!for!a!high!degree!of!collective!action!related!to!land!use!
development!and!preservation!and!a!significant!amount!of!collective!action!related!to!
local!foods!at!the!state!level,!there!was!really!no!local!food!system!collective!action!
identified!within!the!county.!!!
! In!contrast,!Kent!County!has!a!high!degree!of!local!food!system!collective!action!
happening!county!level,!but!very!little!public!sector!support!for!local!food!systems.!!
Cache!County!has!a!moderate!degree!of!local!food!system!collective!action!and!a!
!
!
75!
moderate!amount!of!public!sector!development!related!to!local!foods.!!!
! Finally!Yamhill!and!Hall!counties!both!have!little!to!no!local!food!system!
collective!action!or!public!sector!development,!but!opposite!outcomes!for!local!food!
system!activity.!!Hall!was!found!to!have!virtually!no!local!food!system!activity!according!
to!any!of!the!measures!used:!existence,!extent,!scale.!!By!contrast!Yamhill!County!has!a!
moderate!amount!of!local!food!system!activity!despite!little!to!no!local!collective!action!
or!institutions!to!support!its!development.!!!
The!details!of!the!information!used!to!classify!each!county!will!be!elaborated!in!
each!case!study!narrative!beginning!with!Cache!County!in!the!next!chapter.!
!
Landowner#survey#
! The!landowner!survey!data,!described!above,!was!used!in!two!ways!in!the!
current!study.!!First,!these!data!were!used!to!help!quantify!the!extent!of!LFS!activities.!!
Second,!they!were!used!to!compare!the!differences!between!counties!in!behaviors,!
membership!in!groups!and!perceptions!about!policy!and!institutional!support!among!
farmers.!!Third,!these!data!were!used!to!compare!the!differences!between!LFS!and!non‐
LFS!farms!in!each!county!in!terms!of!adaptive!behaviors,!membership!in!groups,!and!
perceptions!about!the!level!of!local!institutional!support!for!agriculture.!!!
! To!compare!differences!between!local!food!system!farmers!and!non‐local!food!
system!farmers!within!counties!I!selected!a!sub‐set!of!cases!from!the!original!landowner!
survey!dataset!that!farm!any!of!the!land!they!own!in!the!county.!!Next,!I!identified!farms!
that!were!engaged!in!local!food!system!activity.!!If!a!farm!sold!directly!to!customers!
!
!
76!
from!a!farm,!at!a!Farmers’!Market!or!CSA,!or!to!a!local!institution!or!business,!then!
that!case!was!considered!a!Local!Food!System!(LFS)!Farm.!!If!a!farm!did!not!participate!in!
any!of!these!three!activities!then!that!case!was!considered!a!non‐LFS!farm.!
! There!were!several!questions!in!the!survey!that!measured!farmers’!perceptions!
about!the!degree!of!local!institutional!and!community!support!for!farming.!!I!examined!
the!proportion!of!farmers!in!each!county!that!felt!they!were!supported!by!different!
types!of!organizations!in!the!county,!including!the!county!government,!the!city!
government,!economic!development!organizations,!the!Farm!Bureau,!the!general!
public,!and!local!environmental!organizations.!!The!original!answers!to!these!questions!
in!the!NRI!survey!were!coded!from!1!(not!at!all!supportive)!to!5!(very!supportive).!!I!
collapsed!these!original!categories!into!two:!0!(not!supportive)!and!1!(supportive).!!I!
then!compared!perceptions!of!organizational!support!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!
respondents.!!I!also!estimated!Pearson’s!chi‐square!and!Fisher’s!exact!tests!on!each!of!
these!cross!tabulations!to!see!if!differences!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!respondents!were!
statistically!significant.!!Those!results!are!reported!in!the!case!study!analysis!chapter.!
! The!landowner!survey!included!a!question!about!whether!local!agricultural!
economic!development!policies!have!positively!or!negatively!affected!their!farm.!!
Agricultural!economic!development!policies!were!defined!as!local!food!system!policies!
such!as!farmers!market!programs,!on‐farm!processing!ordinances,!etc.!!I!used!these!
items!to!estimate!the!percent!of!farmers!that!perceived!a!positive!impact!from!LFS!
institutional!arrangements.!!To!do!this!I!recoded!the!original!variable!into!two!new!
!
!
77!
variables.!!The!original!variable!had!a!range!of!possible!answers!including!“Policy!does!
not!exist,”!“Strong!negative!impact,”!“No!impact!or!mixed!impact,”!and!“Strong!positive!
impact.”!!First!I!created!one!variable!to!measure!whether!farmers!thought!the!policy!did!
not!exist.!!To!do!this,!categories!1!through!5!were!collapsed!and!coded!as!0,!and!
category!0!(policy!does!not!exist)!was!coded!as!1.!!!
! I!created!a!second!variable!based!on!this!question!to!look!at!the!perception!of!
farmers!that!thought!agriculture!economic!development!programs!support!agriculture.!!
To!do!this!I!collapsed!the!negative!and!no!impact!categories!(1,!2,!and!3)!into!0!and!the!
positive!impact!categories!(4!and!5)!in!to!1.!!The!0!category!(policy!does!not!exist)!was!
re‐coded!as!“system!missing”.!!I!then!ran!several!cross!tabulations!to!look!at!the!
relationship!between!LFS!farms!and!perceptions!of!LFS!policy.!!Again,!I!estimated!
Pearson’s!chi‐square!and!Fisher’s!exact!tests!on!each!of!these!cross!tabulations!to!
determine!if!differences!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!respondents!were!statistically!
significant.!!Those!results!are!reported!in!the!case!study!analysis!chapter.!
! There!are!several!questions!in!the!landowner!survey!that!ask!farmers!about!
changes!they!have!made!to!their!operations!that!increased!their!participation!in!the!
local!food!system!in!the!preceding!five!years!(or!about!similar!changes!they!plan!to!
make!in!the!next!5!years).!!I!computed!two!variables!to!look!at!the!percent!of!farms!that!
increased!their!direct!farm!sales!to!consumers!over!the!last!five!years!or!who!expect!to!
increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!five!years.!!In!the!original!questions,!respondents!
were!asked!if!they!increased!or!were!intending!to!increase!sales!of!products!directly!to!
!
!
78!
consumers.!!Answer!choices!ranged!from!“decreased!a!lot”!to!“increased!a!lot.”!!I!
collapsed!the!answer!categories!coding!the!negative!and!neutral!options!(1,!2,!and!3)!as!
0,!and!the!positive!options!(4!and!5)!as!1.!!I!created!two!additional!variables!to!look!at!
the!percent!of!farms!that!made!changes!to!their!marketing!strategies!or!crops!and!
livestock!in!order!to!access!local!markets!in!the!last!five!years.!!I!examined!the!extent!of!
LFS!activity!and!change!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!farms!in!each!county.!!I!also!ran!Pearson’s!chi‐
square!and!Fisher’s!exact!tests!on!each!of!these!cross!tabulations!to!test!the!statistical!
significance!of!these!relationships.!!Those!results!are!also!reported!in!the!case!study!
analysis!chapter.!
! The!landowner!survey!included!several!questions!about!membership!in!
organizations.!!I!looked!at!the!percent!of!LFS!farms!and!total!farms!that!belonged!to!a!
farm!organization!(e.g.,!Farm!Bureau),!a!farm!commodity!group,!a!property!rights!group,!
a!smart!growth/land‐use!group,!and!a!local!farm!group.!!I!also!ran!Pearson’s!chi‐square!
and!Fisher’s!exact!tests!on!each!of!these!cross!tabulations!to!test!for!statistical!
significance.!!Those!results!are!also!reported!in!the!case!study!analysis!chapter.!
!
!
79!
CHAPTER!4!
CASE!STUDY!ANALYSIS!
! In!this!chapter!I!describe!each!case!study!county.!!I!begin!with!a!description!of!
the!general!structural!conditions!of!each!case,!emphasizing!the!culture,!geography,!
demographics,!economy,!the!general!agricultural!context,!and!land!use!characteristics!
and!how!these!conditions!affect!the!demand!for!or!the!supply!of!local!foods.!!Then!I!
describe!the!local!food!system,!LFS!collective!action,!and!LFS!institutional!arrangements!
in!each!county.!!Following!this!I!describe!the!links!between!LFS!collective!action,!LFS!
institutional!arrangements!and!the!local!food!system.!!
!
Cache!County,!Utah!
!Cache!County,!Utah!is!located!in!the!Intermountain!West.!!As!is!true!of!most!of!
the!communities!in!the!Intermountain!West,!Cache!began!as!a!rural!agricultural!land‐
based!community.!!Mormons!primarily!coming!the!Midwest!and!northern!Europe!in!the!
mid!1800s!settled!the!county.!!The!culture!is!religiously!and!politically!conservative,!with!
little!public!support!for!a!strong!role!of!government!in!local!affairs.!!Although!there!has!
been!significant!growth!in!the!non‐Mormon!population!mostly!due!to!the!presence!of!
Utah!State!University,!The!Church!of!Latter‐day!Saints!(LDS)!dominates!the!local!
political,!economic,!and!social!life.!!In!particular!many!of!the!social!services!provided!by!
government!or!community!groups!in!non‐Mormon!communities!elsewhere!are!provided!
by!the!LDS!church!in!Cache!County.!!In!regards!to!local!foods,!there!is!a!strong!gardening!
!
!
80!
and!food‐sharing!ethic!among!LDS!residents.!!According!to!interview!participants,!
much!of!the!excess!produce!from!home!gardening!is!given!to!local!LDS!churches!and!
distributed!to!members!in!need.!!These!kinds!of!activities!are!largely!confined!to!
members!of!the!LDS!church!however,!and!do!not!reach!non‐LDS!members!of!the!
community.!!This!may!ultimately!limit!the!participation!of!LDS!consumers!and!LDS!small‐
scale!gardeners!in!a!broader!community!local!food!system.!!Additionally,!the!politically!
conservative!culture!could!limit!the!degree!to!which!government!officials!and!decision‐
makers!view!agriculture!economic!development!as!their!responsibility.!
!
Geography##
! Cache!County!is!located!in!Northern!Utah!extending!to!the!Idaho!border!and!
including!the!surrounding!mountains.!!The!county!has!a!total!of!1,173!square!miles.!!
According!the!2002!Natural!Resource!Inventory!(NRI)!land!use!characteristics!49.7%!of!
the!land!in!Cache!County!is!public!(National!Resource!Inventory!2002).!!Although!the!
public!land!is!used!for!agricultural!grazing,!the!majority!of!the!agricultural!activity!for!the!
county!occurs!in!the!valley!on!the!privately!owned!land!between!the!Bear!River!
Mountains!on!the!eastern!edge!and!the!Wellsville!Mountains!on!the!western!edge!of!
the!valley.!!According!to!the!NRI,!of!the!private!land,!4.5%!is!in!developed!uses,!a!little!
less!than!a!quarter!of!the!land!is!in!crops!(24.2%),!16.0%!is!in!forest,!and!5.6%!is!in!
pasture.!!The!majority!of!local!food!system!activity!occurs!on!these!smaller!tracts!of!
private!land!in!the!valley.!
!
!
!
81!
Demographics!
! As!of!2007,!the!population!was!estimated!as!being!108,887.!!There!are!26!towns!
and!cities!in!Cache!County.!!The!overall!population!density!is!78!people!per!square!mile!
but!the!density!outside!the!urbanized!areas!is!13!people!per!square!mile.!!Such!a!low!
population!density!outside!of!the!urbanized!areas!suggests!that!there!is!still!a!significant!
amount!of!contiguous!land!for!traditional!agriculture.!!About!83%!of!the!population!
resides!in!the!urbanized!areas,!the!majority!of!which!is!concentrated!in!the!cities!and!
towns!around!Logan,!the!largest!city.!!Although!this!is!the!smallest!metro!area!of!the!
five!case!study!counties,!the!population!increased!a!total!of!30.2%!from!1990!to!1999!
with!an!average!of!2.7%!per!year.!!Population!increased!19.1%!with!an!annual!average!
of!2.5%!per!year!from!2000!to!2007.!!Both!the!population!growth!and!the!concentration!
of!population!in!and!around!Logan!could!contribute!to!the!development!of!local!food!
system!activity.!!!
!
Income#
#Cache!County!is!a!working!class!community!and!has!the!lowest!income!profile!of!
any!of!the!case!study!counties.!!Table!6!shows!the!income!characteristics!for!Cache!
County!according!to!the!US!Census.!!The!median!income!was!$39,730!in!2000,!which!is!
actually!the!lowest!for!any!metropolitan!area!in!the!United!States.!!The!poverty!rate!was!
13.5%!and!the!percent!of!households!with!income!over!$100,000!was!9%.!!Local!food!
research!indicates!that!people!with!higher!incomes!are!more!likely!to!buy!local!foods.!!
So!more!residents!with!higher!incomes!can!increase!demand!for!local!food.!!The!lower!
!
!
82!
median!income!and!higher!poverty!rate!in!Cache!County!could!indicate!lower!
amounts!of!local!food!consumers.!
Table!6.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Cache!County!Residents!
Income!Characteristics!
Median!Income!($)!
39,730!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
13.5!
Percent!of!Households!with!Incomes!over!$100,000!
9.0!
Source:!US!Census!2000!
!
!
Economy#
! Cache!County!was!for!many!years!a!rural!agricultural!county!but!this!has!been!
changing!with!rapid!population!growth!in!the!1990s!and!2000s.!!The!three!industries!
that!employ!the!majority!of!residents!today!are!education,!health!and!social!services!
(26%),!manufacturing!(22.7%),!and!retail!(11.8%).!!Only!1.6%!of!employed!residents!
claim!their!occupation!as!farming!and!2.8%!of!the!total!population!is!employed!in!the!
agricultural!industry!(Bureau!of!Labor!Statistics!2007).!
Interestingly,!the!non‐farm!food‐processing!sector!is!a!major!local!industry,!with!
two!large!cheese‐processing!plants!and!a!ConAgra‐owned!cattle‐slaughtering!facility!
located!in!the!valley.!!Regional!assessments!suggest!that!roughly!5%!of!county!
employment!and!25%!of!gross!economic!output!comes!from!industrial‐scale!food!
processing,!though!much!of!the!raw!material!(milk!and!cattle)!is!imported!from!other!
areas.!!Virtually!all!of!the!processed!dairy!and!livestock!products!are!exported!out!of!the!
valley.!
!
!
83!
Agriculture#
! Traditionally!agriculture!has!been!an!important!industry!and!land!use!in!the!
county.!!At!one!time,!sugar!beets,!along!with!tomatoes,!corn,!and!peas!were!the!primary!
commodities!in!the!valley.!!According!to!interview!participants,!consolidation!in!the!
vegetable!and!sugar!industries!resulted!in!the!closure!of!these!processing!factories.!!
These!crops!were!replaced!with!dairy!farms!followed!shortly!by!three!dairy!processing!
plants!in!the!1960s.!!Initially!processors!received!the!majority!of!their!milk!from!within!
Cache!County,!but!more!recently!the!number!of!dairy!farms!declined!in!the!valley!as!
these!plants!expanded!and!modernized!and!began!to!source!more!of!their!milk!from!
regional!dairy!cooperatives,!primarily!from!Southern!Idaho.!!Today!the!three!primary!
agricultural!products!and!commodities!coming!from!Cache!County!are!milk,!cheese!
products!and!beef!(Utah!State!Extension!2006).!
! Agricultural!Census!data!indicate!that!the!influence!of!traditional!agriculture!on!
land!use!and!the!local!economy!has!declined!in!the!past!several!decades.!!There!have!
been!declines!in!the!number!of!farms,!the!land!in!farms,!and!farm!sales!from!1997!to!
2007.!!The!number!of!farms!has!declined!from!1,363!to!1,195.!!This!represents!a!loss!of!
12.3%!of!farms!during!that!period.!!Land!in!farms!has!declined!from!271,632!acres!to!
251,500!acres,!which!is!a!loss!of!7.4%!of!the!land!in!farms.!!There!has!also!been!a!slight!
decline!(0.2%)!in!the!amount!of!farm!sales!during!this!period.!!When!these!trends!are!
combined,!sales!per!acre!of!farmland!increased!from!$389!in!2002!to!$541!in!2007!
suggesting!some!intensification.!
!
!
84!
! Table!7!shows!the!distribution!of!the!top!commodities!for!Cache!County!by!
sales!and!number!of!farms.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!majority!of!
farms!are!raising!forage!(64.4%)!and!cattle!(44.5%).!!The!majority!of!gross!farm!sales!are!
generated!by!the!sale!of!dairy!products!(39.1%),!followed!by!cattle!(29.4%).!!Although!a!
large!percentage!of!sales!come!from!dairy,!only!9.8%!of!farms!milk!cows.!!This!suggests!
the!dairy!industry!is!very!concentrated!in!comparison!to!cattle,!which!are!raised!on!a!
larger!percentage!of!farms.!
Table!7.!!Top!Commodities!by!Sales!and!Number!of!Farms,!Cache!County!!
!
Percent!of!County!
Farm!Sales!
Percent!of!County!
Farms!Raising!
Cattle!and!calves!
29.4!
44.5!
Dairy!
39.1!
9.8!
Combine!Acres!for!Wheat,!Sorghum,!Barley!and!Oats!
N/A!
21.5!
Forage!
N/A!
64.4!
Note:#N/A!=!not!available.!!!
Source:!US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
#
#
! The!Census!of!Agriculture!also!classifies!farms!based!on!size!and!the!primary!
occupation!of!the!operator.!!The!resulting!farm!typology!includes!categories!ranging!
from!limited!resource!small!family!farms!to!nonfamily!farms.!!Table!8!shows!the!
distribution!of!farm!types!in!Cache!County!by!number!of!farms!and!acres!of!farmland.!!
Approximately,!78%!of!farms!are!considered!small!farms!(with!under!$250,000!in!annual!
sales),!which!are!then!subdivided!into!several!groups:!limited!resource,!retirement,!
residential/lifestyle,!and!higher!sale!farms.!!Limited!resource!farms!are!those!which!rely!
on!farming!for!their!income,!but!which!generate!under!$100,000!in!gross!farm!sales.!!
!
!
85!
Retirement!farms!are!small!farms!where!the!operator!has!retired!from!another!
occupation.!!Residential/lifestyle!farms!are!those!on!which!the!operator!has!a!primary!
occupation!other!than!farming.!!!Higher!sales!farms!are!full‐time!farms!with!sales!
between!$100,000!‐!$250,000.!!All!told,!small!farms!in!Cache!County!manage!50.4%!of!
total!farmland!acres.!!In!comparison,!8.4%!of!farms!are!large!and!very!large!family!
farms,!and!these!farms!operate!almost!28%!of!farmland!in!the!valley.!!Another!5.4%!of!
farms!are!organized!into!nonfamily!businesses!(usually!nonfamily!corporations).!!These!
farms!manage!11.1%!of!county!farmland.!!!
Table!8.!!Distribution!of!Farm!Types!by!Number!of!Farms!and!Acres!of!Farmland!
!
%!Farms!
%!Acres!
Small!Family!Farms!(Sales!<!$250,000)!
!
!
Limited!resource!!
11.6!
3.9!
!Retirement!!
18.8!
12.7!
!Residential/lifestyle!!
45.3!
23.5!
!Higher!sales!!
2.3!
10.3!
Total!small!
78.0!
50.4!
Large!Family!Farms!(Sales!$250,000+)!!
!
!
!Large!($250,000‐$499,000)!!
4.2!
10.6!
!Very!large!($500,000+)!!
4.2!
17.1!
Total!large!and!very!large!family!
8.4!
27.7!
Nonfamily!Farms!
5.4!
11.1!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
#
#
Overall,!these!data!indicate!that!the!majority!of!farms!in!Cache!County!are!small!
family!and!hobby!farms,!which!research!has!shown!are!more!likely!to!participate!in!
some!local!food!activities!than!traditional!large!and!very!large!farms.!
As!described!in!the!methods!section,!trends!in!farm!numbers,!farm!sales,!and!
farmland!acreage!can!be!combined!to!create!‘trajectory’!classes!that!define!the!overall!
!
!
86!
trends!in!the!aggregate!county!farm!sector.!!Specifically,!Census!of!Agriculture!data!
were!used!to!classify!each!county!as!agriculturally!intensifying,!growing,!declining,!de‐
intensifying,!or!stable!during!two!intercensal!periods!(1987‐1997!and!1997‐2007).!!Using!
these!methods,!Cache!County!was!classified!as!a!intensifying!in!the!first!period!and!
stable!in!the!second.!!
! While!the!aggregate!trends!reflect!intensification!or!stability,!there!appears!to!be!
a!great!deal!of!variation!within!the!county.!!Table!9!shows!the!changes!in!the!percent!of!
sales!and!farms!associated!with!dairy!and!cattle!production!in!2002!and!2007.The!
results!suggest!that!there!has!been!a!decrease!in!dairy!production!and!a!subsequent!
increase!in!cattle!production!from!2002!to!2007.!!This!suggests!that!some!traditional!
fulltime!dairy!farmers!have!switched!to!production!of!less!labor‐!and!capital‐intensive!
commodities!like!beef,!and!perhaps!are!now!farming!part‐time.!!Other!indicators!
suggest!that!some!segments!of!Cache!County!agriculture!have!been!deintensifying!in!
recent!years.!!For!example,!there!has!been!an!increase!in!amount!of!land!in!hay!
production!from!35,196!acres!in!2002!to!58,310!acres!in!2007.!!!
Table!9.!!Importance!of!Dairy!and!Beef!Farming!in!Cache!County,!2002!and!2007!
!
Percent!of!Sales!from!
Dairy!Sales!
Percent!of!Sales!from!
Cattle!and!Calve!Sales!
Percent!of!Farms!
Raising!Dairy!
Percent!of!Farms!
Raising!Cattle!and!
Calves!
2002!
46.0!
28.2!
11.7!
40.5!
2007!
39.1!
29.4!
9.8!
44.5!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2002!and!2007!
#
#
!
!
87!
! Our!landowner!survey!provides!additional!data!on!patterns!of!agricultural!
adaptation!and!change!on!individual!farms.!!Specifically,!landowning!farmers!were!
asked!about!changes!they’ve!made!to!their!farms!in!the!past!five!years.!!Several!of!these!
questions!provide!information!about!agricultural!growth,!intensification,!decline!or!de‐
intensification!strategies!used!by!individual!farmers.!!Information!about!the!adaptive!
strategies!used!by!farmers!reflects!county‐level!trends!in!the!agricultural!trajectory.!!
Table!10!shows!the!percent!of!respondents!using!de‐intensification,!decline,!
intensification!and!growth!strategies.!!It!is!apparent!that!Cache!County!farmers!engage!
in!growing!and!intensifying!activities!as!well!as!declining!and!de‐intensifying!activities!on!
a!single!farm.!!The!most!common!strategy!reflects!intensification!activities!(used!by!
59.5%!of!farmers).!!Over!25%!have!shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!
per!acre.!!This!could!indicate!that!some!local!food!system!activity!in!Cache!County!is!
attributable!to!individual!producers!compensating!for!changes!in!traditional!commodity!
markets!by!shifting!to!higher!value!products!that!can!be!sold!for!more!money!locally.!!
More!farmers!report!increasing!investments!and!acres!operated!over!the!last!five!years!
than!reported!declines.!
#
Land#use,#regulation,#and#development#
! Behind!these!agricultural!land!use!changes!is!a!relatively!relaxed!land!use!
regulatory!environment,!moderate!land!values,!and!a!strong!private!property!ethic.!!The!
unincorporated!areas!of!Cache!County!have!had!a!historical!pattern!of!agricultural!land!
use!and!until!recently!there!has!been!little!interest!in!this!land!for!anything!other!than!
!
!
88!
agriculture.!!Like!many!formerly!rural!counties,!Cache!was!not!prepared!to!manage!
the!rapid!population!growth!of!the!1990s!and!2000s!with!even!basic!land!management!
tools!such!as!zoning!to!control!the!placement,!pattern!and!density!of!development.!!!
!
Table!10.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Using!Adaptation!Strategies,!Cache!County!!
!
Percent!of!Farms!!
Indicators!of!De‐intensification!
!
Decreased!capital!investment!in!buildings!
9.7!
Decreased!investment!in!equipment!
10.0!
Increased!land!in!conservation!programs!
7.3!
Decreased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
9.5!
Idled!or!left!fallow!some!farmland!
16.2!
Used!any!de‐intensification!strategy!
34.5!
Indicators!of!Decline!
!
Decreased!farmland!owned!
12.1!
Decreased!farmland!rented!
14.0!
Decreased!livestock!sold!
21.8!
Decreased!value!of!gross!sales!
19.0!
Sold!land!for!nonfarm!development!
17.1!
Used!any!decline!strategy!
35.7!
Indicators!of!Growth!
!
Increased!farmland!owned!
15.2!
Increased!farmland!rented!
18.0!
Increased!livestock!sold!
14.5!
Increased!value!of!total!gross!sales!
34.5!
Used!any!growth!strategy!
39.3!
Indicators!of!Intensification!
!
Increased!capital!investment!in!farm!buildings!
25.8!
Increased!investment!in!farm!equipment!
45.0!
Decreased!land!in!conservation!programs!
7.3!
Increased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
9.5!
Shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!
25.7!
Used!any!intensification!strategy!
59.5!
#Source:!Landowner!Survey!
#
#
#
#
!
!
89!
! Historically!agricultural!zoning!in!the!county!has!not!been!very!restrictive.!!
According!to!interview!participants,!land!zoned!for!agricultural!use!could!be!easily!
subdivided!into!1‐acre!parcels!without!a!rezoning!application.!!Interview!participants!
also!noted!that!until!recently!it!has!been!easy!for!large!subdivisions!to!be!approved!by!
the!County!Council!and!the!County!Planning!and!Zoning!Board!and!that!developers!were!
not!required!to!pay!for!much!of!the!infrastructure!necessary!for!new!rural!subdivisions!
including!sewer,!water,!roads!and!emergency!services.!!The!result!has!been!a!substantial!
increase!in!the!value!of!unincorporated!farmland!in!Cache!County!(67%!increase!
between!2002!and!2007)!and!the!progression!of!haphazard!development!as!some!
agricultural!landowners!took!advantage!of!opportunities!to!sell!their!land!for!
development.!!!In!our!landowner!survey,!between!10‐16%!of!farmers!indicated!plans!to!
sell!some!of!their!farmland!for!development!in!the!next!five!years.!
! There!has!been!some!change!in!this!situation!however.!!County!officials!began!to!
recognize!that!the!existing!subdivision!ordinance!dating!from!1970!could!not!adequately!
address!the!growth!pressure!being!experienced!in!the!county.!!There!have!been!two!
iterations!of!the!subdivision!ordinance.!!For!a!period!of!time,!the!subdivision!ordinance!
required!that!lots!be!at!least!five!acres.!!This!resulted!in!fragmentation!of!larger!
expanses!of!farmland.!!Now,!the!subdivision!ordinance!allows!the!subdivision!of!plots!of!
land!from!the!1970!parcel!configuration!to!be!divided!up!to!five!times.!!This!has!resulted!
in!haphazard!development!and!the!loss!of!rich!farmland!as!well.!!In!recognition!of!this!
the!county!council!issued!a!moratorium!on!all!construction!in!the!unincorporated!areas!
!
!
90!
for!six!months!to!one!year!in!early!2008.!!Since!that!time,!county!officials!have!
repealed!the!subdivision!ordinance!and!developed!a!density‐based!ordinance!for!
development!in!agricultural!zones.!!The!current!zoning!allows!one!unit!per!ten!acres!in!
agricultural!zones.!
! Most!traditional!farmers!that!were!interviewed!for!this!study!were!distressed!by!
the!rapid!population!growth!and!land!use!changes!in!the!county,!most!frequently!noting!
that!they!were!not!able!to!afford!the!price!of!land!to!expand!their!businesses.!!Most!
farmers!were!interested!in!preserving!agricultural!land,!but!felt!that!the!political!climate!
was!at!best!supportive!of!preserving!open!space.!!As!one!farmer!noted,!“There!are!
programs!to!preserve!open!space,!not!agriculture.!!I!want!to!preserve!agriculture!but!
there!are!no!government!policies!to!do!so”!(Traditional!Dairy!Farmer).!
! Many!farmers!want!to!retain!the!right!to!sell!their!land!for!development!and!are!
mostly!supportive!of!the!existing!relaxed!land!use!regulatory!climate.!!“Most!farmers!
think!there!isn’t!much!to!do!to!stop!urban!growth.!!I’m!worried!about!it,!but!I!also!want!
the!right!to!sell”!(Traditional!Dairy!Farmer).!!It!should!be!noted!also!that!traditional!
farmers!who!represent!farm!organizations,!such!as!the!Farm!Bureau!and!the!
Cattleman’s!Association,!were!not!supportive!of!more!restrictive!land!use!legislation!or!
preservation!programs!to!protect!farming.!!Their!perspective!generally!was!that!
programs!to!protect!farmland!disproportionately!benefit!a!small!number!of!farmers!and!
that!if!agriculture!cannot!compete!economically!with!development!then!government!
should!not!try!to!preserve!it.!
!
!
91!
Local#food#system#activity#
! Cache!County!has!a!small!but!persistent!local!food!community.!Cache!County!has!
a!moderate!amount!of!local!food!system!activity!relative!to!the!other!case!study!
counties,!but!for!the!large!geographic!and!small!population!size!of!the!county,!the!local!
food!community!seems!vibrant.!!Unlike!traditional!farmers,!local!food!system!farmers!
interviewed!said!that!the!value!of!land!does!not!hinder!local!food!farming.!!“Land!prices!
are!a!barrier,!but!it!is!possible!to!start!on!a!very!small!scale.!!Prices!for!crops!are!so!much!
higher!than!commodities.!!High!value!crops!need!less!land.!!These!farmers!probably!
don’t!need!to!buy!more!land”!(LFS!Farmer).!
! There!are!four!farmers’!markets,!four!CSAs,!several!agritainment!operations!and!
farm!stands.!!The!main!local!food!market!is!the!Cache!Valley!Gardeners’!Market!located!
near!downtown!Logan.!!In!the!past!five!years!this!market!has!steadily!grown!with!new!
vendors,!including!crafts,!and!unprocessed!and!cooked!foods.!!The!market!operates!on!
Saturday!mornings!serving!between!500!to!1000!people!each!market!day!(SAABRA!
2010).!!It!runs!from!early!May!until!late!October,!which!is!a!long!season!considering!that!
there!can!be!snow!on!the!ground!from!October!through!the!end!of!May.!!The!other!
farmers’!markets!are!smaller!and!two!of!them!are!in!smaller!rural!communities!outside!
of!Logan.!!There!were!no!institutional!buying!programs!at!the!time!of!data!collection,!
but!there!is!a!group!in!the!county!that!is!in!the!process!of!developing!a!farm‐to‐school!
program.!!There!are!also!a!few!local!food!businesses,!a!dairy!and!a!distributor,!that!
significantly!increase!the!distribution!of!some!local!foods!through!home!delivery!service.!
!
!
92!
! I!used!several!measures!from!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!landowner!
survey!and!the!interview!data!to!assess!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!the!local!
food!system!in!Cache!County.!!One!prominent!local!food!system!farmer!said!there!were!
approximately!50!farmers!producing!for!local!markets!with!gross!sales!ranging!from!
$2,000!to!$100,000!per!farm.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!100!farms!
reported!direct!sales!to!customers,!which!means!that!8.4%!of!all!farms!in!the!county!
have!direct!sales!(more!than!the!national!average!of!6.2%).!!!
! Data!from!the!landowner!survey!support!findings!from!the!Agricultural!Census.!!
Table!11!shows!data!from!the!landowner!survey!on!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!
the!local!food!system.!!Almost!7%!of!the!farmers!in!our!sample!report!selling!directly!to!
consumers!from!their!farm.!!About!4%!sell!to!consumers!at!a!farmers!market!or!through!
a!CSA,!and!5.5%!sell!directly!to!local!businesses.!!Overall,!12.5%!report!using!at!least!one!
of!these!three!types!of!LFS!marketing!approaches.!!Additionally,!12.8%!of!farmers!report!
having!increased!direct!sales!over!the!last!five!years,!while!17%!of!farmers!expect!to!
increase!direct!sales!to!customers!in!the!next!five!years.!!!
! Only!six!farms!reported!in!the!Census!of!Agriculture!that!they!sold!through!a!
CSA,!and!only!5.4%!of!farmers!reported!in!the!landowner!survey!that!they!have!changed!
their!marketing!strategies!to!access!local!markets.!!Finally,!4.8%!of!farmers!have!made!
changes!to!their!crops!or!livestock!in!the!last!five!years!to!access!local!markets.!!!
! The!scale!of!local!food!activity!was!assessed!based!on!data!from!the!2007!
Agricultural!Census!including!direct!sales,!direct!sales!per!capita!and!percent!of!sales!
!
!
93!
from!direct!sales.!!According!to!direct!sales,!Cache!had!a!moderate!amount!local!food!!
Table!11.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System,!Cache!County!
!
Percent!of!Farmers!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
6.8!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
4.1!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
5.5!
Uses!any!of!these!three!
12.5!
!
!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
Increased!direct!sales!
12.8!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!local!customers!!
5.4!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!customers!
4.8!
!
!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!5!years!
17.0!
Source:!Landowner!Survey!
!
!
system!activity!with!a!little!over!1.5!million!dollars!in!direct!sales.!!However,!according!
to!direct!sales!per!capita!($14.09)!and!percent!of!sales!from!direct!sales!(1.13%),!Cache!
has!one!of!the!largest!LFS!scales!of!the!eight!case!study!counties,!and!is!well!above!
national!averages!($4.04!and!0.4%,!respectively).!!A!large!part!of!the!direct!selling!
activity!that!shows!up!in!the!Census!could!be!attributable!to!the!presence!of!Rosehill!
Dairy,!which!operates!a!home!delivery!service!for!their!milk!and!a!small!variety!of!other!
locally!produced!dairy!products.!!Another!large!farm!enterprise!with!significant!local!
direct!sales!is!Weeks!Berries!of!Paradise,!a!local!berry!farm!that!both!sells!berries!direct!
to!consumers!and!also!produces!jellies,!juices!and!syrups!sold!in!local!stores.!
#
Local#food#system#collective#action#
Cache!County!has!a!limited!level!of!producer‐driven!collective!action!related!to!
local!food!systems!with!only!one!local!civil!society!group!working!on!policy!and!
!
!
94!
economic!development!issues!related!to!local!food.!!This!group!is!a!non‐profit!called!
the!Sustainable!Agriculture!Association!of!the!Bear!River!Area!(SAABRA).!!Several!local!
food!farmers!started!this!group!in!the!late!1990s.!!SAABRA!organizes!farmers’!markets,!
operates!the!Cache!Community!Garden,!started!the!state!organic!certification!program,!
the!Bear!River!Incubator!Kitchen!and!a!mobile!poultry‐processing!unit.!!This!is!also!the!
group!that!is!current!working!to!create!a!farm‐to‐school!program.!!Most!of!SAABRA’s!
activities!involve!developing!direct!markets!for!local!producers,!providing!facilities!for!
producers!to!develop!new!products,!and!equalizing!access!to!fresh!local!produce!
through!the!community!garden.!!This!group’s!efforts!have!not!involved!framing!local!
food!as!a!community!issue.!!Reviews!of!local!newspapers!did!not!produce!evidence!that!
SAABRA’s!efforts!or!successes!have!received!much!media!attention.!!!
! A!few!interview!participants!noted!that!the!current!farmers’!market!is!the!second!
attempt!to!create!a!local!market!outlet.!!The!first!market!was!started!and!closed!in!the!
1990s.!!One!participant!said!that!the!original!farmers’!market!closed!because!the!market!
manager!was!over‐burdened.!!There!were!not!enough!people!involved.!!“The!original!
market!died!off.!!Each!manager!burned!out.!!Now!it!is!run!by!a!board!to!share!the!work”!
(LFS!Farmer).!!Despite!increased!membership!since!the!first!farmers’!market,!
membership!in!SAABRA!is!still!limited!to!a!few!LFS!producers.!!Most!LFS!producers!in!
Cache!County!are!not!involved!with!this!group.!
! SAABRA’s!success!at!mobilizing!resources!has!been!inconsistent.!!This!may!be!due!
to!a!simple!lack!of!available!local!resources!for!local!food!development.!!For!example,!
!
!
95!
the!group!applied!for!and!received!a!federal!grant!to!start!the!Incubator!Kitchen!in!
2003,!but!has!since!been!unable!to!secure!a!steady!stream!of!local!funding.!!In!general,!
however,!outside!of!the!few!individuals!who!are!behind!SAABRA,!there!is!little!evidence!
that!producers!in!Cache!County!have!mobilized!to!further!develop!local!foods.!!There!
are!only!a!few!examples!of!producers!acting!collectively!‐!to!start!the!statewide!organic!
certification!program,!the!farmers’!market,!and!the!non‐profit!that!manages!the!market.!!!
! Rather!than!the!result!of!collective!producer!action,!much!local!food!activity!
seems!to!be!the!result!of!producers!acting!independently!to!access!the!growing!urban!
population!that!is!concentrated!in!the!Logan!area,!selling!directly!from!their!farms,!
setting!up!agritainment!and!pick‐your‐own!operations,!or!getting!involved!in!farmers’!
markets.!!!
#
Local#food#system#institutional#arrangements#
! According!to!key!informants,!Cache!County!has!several!local!food!programs!and!
policies!including!a!local!food!directory,!a!direct!marketing!program,!and!local!label.!!The!
local!food!directory!is!actually!an!agritainment!promotion!program!sponsored!by!the!
Cache!Valley!Visitors’!Bureau.!!The!Bureau!publishes!a!website!with!a!list!of!several!local!
food!businesses!only!two!of!which!are!farms.!!The!majority!of!businesses!on!the!site!are!
locally!owned!food!businesses!rather!than!food!producers.!!The!sources!of!the!food!
products!are!not!publicized.!!!
! The!Utah’s!Own!labeling!program!is!a!state‐level!program!and!as!such!does!not!
distinguish!products!grown!or!processed!in!Cache!County!from!products!grown!or!
!
!
96!
produced!in!other!counties!in!the!state.!!Also,!the!Utah’s!Own!labeling!program!does!
allow!products!processed!with!raw!materials!that!were!not!grown!in!the!state.!!As!such!
this!program!may!offer!less!support!for!local!food!farmers!than!to!food!business!
owners.!!The!state!of!Utah!also!has!legislation!supporting!on‐farm!sales!and!processing!
called!the!Cottage!Food!Production!Rule,!but!it!is!unclear!the!effect!of!this!legislation!in!
the!county.!!It!was!never!mentioned!in!the!narrative!interviews.!
! Cache!County!key!informants!also!reported!a!local!farm‐processing!program!for!
the!development!of!on‐farm!processed!value‐added!products.!!I!was!unable!to!unearth!
any!specific!information!about!an!on‐farm!processing!program!other!than!the!Bear!River!
Incubator!Kitchen,!which!was!started!by!the!civil!society!group!SAABRA!and!therefore!
not!counted!as!a!public!sector!program!in!this!study.!!Regardless,!the!Incubator!Kitchen!
is!currently!without!funding!and!closed.!!!
! Several!interview!participants!mentioned!that!there!is!a!program!to!promote!
alternative!production!methods!at!Utah!State!University,!which!is!the!State’s!land!grant!
institution!and!is!located!in!the!county.!!This!program!provides!assistance!to!farmers!to!
develop!new!products!and!offers!a!class,!open!to!the!public,!that!teaches!organic!
farming!techniques.!!The!class!is!called!Introduction!to!Organic!Agriculture.!!!
! The!general!consensus!among!key!informants!is!that!agriculture!is!not!a!prominent!
component!of!local!economic!development!within!the!county!or!city!governments,!and!
there!is!more!emphasis!on!preservation!of!farmland!or!open!space!than!support!for!
either!traditional!agriculture!or!local!food!systems.!!“There!aren’t!any!organizations!
!
!
97!
helping!agriculture!economic!development.!!There!is!more!emphasis!on!preservation.!!
The!County!isn’t!doing!anything”!(Traditional!Farmer).!!Another!participant!further!
suggested!that!the!emphasis!is!really!on!the!preservation!or!large!tracts!of!farmland!and!
larger‐scale!agriculture.!!“The!viability!of!agriculture!is!discussed!in!the!county.!!Two!
council!members!are!active!large‐scale!farmers!and!pro‐agriculture!preservation.!!They!
are!talking!about!protecting!farms!from!encroachment!and!keeping!large!parcels!to!
make!farming!possible”!(County!Planner).!
There!is!a!committee!legislated!by!the!county!to!advise!county!commissioners!on!
land!use!and!economic!development!policy!issues!that!affect!traditional!and!local!
agriculture.!!The!legislation!creating!the!Agricultural!Advisory!Board!(AAB)!has!a!focus!on!
finding!ways!to!maintain!the!viability!of!local!agriculture!at!both!small!and!large!scales.!!
A!major!focus!of!the!efforts!of!the!AAB!has!been!to!help!promote!farmland!
preservation.!!This!group!has!no!real!decision‐making!power,!however,!(they!serve!in!an!
advisory!capacity!to!the!elected!county!council)!and!has!had!little!success!in!gaining!a!
majority!of!public!support!for!farmland!preservation!or!local!food!development.!!For!
example,!the!Agricultural!Advisory!Board,!until!the!most!recent!election!cycle,!had!been!
repeatedly!unsuccessful!in!getting!a!tax!bond!for!farmland!preservation!placed!on!the!
ballot!for!a!general!election.!!They!did!get!the!tax!bond!on!the!ballet!in!the!fall!of!2008,!
but!it!did!not!pass!in!the!general!election!(in!part!due!to!rapidly!deteriorating!national!
economic!conditions).!!Without!local!matching!funds,!Cache!County!has!been!unable!to!
access!much!of!the!available!state!and!federal!resources!for!farmland!preservation.!!This!
!
!
98!
lack!of!success!has!led!to!a!decline!in!activity!by!the!AAB.!!Several!interviewees!talked!
about!the!ineffectiveness!of!the!Agricultural!Advisory!Board.!!“I!was!on!the!Ag!Advisory!
Board,!but!I!left!because!they!weren’t!making!progress”!(Local!Agribusiness!Owner).!!!
! Local!informants!(especially!the!farmers)!identified!several!institutional!obstacles!
to!local!food!system!development.!!One!participant!mentioned!that!a!restriction!on!the!
use!of!signs!on!the!highway!reduces!the!visibility!of!farm!stands.!!“I’m!having!problems!
with!the!County!and!State!about!the!signs!on!the!highway.!!I!think!there!needs!to!be!
more!leeway!for!farmers!and!farming!operations!that!are!trying!to!sell!locally”!(LFS!
Farmer).!!Another!mentioned!that!the!Utah!labeling!program!was!too!expensive!to!
participate!in.!!A!few!farmers!also!noted!that!although!small‐scale!farmers!are!not!
hindered!by!many!land!use!or!environmental!regulations!because!of!the!size!of!their!
operations,!they!are!also!not!considered!real!farmers!by!the!traditional!farming!
community!and!so!may!be!excluded!from!some!of!the!collective!action!or!institutional!
benefits!of!those!groups.!!!
! Some!of!the!things!that!farmers!said!they!needed!were!an!affordable!local!labeling!
program,!a!farm‐to‐school!program,!more!advertising!and!visibility!and!more!market!
options.!“I!think!there!should!be!a!daily!market,!or!at!least!two!to!three!times!per!week”!
(LFS!Farmer).!!Another!LFS!farmer!suggested,!!
There!needs!to!be!more!education,!marketing!and!billboards!about!the!agriculture!
in!this!valley.!!Cache!is!one!of!the!top!two!agriculture‐producing!counties!in!the!
state.!!We!need!labeling!and!identification!for!local!products.!!We!need!a!program!
for!schools!to!purchase!local!first.!(LFS!Farmer)!!!
!
!
!
!
99!
Links#between#collective#action,#
institutional#arrangements#and#LFS#outcomes#
! Overall!there!has!been!some!collective!action!around!land!use!and!local!food,!but!
few!of!those!actions!have!been!institutionalized!and!are!actively!facilitating!either!local!
food!development!of!land!use/farmland!preservation.!!Several!participants!mentioned!
past!instances!of!unsuccessful!collective!action!around!land!use!preservation!and!LFS!
development.!!In!fact,!local!land!use!regulations!and!farmland!preservation!efforts!
present!some!obstacles!to!local!food!system!farmers.!
! I!used!data!from!the!landowner!survey!to!get!a!better!understanding!of!how!
local!food!system!farmers!perceived!collective!action!and!institutional!arrangements!in!
the!county.!!Table!12!shows!the!comparison!between!LFS!farmers!and!Non‐LFS!farmers!
on!questions!from!the!landowner!survey!related!to!policy,!institutional!support!for!
agriculture,!and!collective!action.!!While!suggestive!of!broad!patterns,!none!of!the!
differences!in!responses!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!farms!in!Cache!County!were!
statistically!significant.!
! Surprisingly!LFS!farmers!from!the!landowner!sample!reported!a!more!positive!
perception!of!local!agricultural!economic!development!policies!than!Non‐LFS!farmers.!!
Similarly,!more!LFS!farmers!reported!that!the!local!city!governments,!local!economic!
development!organizations,!environmental!organizations,!the!general!public!and!the!
Farm!Bureau!were!supportive!of!agriculture!than!Non‐LFS!farmers.!!According!to!these!
results,!LFS!farmers!seem!slightly!more!satisfied!with!the!institutional!support!for!their!
farming!activities!than!would!be!expected!from!the!interview!data.!
!
!
100!
Table!12.!!Comparison!Between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!Farmers,!Cache!County!
!
%!LFS!Farmers!
%!Non‐LFS!
Farmers!
Perception!that!local!agriculture!economic!development!
policies!have!positive!impact!on!their!farm!
37.5!
12.5!
Perception!that!group!is!supportive!of!farming!
!
!
County!government!
22.2!
14.8!
City!government!
22.2!
8.3!
Economic!development!organizations!
22.2!
3.4!
Environmental!organizations!
33.3!
16.9!
General!public!
11.1!
6.8!
Farm!Bureau!
66.7!
48.3!
Has!membership!in!group!
!
!
Farm!organization!(Farm!Bureau,!Grange,!Farmers’!Union,!etc.)!
50.0!
40.3!
Farm!commodity!group!
28.6!
15.0!
Other!type!of!local!farm‐related!association!
0.0!
16.9!
Source:!Landowner!Survey!
!
!
! LFS!farmers!in!general!have!higher!participation!in!traditional!farm!organizations,!
but!lower!participation!in!local!farm!organizations!when!compared!to!Non‐LFS!farmers.!!
This!suggests!that!LFS!producers!are!not!organized!in!LFS‐specific!groups!and!most!of!
the!local!food!development!is!occurring!through!individual!actions!to!access!the!growing!
urban!population!with!a!smaller!amount!of!collective!action!occurring!through!the!local!
food!group,!SAABRA.!!!
! Further,!several!LFS!farmers!said!that!they!are!able!to!participate!in!local!food!
activity!in!part!because!of!the!unrestrictive!regulatory!environment.!!This!suggests!that!
in!the!absence!of!a!restrictive!regulatory!environment,!LFS!institutional!arrangements!
may!not!be!essential!for!a!moderate!amount!of!LFS!activity!to!take!place.!!However,!
even!in!an!unrestrictive!regulatory!environment!like!Cache!County,!land!use!regulation!
and!farmland!preservation!efforts!and!tools!can!still!create!obstacles!to!some!forms!of!
!
!
101!
local!food!system!expansion.!!!
#
Kent!County,!Michigan!
!Kent!County,!Michigan!is!located!in!the!Great!Lakes!region!of!the!Midwest.!!
Historically,!Kent!County!was!a!center!of!logging,!agriculture!and!furniture!
manufacturing.!!The!culture!is!politically!conservative!and!has!traditionally!been!a!
Republican!stronghold.!!The!area!is!also!religiously!conservative!containing!substantial!
numbers!of!evangelical!Christians.!!Similar!to!Cache!County,!the!majority!believes!in!a!
limited!role!for!government!in!social!and!economic!affairs!with!most!local!land!use!and!
economic!development!decision‐making!power!residing!within!townships.!!In!regards!to!
local!foods,!County!government!officials!do!not!consider!agriculture!economic!
development!their!responsibility.!!However,!there!is!a!strong!civil!society!in!Kent!County!
and!many!of!the!services!and!resources!provided!by!government!in!other!communities!
are!accounted!for!by!community!groups!and!foundations.!!!
!
Geography#
! Kent!County!is!located!close!to!the!western!border!of!Michigan!along!Lake!Michigan.!!
There!are!872!square!miles!in!Kent!County!most!of!which!is!relatively!flat!with!the!
highest!point!at!1,048!feet!above!sea!level.!!Grand!River!is!the!major!waterway,!which!
runs!from!the!eastern!to!the!western!border!eventually!emptying!into!Lake!Michigan.!!
According!to!NRI!data,!31.2%!of!the!county’s!land!area!is!in!developed!uses.!!A!quarter!
of!the!county’s!land!area!is!in!crops,!a!quarter!is!in!forestland,!and!only!8%!is!in!
!
!
102!
pastureland.!!Although!Kent!County!has!less!land!than!Cache!County,!most!of!the!
land!is!private,!more!is!in!developed!uses,!and!there!is!significantly!more!cropland!
(National!Resource!Inventory!2002).!!!
!
Demographics#
! As!of!2007,!Kent!County!had!a!population!of!602,676.!!The!county!experienced!
population!growth!during!the!1990s!with!a!total!increase!of!14.7%!with!an!annual!rate!
of!1.4%.!!Growth!has!slowed!in!the!2000s!with!a!total!increase!of!5.2%!and!an!annual!
growth!rate!of!0.7%!between!2000!and!2007.!!The!population!density!is!about!670!
people!per!square!mile!but!about!85%!of!the!population!resides!in!the!urbanized!areas,!
and!the!majority!of!these!are!in!Grand!Rapids.!!The!population!density!outside!of!the!
urban!area!is!131!people!per!square!mile,!which!is!ten!times!that!in!Cache!County.!!!
! There!are!nine!cities,!five!villages,!and!twelve!unincorporated!areas!in!the!
county.!!Counties!in!Michigan!contain!townships,!which!add!an!additional!layer!of!
government.!!Kent!County!has!twenty!townships.!!Outside!of!the!incorporated!
municipalities,!much!of!the!land!use!decision‐making!authority!lies!with!the!townships.!
#
Income#
! Overall,!Kent!County!has!an!income!profile!that!is!very!similar!to!the!average!
income!profile!of!the!United!States.!!Table!13!shows!the!socioeconomic!profile!of!
residents!in!2000.!!The!median!income!was!$45,980!in!2000,!which!is!just!over!the!
national!average.!!The!poverty!rate!was!8.9%,!which!is!slightly!lower!than!the!national!
!
!
103!
average.!!The!percent!of!households!with!incomes!over!$100,000!was!15.1%,!which!
is!a!little!more!than!the!national!average!of!12.3%.!!The!data!suggest!that!there!may!be!
more!demand!for!local!foods!in!Kent!County!than!in!Cache!County!.!
Table!13.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Kent!County!Residents!
Income!Characteristics!
Median!Income!($)!
45,980!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
8.9!
Percent!of!Households!with!Incomes!over!$100,000!
15.1!
Source:#US!Census!2000!
!
!
Economy#
#The!sectors!of!the!economy!that!employ!the!most!people!in!Kent!County!are!
manufacturing!(23.7%),!education,!health!and!social!services!(18.8%),!and!retail!(13.2%).!!
Historically!the!two!most!important!have!been!the!auto!and!furniture!industries.!!The!
collapse!of!the!auto!industry!has!created!higher!than!average!unemployment.!!More!
recently,!a!new!medical!conglomeration!is!developing!in!the!county!as!Michigan!State!
University!is!moving!their!medical!college!to!Grand!Rapids.!!The!agricultural!industry!
employs!0.6%!of!the!population!and!0.4%!claim!that!their!profession!is!farming!(Bureau!
of!Labor!Statistics!2007).!!!
!
Agriculture#
! Table!14!shows!the!distribution!of!top!commodities!for!Kent!County!by!sales!and!
number!of!farms.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!majority!of!farms!in!
!
!
104!
Kent!County!are!raising!forage!(38.1%),!corn!(22.4%),!and!cattle!(20.5%).!!
Meanwhile,!the!majority!of!farm!sales!come!from!the!sale!of!nursery!and!greenhouse!
products!(32.6%),!dairy!products!(20.4%),!and!fruits,!nuts!and!berries!(17.4%).!!Although!
a!large!percentage!of!sales!come!from!nursery/greenhouse!and!dairy,!only!a!small!
percentage!of!farms!raise!these!commodities:!7.1%!of!farms!are!nursery!and!
greenhouse!and!4.1%!of!farms!have!dairies.!!More!farms!actually!raise!fruits,!nuts!and!
berries!(10.5%)!that!are!higher!value!products!that!often!don’t!travel!well!and!so!are!
commonly!part!of!local!food!systems.!
Table!14.!!Top!Commodities!by!Sales!and!Number!of!Farms,!Kent!County!
!
Percent!of!County!
Farm!Sales!
Percent!of!County!Farms!
Raising!
Cattle!and!calves!
5.1!
20.5!
Dairy!
20.4!
4.1!
Nursery!&!Greenhouse!
32.6!
7.1!
Fruits!nuts!&!berries!
17.4!
10.5!
Corn!(grain!&!silage)!
N/A!
22.4!
Forage!
N/A!
38.1!
Note:!N/A!=!not!available!
Source:!US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
#
#
! The!Census!of!Agriculture!also!categorizes!Kent!County!farms!into!the!typology!
classes!discussed!in!the!previous!section.!!The!results!suggest!that!the!majority!of!farms!
in!the!county!are!small!family!and!hobby!farms!which!research!suggests!are!important!
for!local!food!systems.!!Table!15!shows!the!distribution!of!farm!types.!!Approximately,!
74.5%!of!farms!are!small!farms,!but!these!farms!control!just!39.2%!of!farmland!acres.!!In!
comparison,!the!10%!of!farms!that!are!large!and!very!large!family!farms!operate!almost!
!
!
105!
half!of!farmland!acres.!!Roughly!five!percent!of!farms!are!nonfamily!operations!and!
they!manage!a!similar!proportion!of!land.!!!
!
Table!15.!!Distribution!of!Farm!Types!by!Number!of!Farms!and!Acres!of!Farmland!
!
%!Farms!
%!Acres!
Small!Family!Farms!(Sales!<!$250,000)!
!
!
Limited!resource!!
13.3!
5.3!
!Retirement!!
17.6!
11.1!
!Residential/lifestyle!!
40.0!
15.9!
!Higher!sales!!
3.6!
6.9!
Total!small!
74.5!
39.2!
Large!Family!Farms!(Sales!$250,000+)!!
!
!
!Large!($250,000‐$499,000)!!
4.7!
10.8!
!Very!large!($500,000+)!!
5.3!
38.6!
Total!large!and!very!large!family!
10.0!
49.4!
Nonfamily!
4.9!
4.9!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
! Traditionally!Kent!County!has!been!known!for!its!apple!orchards!and!dairy!farms,!
but!both!sectors!are!declining.!!Sixty!percent!of!the!apples!in!Michigan!are!raised!along!
the!“Fruit!Ridge,”!which!extends!into!four!counties.!!Most!of!this!production!occurs!in!
the!northeast!side!of!Kent!County!in!Sparta!and!Alpine!townships.!!At!least!one!external!
factor!is!affecting!the!decline!of!the!orchard!industry!in!Kent.!!Apple!growers!compete!
with!China,!which!sets!the!base!price!for!apples.!
! The!nursery!and!greenhouse!industry!is!strong!in!Kent!County,!but!seems!to!be!
dominated!by!one!business:!Mast!Greenhouses.!!Interview!respondents!said!that!the!
wholesale!and!retail!nurseries!were!thriving!and!statistics!from!the!Agricultural!Census!
support!this!showing!a!slight!increase!in!sales!from!$62.6!million!in!2002!to!$63.4!million!
in!2007!and!no!change!in!the!number!of!farms!engaging!in!nursery!and!greenhouse!from!
!
!
106!
2002!to!2007.!!!
!According!to!the!Census!of!Agriculture,!the!aggregate!agricultural!trajectory!in!
Kent!County!was!stable!in!the!1987‐1997!period!and!intensifying!from!1997!to!2007.!!
The!number!of!farms,!the!land!in!farms!and!the!amount!of!cropland!all!declined!
between!1997!and!2007.!!The!number!of!farms!declined!from!1,343!to!1,193,!which!is!a!
loss!of!11.2%.!!The!land!in!farms!declined!14.1%,!from!197,951!acres!to!170,117!acres.!!
The!amount!of!cropland!declined!17%!from!157,677!acres!to!131,529!acres.!!Farm!sales!
and!sales!per!acre!of!farmland!have!increased!during!this!period!though,!suggesting!that!
production!is!intensifying!on!the!remaining!farmland!in!the!county.!!!
! These!patterns!are!consistent!with!the!results!from!the!landowner!survey,!which!
shows!that!the!majority!of!farmers!in!that!sample!have!made!changes!to!their!farms!in!
the!last!five!years!to!intensify!production.!Table!16!shows!the!percent!of!respondents!
using!intensification,!growth!strategies,!decline,!and!de‐intensification!strategies.!!The!
largest!percentage!of!farmers!used!either!a!growth!or!intensification!strategy.!!Among!
those,!31.6%of!farmers!shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre.!!
As!in!Cache!County!this!could!indicate!that!some!farmers!are!shifting!to!higher!value!
crops!that!contribute!to!the!local!food!system.!
!
Land#use,#regulation,#and#development#
! The!township!structure!of!local!government!has!a!great!deal!of!influence!on!land!
use!decisions!in!Kent!County.!!Interview!respondents!generally!talked!about!changes!in!
agriculture,!land!use!and!development!within!separate!townships!rather!than!within!the!
!
!
107!
Table!16.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Using!Adaptation!Strategies,!Kent!County!!
!
Percent!of!Farms!!
Indicators!of!De‐intensification!
!
Decreased!capital!investment!in!buildings!
9.5!
Decreased!investment!in!equipment!
5.3!
Increased!land!in!conservation!programs!
0.0!
Decreased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
0.0!
Idled!or!left!fallow!some!farmland!
15.0!
Used!any!de‐intensification!strategy!
24.0!
Indicators!of!Decline!
!
Decreased!farmland!owned!
5.0!
Decreased!farmland!rented!
0.0!
Decreased!livestock!sold!
10.0!
Decreased!value!of!gross!sales!
0.0!
Sold!land!for!nonfarm!development!
15.0!
Used!any!decline!strategy!
16.0!
Indicators!of!Growth!
!
Increased!farmland!owned!
10.0!
Increased!farmland!rented!
12.5!
Increased!livestock!sold!
10.0!
Increased!value!of!total!gross!sales!
50.0!
Used!any!growth!strategy!
48.0!
Indicators!of!Intensification!
!
Increased!capital!investment!in!farm!buildings!
33.3!
Increased!investment!in!farm!equipment!
57.9!
Decreased!land!in!conservation!programs!
0.0!
Increased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
24.0!
Shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!
31.6!
Used!any!intensification!strategy!
52.0!
Source:#Landowner!Survey#
!
!
county!as!a!whole.!!The!townships!control!the!planning!and!zoning!most!of!which!are!
run!by!voluntary!boards!with!inexperienced!citizens,!although!a!few!do!hire!professional!
planners!on!a!part‐time!basis.!!Interview!participants!noted!that!there!is!inconsistency!in!
the!zoning!regulations!across!townships!and!this!has!contributed!a!sense!of!
impermanence!and!precariousness!to!land!use.!!
!
!
!
108!
! Respondents!noted!that!without!a!unified!set!of!land!use!regulations!across!
townships,!individual!decisions!could!unintentionally!limit!agriculture.!!For!example,!
some!townships!prohibit!agritainment!and!farmers’!markets.!!Others!limit!the!
development!of!roads!on!private!land!or!the!amount!of!signage!allowed!for!roadside!
farm!stands.!!Further,!respondents!felt!that!decisions!about!land!use!and!zoning!were!
often!arbitrary!and!politically!based.!!One!respondent!talked!about!a!farmland!owner!
who!wanted!to!sell!for!development,!but!whose!land!was!in!an!area!zoned!for!
agriculture.!!He!ran!for!office,!changed!the!zoning!regulations,!and!sold!his!land!for!
housing!development.!
! Outside!of!basic!zoning!regulations!the!policy!environment!is!also!conflicted.!!
Farmland!preservation!programs!exist!at!the!state!and!local!level!and!include!a!Purchase!
of!Development!Rights!program!(PDR),!a!farmland!tax!credit!program,!a!right!to!farm!
law,!and!a!nutrient!management‐permitting!program!called!the!Michigan!Agricultural!
Environmental!Assurance!program.!!However,!the!debate!around!land!use!change!has!
focused!on!the!PDR!program.!!PDR!allows!the!development!rights!on!agricultural!land!to!
be!purchased!and!often!transferred!to!another!parcel!of!land!where!more!dense!
development!is!desired.!!The!owner!of!the!agricultural!land!received!the!development!
value!of!the!land!without!losing!the!right!to!use!the!land!for!agricultural!use.!!Ideally,!
farmers!use!this!money!to!reinvest!in!their!operations!to!maintain!their!economic!
viability.!!Kent!County!adopted!a!PDR!ordinance!in!2001.!!However,!the!county!has!not!
voted!to!fund!the!program.!!Rather,!the!PDR!program!has!been!funded!by!state,!federal!
!
!
109!
and!private!foundation!grants,!along!with!some!township!funds.!
! There!is!mixed!support!for!farmland!preservation!and!PDR.!!There!has!been!
strong!support!from!some!citizen!and!environmental!groups!such!as!United!Growth!for!
Kent!(local)!and!the!Michigan!Land!Institute!(statewide).!!According!to!some!interview!
participants!support!for!PDR!crossed!the!rural/urban!divide!with!even!more!interest!
among!urban!community!members.!!However,!PDR!has!been!strongly!opposed!by!
homebuilder!associations,!pro‐property!rights!groups!and!anti‐government!groups.!!
However,!others!who!had!been!supportive!of!PDR!developed!a!negative!outlook!
because!the!program!had!not!been!funded!and!felt!overall!that!the!broader!community!
was!unaware!of!the!efforts!to!preserve!farmland.!!This!debate!has!however,!induced!
pro‐preservation!advocates!to!form!a!political!action!committee!(PAC)!to!support!
candidates!at!all!levels!of!government!who!are!supportive!of!farmland!preservation.!
!
Local#food#system#activity#
! There!is!a!diverse!amount!of!local!food!activity!in!Kent!County.!!Probably!
because!of!the!population!size!and!the!proximity!of!a!large!metropolitan!area!there!are!
a!large!number!and!large!diversity!of!local!food!markets.!!!In!the!eight‐county!area!that!
includes!Kent!County!there!are!more!than!30!farmers’!markets.!!Within!Kent!County!
itself!there!are!six!farmers’!markets,!two!CSAs,!two!institutional!buying!programs,!
numerous!roadside!farm!stands!and!agritainment!operations.!!The!largest!market!is!the!
Fulton!Street!Market!in!downtown!Grand!Rapids.!!The!market!began!in!1922!and!for!
most!of!its!existence!included!producer!and!non‐producer!vendors.!!The!Neighborhood!
!
!
110!
Association!of!Midtown!Neighborhood!took!over!the!management!of!the!market!in!
2005.!!Since!that!time,!the!new!market!managers!have!been!developing!new!rules!that!
favor!a!producers‐!only!market.!!According!to!interview!notes,!the!new!market!
managers!are!strongly!tied!to!the!local!food!movement!and!are!basing!many!of!their!
management!decisions!on!a!local!food!and!alternative!agriculture!philosophy.!!!
! Aside!from!the!proliferation!of!market!outlets,!Kent!County!has!widespread!
participation!by!farmers!in!the!local!food!system.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!
Census,!171!farms!reported!selling!directly!to!customers,!which!was!14.3%!of!all!farms.!!
In!addition,!there!were!nine!farms!that!reported!selling!through!a!CSA.!!Data!from!the!
landowner!survey!also!show!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!the!local!food!system!
(Table!17).!!About!41.7%!of!farmers!sell!directly!to!consumers!from!their!farm,!mainly!
via!U‐Pick!operations!or!farm!stands.!!About!25%!of!farmers!sell!through!a!farmers’!
market!or!CSA.!!Almost!21%!of!farmers!sell!to!local!institutions.!!All!told,!54.5!percent!of!
local!farmers!are!engaged!in!some!type!of!SSC!activities.!
! In!addition,!farmers!in!the!survey!are!increasing!their!direct!selling!activity.!!
About!26.7%!of!farmers!have!increased!direct!sales!over!the!last!five!years,!and!44.4%!of!
farmers!expect!to!increase!their!direct!sales!to!customers!of!the!next!five!years.!!About!
19%!of!farmers!have!made!changes!to!marketing!strategies.!!Finally,!11.1%!of!farmers!
have!made!changes!to!crops!or!livestock!to!access!urban!markets.!!
! Despite!the!impressive!level!of!participation,!data!from!the!Agricultural!Census!
used!to!assess!the!scale!of!local!food!system!activity!indicates!a!contrary!pattern.!!Kent!
!
!
111!
County!had!a!little!over!1.6!million!dollars!in!direct!sales!and!0.8%!percent!of!all!farm!!
Table!17.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System,!Kent!County!
!
Percent!of!Farmers!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
41.7!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
25.0!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
20.8!
Uses!any!of!these!three!
54.5!
!
!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
Increased!direct!sales!
26.7!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!local!customers!!
19.0!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!customers!
11.1!
!
!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!5!years!
44.4!
Source:!Landowner!Survey!
!
!
sales!came!from!direct!sales!in!2007.!!A!third!measure!of!scale,!direct!sales!per!capita,!
suggests!that!the!scale!of!local!food!system!activity!in!Kent!County!is!much!lower!
relative!to!the!other!case!study!counties,!with!only!$2.72!in!direct!sales!per!person!per!
year.!!This!suggests!that!local!food!system!activity!is!concentrated!among!certain!places!
or!demographics!in!the!county!and!access!may!be!an!issue.!
#
Local#food#system#collective#action#
Kent!County!has!a!strong!local!food!movement.!!There!are!three!civil!society!
organizations!dedicated!to!local!food!development!that!work!in!Kent!County.!!!In!
addition,!there!are!several!environmental!and!land!use!organizations!that!devote!a!
significant!amount!of!staff!and!resources!to!local!food!development.!!The!three!food!
and!agricultural!groups!include!the!Kent!Agricultural!Tourism!Council,!the!Ridge!
Economic!Agricultural!Partners!and!the!Greater!Grand!Rapids!Food!Systems!Council.!!
!
!
112!
The!environmental!and!land‐use!organizations!include!the!Michigan!Environmental!
Council,!United!Growth!for!Kent,!and!the!Michigan!Land!Use!Institute.!
The!Kent!Agricultural!Tourism!Council!works!on!public!awareness!and!education!
of!the!agricultural!heritage!in!the!county!by!sponsoring!things!like!the!Kent!Harvest!Trail.!!
The!Ridge!Economic!Agricultural!Partners!(REAP)!is!a!non‐profit!that!promotes!an!area!
of!heavy!fruit!production!in!Kent!County!called!the!Fruit!Ridge.!!Producers!constitute!the!
majority!of!the!membership!of!this!group.!!This!group!works!on!market!development!for!
the!Fruit!Ridge!as!well!as!public!awareness!and!education.!!!
Finally,!the!Greater!Grand!Rapids!Food!Systems!Council!is!a!non‐profit!member!
based!organization!that!works!on!developing!local!food!projects!and!assessing!the!level!
of!food!security!and!access!in!the!Greater!Grand!Rapids!area.!!This!group!developed!a!
local!food!guide!called!“West!Michigan!FRESH:!A!Guide!to!Local!Food”!that!is!available!
on!the!Internet!and!in!hard!copy.!!They!created!an!institutional!buying!program!that!
connects!growers!to!institutional!buyers,!primarily!restaurants,!by!tracking!the!available!
produce!and!food!products,!managing!orders!from!buyers!and!organizing!drop‐offs!and!
pick‐ups.!!Some!of!their!other!projects!include!community!gardens!and!farmers’!
markets.!!They!are!also!working!on!a!plan!to!allow!the!use!of!food!stamps!at!farmers’!
markets.!!!
Local!food!and!agricultural!groups!have!had!considerable!success!in!mobilizing!
both!people!and!monetary!resources!for!the!benefit!of!both!local!food!and!agricultural!
preservation.!!There!has!been!considerable!private!investment!in!farm!conservation!
!
!
113!
programs!by!local!non‐profits,!farms,!and!businesses.!!More!than!three!million!
dollars!have!been!raised!from!foundations!such!as!Kellogg,!WEGE,!Nokia,!the!Fry!
Foundation,!and!the!Palster!Club.!!!
! According!to!interview!participants!the!civil!society!groups!in!Kent!County!work!
on!all!aspects!of!local!food!development!including!policy!advocacy,!building!local!food!
networks!of!farmers,!creating!institutional!buying!markets,!creating!local!food!market!
outlets,!raising!money!to!support!programs,!and!public!education.!!Some!of!this!activity!
focuses!on!the!connection!between!farmland!preservation!and!local!food!development!
and!urban!and!rural!concerns!more!so!than!in!the!other!case!study!counties.!!This!may!
be!because!the!major!metropolitan!center!in!the!area,!Grand!Rapids,!is!located!within!
Kent!County!rather!than!several!counties!removed!as!in!Frederick,!Yamhill,!Cache,!and!
Hall.!!!
We!facilitate!farmers!markets!in!a!few!ways,!though!less!then!we!like.!!A!few!
years!ago!there!were!2‐3!organizations!that!got!together!to!try!and!make!
farmers!markets!in!low‐income!communities!and!a!west!side!market.!!We!have!a!
vision!for!the!downtown!market.!!We’re!rehabilitating!the!downtown!area!and!
help!raise!awareness.!!We’d!like!to!have!a!year!round!market!that!also!has!a!
processing!facility!attached!to!it!for!value‐added!processing.!!We!have!ideas!of!
what!we!want!to!do!with!farmers!from!an!urban!perspective.!(Environmental!
Group)!
!
We!have!a!local!first!movement!here!to!buy!as!much!as!we!can!from!local!foods.!!
We’re!lucky!that!Meijer!and!Thrifty!Acres!are!local.!!Meijers!donates!a!lot!of!stuff!
locally.!!From!the!urban!point!of!view!we’re!making!the!connection!about!food:!
do!you!want!to!buy!food!from!a!Kent!County!farmer!or!have!it!shipped!in?!!The!
farmers!market!is!part!of!the!Middletown!neighborhood.!!It!has!existed!for!80!
years.!!It’s!had!resurgence.!!It’s!packed!on!Saturday!mornings,!and!parking!is!one!
of!the!big!issues!now.!!!We!had!an!MSU!urban!policy!study!group!do!a!study!of!
the!farmers!market.!!People!are!making!the!connection!now.!!Through!the!
farmer’s!markets!people!have!gotten!to!know!the!framers!and!know!these!guys!
!
!
114!
generally!aren’t!rich.!!They!are!regular!people.!(Extension)!
!
! There!are!several!organizations!that!address!land!use!policy!that!also!actively!
address!local!food!system!development.!!These!groups!frequently!frame!local!food!
development!and!farmland!preservation!as!a!single!issue!to!broaden!support!for!both.!!
For!example,!a!participant!from!the!Michigan!Land!Use!Institute,!which!formed!in!2004,!
talked!about!their!role!in!policy!advocacy!related!to!local!food.!
The!idea!is!to!incorporate!advocacy!with!public!policy.!!Most!of!us!are!trained!
journalists.!!We!cover!issues!most!newspapers!don’t.!!We!get!100,000!hits!a!
month!on!our!website.!!Our!major!goal!is!to!reframe!the!issues.!!Patty!Kantral!
she!writes!about!reframing!agriculture!issues!on!economic!development;!things!
like!organic!milk,!etc.,!and!how!it!would!behoove!the!state!to!figure!out!how!to!
grow!these!concepts.!(Environmental!Group)!
!
! Even!traditionally!environmental!organizations!such!as!the!Michigan!
Environment!Council!are!dedicating!staff!and!resources!to!increase!local!food!networks.!!
“Sustainable!Agriculture!Forum!looks!at!the!development!of!the!social!capital!around!
agriculture!and!education.!!How!can!we!bring!farmers!together!for!support!for!local!
food!systems”!(Environmental!Group)?!!This!environmental!group!also!works!with!
restaurants!and!hospitals!to!increase!local!food!buying.!!To!increase!local!food!in!
hospitals!this!group!is!developing!a!campaign!that!frames!local!food!in!connection!with!
cancer!and!health.!
! Interviewees!consistently!talked!about!the!strength!of!the!local!food!movement,!
especially!in!Grand!Rapids.!
At!the!same!time!we!have!a!very!strong!farm!community!and!interest!from!the!
consumer!and!farm!community!to!build!a!strong!direct!marketing!relationship.!!
We’re!seeing!that!in!the!number!of!farmers’!markets.!!This!year!there!will!be!
!
!
115!
more!in!Granville,!Byron,!West!Side,!and!Lowell.!!There!are!four!new!farmers’!
markets.!!Last!year!there!were!21,!this!year!there!are!30!in!an!eight‐county!area.!
(Environmental!Group)!
!
Grand!Rapids!is!unique.!!There!is!a!very!strong!movement!around!sustainability.!!
We!have!a!thriving!sustainable!business!forum.!!There!is!a!lot!of!national!
leadership!here.!!We!have!a!number!of!organizations!we’re!working!with;!trying!
to!help!them!identify!how!food!and!land!and!farming!are!on!their!radar.!!We!
have!a!great!culinary!school!with!an!interest!in!working!with!us.!!They!want!to!
promote!and!market!these!foods.!(Environmental!Group)!
! Some!of!the!other!collective!action!activity!includes!a!local!food!conference,!
public!education!programs!on!how!people!fit!into!the!food!system,!a!weekly!farming!
program!on!a!local!station!that!covers!local!food!topics,!education!programs!to!teach!
older!farmers!about!the!benefits!of!local!food!marketing.!!Several!producers!mentioned!
that!organizations!have!contacted!them!to!get!involved!in!local!food!activities,!which!
they!would!not!have!otherwise!known!about!because!they!are!too!busy.!!Several!of!the!
local!television!stations!frequently!do!stories!on!local!farmers,!and!several!grocery!
stores!sell!local!products!and!do!demonstrations!on!cooking!fresh!and!local.!!The!state!
farmers’!market!organization!is!working!on!a!model!ordinance!for!farmers’!markets.!!
Producers!are!heavily!involved!in!many!of!these!groups!and!have!been!actively!involved!
in!organizing!and!mobilizing!members!to!effect!change.!
We!formed!this!organization!because!we!want!to!do!what!we!can!ourselves.!!We!
can’t!wait!for!others!to!help.!!We!worked!with!Extension!with!a!grant!from!Project!
Green.!!We!are!now!our!own!501‐C3!and!we!can!get!our!own!grants!(though!we!
haven’t!yet).!!Our!aim!is!to!find!a!niche!to!educate!consumers!and!farmers.!!We!
have!education!sessions!for!farmers!on!value‐added,!etc.!!We!work!with!the!Kent!
County!Fair!to!do!a!“Blossom!Time”!promotion,!to!get!media!attention.!!There!are!
five!of!us!working!on!this!project.!(Local!Agriculture!Group)!
!
! !
!
!
116!
! There!is!a!collective!of!farmers!and!restaurants!who!started!a!distribution!
network!called!Michigan!Fresh!Network.!!There!are!40!farms!that!have!been!supplying!
lots!of!local!produce!to!restaurants.!!This!is!one!example!of!how!farmers!and!restaurants!
organized!themselves!to!increase!LFS!distribution.!!The!local!food!organizations!seem!to!
be!equally!active!on!the!supply!and!demand!side!of!local!food.!!!
We!got!a!call!today!that!we!got!a!planning!grant!from!the!Community!Foods!
Program.!!It’s!an!18‐month!program!to!do!community‐based!empowerment!in!
three!low‐income!communities!with!high!percentages!of!African!Americans!and!
Hispanics.!!We!partnered!with!African!American!staff!and!immigrant!offices!trying!
to!figure!out!how!do!we!bring!awakening!tools!to!them.!(Environmental!Group)!
!
! Overall!it!seems!that!local!food!system!activity!is!robust!in!Kent!County!due!to!
the!civil!society!sector.!!There!are!numerous!examples!of!professional!and!more!
informal!civil!society!groups!that!are!actively!working!on!local!food!development!either!
as!a!single!issue!or!coupled!with!land‐use,!environmental,!preservation,!health!or!social!
equity!concerns.!!!Additionally,!these!groups!have!been!successful!both!at!mobilizing!
people!and!raising!money!to!alter!or!create!policies!and!programs!to!further!their!goals.!
!
Local#food#system#institutional#arrangements#
In!contrast,!Kent!County!has!relatively!few!public!programs!and!policies!specific!
to!local!food!system!development.!!There!are!three!local!food!directories,!a!food!
security!program,!farmers’!market!and!community!garden!programs,!an!institutional!
buying!program,!and!a!statewide!buy!local!campaign!and!label,!but!the!civil!society!
groups!mentioned!above!have!developed!all!of!these.!!There!are!no!public!sector!
programs!for!farmers’!markets,!local!processing!of!value‐added!products,!agritainment!
!
!
117!
promotion,!or!alternative!production!techniques.!!There!also!is!no!countywide!
farmers’!market!ordinance;!although!several!townships!have!developed!ordinances!
allowing!farmers!markets.!!Finally!there!is!no!dedicated!agriculture!economic!
development!staff!or!agricultural!committee!within!the!County!government!or!
Economic!Development!office.!!Most!of!the!local!food!development!has!occurred!as!a!
result!of!the!civil!society!groups!operating!outside!of!government.!!!
! Most!of!the!collective!action!activity!has!not!yet!been!institutionalized!in!Kent!
County.!!For!example,!there!are!staff!people!in!various!organizations!dedicated!to!
agriculture!economic!development,!but!they!are!not!located!not!in!the!County’s!Office!
of!Economic!Development!(OED).!!One!participant!described!how!agriculture!is!received!
by!the!OED.!
For!example!in!March,!there!is!National!Farm!Day.!!We!took!Sharon!and!REAP!
before!the!board!of!commissioners!to!thank!them!for!their!support.!!She!talked!
about!REAP,!and!the!value!of!agriculture!as!an!industry!to!the!county.!!Paul!Geer!
who!has!a!floral!business!brought!floral!arrangements!for!the!board.!!Then!the!
next!person!to!speak!was!Brigit!Klohs,!the!director!of!the!Right!Lace,!which!does!
economic!development!for!Kent!County.!!She!acknowledged!how!critical!
agriculture!is!to!the!county’s!economy!but!it’s!not!“what!we!do”.!!So!there!is!
respect!for!it,!but!it’s!not!seen!as!their!job.!(Extension)!
!
! There!are!plans!to!revise!some!ordinances!to!better!facilitate!local!food!activities,!
but!again,!most!of!this!is!being!done!outside!of!the!public!sector.!!The!following!quote!is!
from!a!farmer!and!member!of!the!group!REAP!about!plans!the!group!has!to!change!
current!zoning.!!!
We!want!to!publicize!Alpine!townships’!adoption!of!the!farm!market!friendly!
zoning!ordinance.!!Ordinances!in!Kent!currently!don’t!allow!for!anything!larger!
then!a!roadside!stand.!!The!ordinance!in!Alpine!says!it!must!be!mostly!on!farm,!
!
!
118!
and!the!farm!has!to!be!the!primary!use/source!of!income!with!the!farm!
market!as!secondary.!!You!can!have!a!wedding!on!the!farm!because!it’s!a!
secondary!use.!!The!Post!farm!in!Kent!has!been!having!a!lot!of!difficulty!with!that.!!
We!put!in!this!ordinance!that!special!land!uses!such!as!B!&!Bs,!paint!ball,!birthday!
parties,!etc.,!were!okay.!(LFS!farmer)!
!
!
Links#between#collective#action,##
institutional#arrangements#and#LFS#outcomes#
! Overall!there!aren’t!as!many!formal!institutional!arrangements!to!support!local!
food!development!in!Kent!County!as!there!are!organizations!working!on!these!issues!in!
civil!society.!!!These!organizations!have!so!far!been!more!successful!in!mobilizing!
resources!outside!of!government!than!altering!policies!or!programs!within!government.!!
This!may!be!in!part!because!the!most!of!the!effort!to!develop!local!food!is!occurring!in!
organizations!that!are!not!associated!with!a!government!jurisdiction.!!Interview!
participants!mentioned!problems!with!regulations!prohibiting!roadside!signs,!farm!
processing,!agritainment,!and!farmers’!markets.!!This!suggests,!again,!that!existing!land!
use!regulations!can!have!the!unintended!effect!of!inhibiting!local!food!system!
development.!!!
! Table!18!shows!the!comparison!between!LFS!farmers!and!Non‐LFS!farmers!on!
questions!from!the!landowner!survey!related!to!policy,!institutional!support!for!
agriculture,!and!collective!action.!!These!data!support!the!suggestion!by!interview!
participants!that!existing!agricultural!policies!can!hinder!local!food!development!if!not!
specifically!designed!to!promote!it.!!For!example,!a!larger!percent!of!Non‐LFS!Farmers!
perceived!a!positive!impact!from!agricultural!economic!development!policies!than!LFS!
!
!
119!
farmers.!!Only!6.8%!of!LFS!farms!in!Kent!County!perceived!a!positive!impact!from!
agricultural!economic!development!policies.!!This!suggests!that!the!existing!institutional!
arrangements!may!be!ineffective!or!too!underdeveloped!to!benefit!local!food!
producers.!!However,!none!of!the!results!for!Kent!County!were!statistically!significant.!
Table!18.!!Comparison!Between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!Farmers,!Kent!County!
!
%!LFS!Farmers!
%!Non‐LFS!
Farmers!
Perception!of!positive!impact!of!agriculture!economic!
development!policies!
6.8!
17.2!
Perception!of!support!for!farming!
!
!
County!government!
7.1!
10.5!
City!government!
8.9!
14.3!
Economic!development!organizations!
11.6!
14.3!
Environmental!organizations!
27.9!
17.9!
General!public!
28.9!
20.7!
Farm!Bureau!
69.8!
71.4!
Has!membership!in!group!
!
!
A!farm!organization!(Farm!Bureau,!Grange,!Farmers’!
Union,!etc.)!
71.7!
73.7!
A!farm!commodity!group!
35.7!
35.7!
Any!other!type!of!local!farm‐related!association!
38.1!
28.0!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
!
! LFS!farmers!were!less!likely!to!perceive!that!the!county!and!city!governments!
were!supportive!of!farming.!!Smaller!percentages!of!LFS!farmers!perceived!that!the!
county!and!city!governments!and!economic!development!organizations!were!supportive!
of!farming.!!This!supports!the!claim!that!public!institutions!may!be!less!effective!or!less!
developed!to!further!the!development!of!the!local!food!system.!!!
! Further,!LFS!farmers!were!more!likely!than!Non‐LFS!farmers!to!perceive!as!
supportive!organizations!outside!of!the!public!sector!including!the!Farm!Bureau,!
!
!
120!
environmental!organizations,!and!the!public.!!This!also!supports!the!claim!that!most!
of!the!support!for!local!food!system!development!is!coming!from!outside!the!public!
sector.!!Additionally,!it!suggests!that!civil!society!groups!support!local!food!more!than!
they!support!traditional!farming!and!that!the!needs!of!these!two!groups!are!distinct.!
! Finally,!to!further!support!the!claim!that!civil!society!groups!are!supporting!local!
food!development!more!than!traditional!agriculture!and!that!most!of!the!local!food!
development!activity!is!occurring!in!the!civil!society!sector,!38.1%!of!LFS!farmers!in!Kent!
County!belong!to!a!local!farm!group!compared!to!28%!of!Non‐LFS!Farmers.!!!
!
Frederick!County,!Maryland!
!Frederick!County,!Maryland!is!located!in!the!Mid‐Atlantic!East.!!The!county!was!
settled!in!the!mid‐1700s!by!German!and!English!settlers!and!served!as!a!major!
crossroads!during!the!colonial!and!civil!war!periods.!!Frederick!became!an!important!
agricultural,!mining!and!market!center!during!the!1900s.!!Today,!Frederick!County!is!
home!to!a!large!biotechnology!industry!and!various!government‐related!firms.!!The!
culture!is!politically!liberal!and!there!is!strong!support!for!government!participation!in!
local!affairs.!!Maryland!is!well!known!for!many!state!policies!and!programs!for!
controlling!growth,!preserving!farmland!and!other!progressive!regulations.!!Local!
government!is!also!well!developed!and!retains!significant!decision‐making!control!over!
local!land!and!agriculture.!!Earlier!periods!of!land!use!collective!action!have!resulted!in!a!
decline!in!traditional!agricultural!interests!as!newer!exurban!residents!with!
preservationist!and!post‐productivist!values!have!gained!significant!control!in!the!public!
!
!
121!
sector.!!As!a!result!of!this!politically!liberal!environment,!a!clear!role!for!government!
has!been!established!for!local!food!development.!
!
Geography#
! Frederick!County!is!located!in!the!northwest!part!of!Maryland!bordering!
Pennsylvania!to!the!north.!!Unlike!Cache!and!Kent!counties,!Frederick!is!part!of!a!
metropolitan!area!that!is!not!within!the!county:!the!Washington‐Baltimore!metro!area.!!
Frederick!County!is!a!crossroads!for!the!surrounding!cities!and!has!several!major!
interstate!highways!running!through!including!Interstate!70,!Interstate!270,!US!Route!
270,!and!US!Route!40.!!Frederick!is!approximately!48!miles!northwest!of!Washington,!
DC!and!48!miles!west!of!Baltimore.!!There!are!667!square!miles!in!the!county,!making!it!
the!largest!county!in!Maryland.!!According!to!NRI!data,!36.2%!of!the!land!in!Frederick!is!
in!cropland,!29.8%!is!in!forest,!15.6%!is!in!pastureland,!and!14%!is!in!developed!uses!
(National!Resource!Inventory!2002).!
!
Demographics#
#The!population!in!Frederick!County!in!2007!was!224,705.!!The!population!density!
is!295!people!per!square!mile!and!the!non‐urban!population!density!is!51!people!per!
square!mile.!!There!are!two!cities,!nine!towns,!and!one!village!in!Frederick!County!and!
about!71%!of!the!population!resides!in!the!urbanized!areas.!!The!population!grew!30.2%!
in!the!1990s!with!a!yearly!average!of!2.7%,!which!is!the!same!as!in!Cache!County!during!
this!period.!!Population!growth!continued!at!a!slightly!slower!rate!from!2000!to!2007!at!
!
!
122!
15.1%!with!an!annual!average!of!2%.!!!
!
Income#
#Frederick!County!today!is!composed!of!many!well‐educated!professionals!most!
of!whom!work!or!have!worked!for!the!government!and!commute!to!the!Washington,!DC!
metro!area.!!The!income!characteristics!of!Fredrick!County!residents!are!greater!than!
the!national!average.!!Table!19!shows!the!socioeconomic!profile!of!Fredrick!County!
residents.!!The!median!income!in!2000!was!$60,276,!which!was!significantly!greater!
than!the!national!average.!!The!poverty!rate!was!4.5%!and!the!percent!of!households!
with!incomes!over!$100,000!was!22.9%!in!2000.!!These!data!suggest!that!Frederick!
County!has!the!potential!for!strong!demand!of!local!foods.!
Table!19.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Frederick!County!Residents!
Income!Characteristics!
Median!Income!($)!
60,276!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
4.5!
Percent!of!Households!with!Incomes!over!$100,000!
22.9!
Source:#US!Census!2000!
!
!
Economy#
#The!federal!government,!specifically!Fort!Detrick,!is!the!major!employer!in!
Frederick!County.!!Outside!of!the!government,!the!sectors!that!employ!the!majority!of!
people!in!the!county!include!the!education,!health!and!social!services!(18.4%),!
professional,!scientific,!management,!administrative!and!waste!management!services!
!
!
123!
(12.7%),!retail!(11.6%),!and!construction!(10.1%).!!Agriculture!employs!1.4%!of!the!
population!and!0.4%!claim!farming!as!their!occupation.!!Frederick!County!is!also!actively!
developing!a!science!and!technology!sector!with!the!intention!of!building!off!of!the!
government!activities!in!the!area,!according!the!Director!of!Economic!Development!for!
the!county.!!!This!is!occurring!along!the!I‐270!corridor,!which!connects!Washington,!DC!
to!Frederick!County!(Bureau!of!Labor!Statistics!2007).!
!
Agriculture#
! Table!20!shows!the!distribution!of!commodities!for!Frederick!County!by!sales!and!
number!of!farms.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!most!farms!in!
Frederick!County!are!raising!forage!(58.8%),!cattle!(33.8%),!wheat,!sorghum,!barley,!and!
oats!(21.6%),!and!corn!(17.3%).!!The!majority!of!sales!are!from!dairy!(40.6%),!followed!
by!grains,!oilseed!and!beans!(14%),!and!cattle!and!calves!(11.8%).!!Although!a!large!
percentage!of!sales!come!from!dairy!only!a!small!percentage!of!farms!have!dairies!
(9.7%).!!!
! The!Census!of!Agriculture!also!classifies!Frederick!County!farms!into!a!range!of!
types!based!on!farm!size!and!principle!occupation!of!the!operator.!!The!results!suggest!
that!the!majority!of!farms!are!small!family!and!hobby!farms,!which!are!thought!to!be!
compatible!with!the!emergence!of!local!food!systems.!!Table!21!shows!the!distribution!
of!farm!types!by!number!of!farms!and!acres!of!farmland.!!Approximately!three‐fourths!
of!farms!are!small!farms,!which!manage!just!under!half!of!farmland!acres!in!the!county.!!
!
!
124!
Table!20.!!Top!Commodities!by!Sales!and!Number!of!Farms,!Frederick!County!
!
Percent!of!County!Farm!
Sales!
Percent!of!County!
Farms!Raising!
Cattle!and!calves!
11.8!
33.8!
Dairy!
40.6!
9.7!
Nursery!&!Greenhouse!
6.2!
4.1!
Grain,!Oilseed!and!Beans!
14.1!
N/A!
Forage!
N/A!
58.8!
Combine!Acres!for!Wheat,!Sorghum,!Barley!
and!Oats!
N/A!
21.6!
Corn!(grain!and!silage)!
N/A!
17.3!
Note:#N/A!=!not!available#
Source:!US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
Table!21.!!Distribution!of!Farm!Types!by!Number!of!Farms!and!Acres!of!Farmland!
!
%!Farms!
%!Acres!
Small!Family!Farms!(Sales!<!$250,000)!
!
!
Limited!resource!!
12.6!
6.7!
!Retirement!!
20.5!
10.7!
!Residential/lifestyle!!
35.9!
16.5!
!Higher!sales!!
4.7!
12.2!
Total!small!
73.6!
46.1!
Large!Family!Farms!(Sales!$250,000+)!!
!
!
!Large!($250,000‐$499,000)!!
3.4!
12.1!
!Very!large!($500,000+)!!
3.9!
20.2!
Total!large!and!very!large!family!
7.3!
32.3!
Nonfamily!
4.7!
8.1!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
In!comparison,!the!7%!of!farms!that!are!considered!large!and!very!large!family!farms!
manage!about!a!third!of!farmland.!!About!5%of!farms!are!nonfamily!operations!and!
these!farms!operate!8%!of!county!farmland.!!!
! The!agricultural!sector!of!Frederick!County!can!be!classified!as!de‐intensifying!
from!1987!to!1997!and!stable!from!1997!to!2007.!!Most!recently!farm!numbers!and!
farm!acreages!have!been!almost!stable,!while!farm!sales!increased!from!$101!million!in!
!
!
125!
1997!and!$127!million!in!2007,!resulting!in!growth!in!average!sales!per!acre!of!
farmland!from!$464!to!$629!over!this!period.!!!
! Frederick!County!has!been!known!for!its!dairies!and!is!the!number!one!producer!
of!milk!in!the!state,!but!there!are!many!indications!that!this!industry!is!in!decline.!!The!
percent!of!farm!sales!coming!from!dairy!products!in!the!county!declined!from!51.7%!in!
2002!to!40.6%!in!2007,!while!dairy!farms!as!a!percent!of!all!farms!declined!in!that!same!
period!from!13.6%!to!9.7%.!!Some!dairy!farms!have!intensified!production!by!increasing!
the!number!of!cows!per!acre,!while!others!have!switched!to!other!crops!or!livestock.!!
This!is!supported!by!data!from!interviews!and!the!landowner!survey.!!Several!interview!
participants!talked!about!the!loss!of!dairy!farms!in!the!county,!but!noted!that!some!
were!intensifying!production!by!expanding!milk!parlor!facilities,!building!new!barns,!
increasing!the!number!of!cows,!or!adding!an!agritainment!component!on!their!farm.!!A!
local!extension!agent!noted!that,!“overall!the!number!of!dairies!are!declining!but!the!
number!of!cows!and!amount!of!milk!has!remained!stable”!(Extension!Agent).!!!
! These!trends!are!consistent!with!results!from!the!landowner!survey.!!Table!22!
shows!the!percent!of!farmers!in!Frederick!County!using!intensification,!growth,!decline!
and!de‐intensification!strategies.!!About!63.9%!of!respondents!indicated!that!they!were!
involved!in!some!kind!of!intensification!strategy,!while!just!25%!indicated!they!were!
involved!in!some!kind!of!de‐intensification!or!decline!strategy.!!This!supports!the!claim!
by!interview!participants!that!while!some!farms!were!intensifying!production!others!
were!deintensifying!or!leaving!farming!which!may!have!resulted!in!the!almost!stable!
!
!
126!
numbers!of!cows,!total!farms,!land!in!farms,!and!milk.!!Almost!a!third!of!farmers!
have!shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!which!could!
contribute!to!the!development!of!the!local!food!system!as!some!farmers!shift!to!higher!
value!crops!to!sell!the!growing!local!population.!
!
Table!22.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Using!Adaptation!Strategies,!Frederick!County!!
!
Percent!of!Farms!!
Indicators!of!De‐intensification!
!
Decreased!capital!investment!in!buildings!
0.0!
Decreased!investment!in!equipment!
16.0!
Increased!land!in!conservation!programs!
15.4!
Decreased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
11.1!
Idled!or!left!fallow!some!farmland!
15.6!
Used!any!de‐intensification!strategy!
25.0!
Indicators!of!Decline!
!
Decreased!farmland!owned!
4.0!
Decreased!farmland!rented!
23.5!
Decreased!livestock!sold!
11.1!
Decreased!value!of!gross!sales!
17.4!
Sold!land!for!nonfarm!development!
4.0!
Used!any!decline!strategy!
23.5!
Indicators!of!Growth!
!
Increased!farmland!owned!
0.0!
Increased!farmland!rented!
17.6!
Increased!livestock!sold!
22.2!
Increased!value!of!total!gross!sales!
13.0!
Used!any!growth!strategy!
16.7!
Indicators!of!Intensification!
!
Increased!capital!investment!in!farm!buildings!
40.7!
Increased!investment!in!farm!equipment!
44.0!
Decreased!land!in!conservation!programs!
0.0!
Increased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
0.0!
Shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!
29.0!
Used!any!intensification!strategy!
63.9!
#Source:#Landowner!Survey!
#
#
!
!
127!
Land#use,#regulation,#and#development#
! As!noted!above,!Frederick!County!has!maintained!an!almost!stable!amount!of!
farms!and!land!in!farms!from!1997!until!2007.!!This!is!interesting!considering!the!
population!growth!over!the!last!two!decades,!the!proximity!of!Frederick!to!several!large!
metropolitan!areas,!the!well‐developed!road!network,!and!the!very!large!population.!!
The!population!for!the!entire!metropolitan!area!in!2000!was!more!than!4.7!million.!!Of!
all!the!case!study!counties,!Frederick!has!the!most!land!use!and!farmland!preservation!
regulations.!!The!only!exception!is!Yamhill!County,!which!has!fewer!local!regulations!and!
preservation!programs,!but!much!more!restrictive!state‐level!control.!!Frederick!is!a!
close!second!in!terms!of!restrictiveness,!but!most!of!their!preservation!efforts!are!
incentive‐based!and!voluntary.!!!
! Land!preservation!began!in!the!late!1970s!with!the!initiation!of!the!state!
farmland!preservation!program!and!stricter!agricultural!zoning!in!the!county.!!The!
Maryland!Agricultural!Land!Preservation!Foundation!(MALPF)!was!established!by!the!
Maryland!General!Assembly!in!1977!and!is!part!of!the!Maryland!Department!of!
Agriculture.!!The!foundation!uses!state!and!county!funds!to!purchase!agricultural!
preservation!easements!that!restrict!development!in!perpetuity.!!Also!during!this!period!
the!county!adopted!zoning!ordinances!and!incorporated!guidelines!for!the!protection!of!
the!rural!character!of!the!county!into!the!comprehensive!plan.!!The!agricultural!cluster!
development!ordinance!was!first!adopted!in!1976.!!This!stated!that!any!agriculturally!
zoned!land!that!existed!as!of!1976!was!entitled!to!three!development!rights!plus!the!
!
!
128!
remainder!lot.!!Depending!on!the!size!of!the!farm,!additional!development!rights!
may!be!given!if!the!lots!are!clustered.!!Cluster!rights!are!determined!by!the!size!of!the!
farm.!
! In!the!1980s!Frederick!County!developed!the!critical!farms!program.!!This!
program!functions!as!an!enhancement!to!the!state!program!and!guarantees!a!minimum!
easement!value!for!farms!that!are!being!transferred.!!This!program!provides!farmers!the!
capital!to!purchase!farmland.!!The!farmer!has!a!five‐year!period!to!sell!the!easement!to!
the!state!at!which!time!the!county’s!funds!are!repaid.!!!
! In!1997!Frederick!County!developed!a!Rural!Legacy!Program,!which!protects!
large!contiguous!areas!of!cultural,!agricultural!or!natural!significance.!!This!program!is!
funded!by!state!grants.!!In!1998,!the!county!adopted!the!adequate!public!facilities!
ordinance.!!This!required!that!infrastructure!such!as!sewage,!roads!and!electric!lines,!be!
in!place!before!the!planning!commission!approved!development!proposals.!!!
! In!2001,!the!county!adopted!a!forest!resource!ordinance,!which!limited!
development!in!areas!of!the!county!designated!as!important!for!conservation!of!habitat!
and!rural!resources.!!In!2002!Frederick!County!developed!an!installment!purchase!
program!for!purchasing!easements!through!bonds!that!mature!over!the!period!of!10!to!
20!years.!!At!the!end!of!the!term!the!easement!value!goes!to!the!farmer.!
! Although!the!policy!environment!is!rich!and!has!been!successful!at!preserving!
farmland,!it!is!not!without!conflict.!!According!to!interview!participants,!county!plans!
and!zoning!regulations!change!frequently!depending!on!the!mood!of!the!county!
!
!
129!
decision‐makers!and!the!status!of!campaign!contributions.!!!
The!county!swings!back!and!forth!from!slow!growth!to!pro‐!growth!and!property!
rights.!!If!you!ask!for!a!change!from!agriculture!to!another!zone!during!a!regional!
plan!update,!it!will!probably!be!granted.!!Otherwise,!the!board!votes!on!rezoning!
one!property!at!a!time.!!Campaign!contributions!happen!to!make!rezones!easier.!
(County!Commissioner)!!!
!
! Interview!participants!also!noted!that!farmland!preservation!programs!often!
save!farmland!but!not!farming.!!Several!interview!participants!commented!that!the!
preservation!programs!were!beneficial!for!an!earlier!generation!of!farmers!but!do!not!
do!enough!to!help!new!farmers!buy!land.!!Many!commented!that!the!existing!programs!
help!farmers!that!are!close!to!retirement!but!not!active!farmers!that!want!to!enter!into!
or!expand!production.!!!
The!County!is!preserving!open!space.!!They!think!they!are!preserving!farmland.!!
There!are!probably!enough!of!those!people!that!have!agricultural!preservation!
easements.!!Usually!when!people!do!agriculture!preservation!it!is!their!last!bet.!!
They!can’t!make!enough.!!They’re!near!retirement.!!I!don’t!know!any!farmer!who!
is!making!money!who!is!going!to!the!county!to!put!their!land!in!agricultural!
preservation.!(Dairy!Farmer)!!!
!
! Participants!also!suggested!that!the!regulations!are!so!restrictive!that!they!limit!
farmers’!opportunities!to!divide!and!develop!small!plots!of!their!land,!which!is!a!strategy!
many!have!used!in!the!past!to!generate!capital!for!farm!expansion.!!Another!noted!that!
the!existing!programs!and!regulations!often!limit!diversification!and!new!forms!of!
agriculture!by!prohibiting!on‐farm!processing!and!sales.!!!These!comments!from!
interview!participants!suggest!that!restrictive!policies!are!not!a!one‐size‐fits‐all!solution!
to!agricultural!changes,!but!can!have!unintended!consequences!for!farmers!and!actually!
generate!political!backlash!that!result!in!contrary!ideological!interests!gaining!control!of!
!
!
130!
land!use!decision‐making.!
#
Local#food#system#activity#
! While!most!of!the!counties!had!some!local!food!systems!presence,!Frederick!
County!had!the!largest!number!of!local!food!system!market!outlets.!!There!were!18!
CSAs!and!eight!farmers’!markets!within!Frederick!County!(Local!Harvest!2009),!and!
these!were!all!publicized!through!a!central!county!website!developed!and!operated!by!
the!county!economic!development!office.!!!In!addition,!Frederick!had!numerous!farm!
stands!and!agritainment!enterprises.!!And!while!there!were!no!institutional!buying!
programs!identified!in!Frederick!County,!there!is!state!legislation!permitting!farm‐to‐
school!programs!and!two!of!the!neighboring!counties!had!farm‐to‐school!programs,!
which!were!supplied!by!Frederick!County!farmers.!!!
! The!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!local!food!system!activity!is!strong!and!
growing.!!The!2007!Agricultural!Census!reported!158!farms!with!direct!sales,!which!was!
11%!of!all!farms.!!In!addition,!twelve!farms!reported!marketing!through!a!CSA.!!Data!
from!the!landowner!survey!also!show!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!the!local!food!
system.!!Table!23!shows!the!proportion!of!farmers!in!the!sample!who!participate!in!the!
local!food!system.!!According!to!these!data!15.6%!of!farmers!sell!directly!to!consumers.!!
Another!6.3%!sell!through!a!farmers’!market!or!CSA,!and!6.3%!sell!to!local!institutions!or!
businesses.!!Overall,!20.7%!of!local!farm!participate!in!at!least!one!of!these!LFS!
marketing!channels.!
! Results!also!show!that!some!farmers!have!made!changes!or!intend!to!make!
!
!
131!
changes!specifically!to!access!local!markets.!!For!example,!10.5%!of!farmers!have!
increased!direct!sales!over!the!last!five!years,!and!10%!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!
over!the!next!five!years.!!In!addition,!9.1%!have!made!changes!to!marketing!in!the!last!
five!years!to!increase!access!to!local!markets.!!Finally,!3.7%!of!farmers!have!made!
change!to!their!crops!or!livestock!to!increase!their!access!to!local!markets.!!!
!
Table!23.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System,!Frederick!County!
!
Percent!of!Farmers!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
15.6!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
6.3!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
6.3!
Uses!any!of!these!three!
20.7!
!
!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
Increased!direct!sales!
10.5!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!local!customers!!
9.1!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!customers!
3.7!
!
!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!5!years!
10.0!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
#
! Finally!data!on!the!scale!of!direct!sales!reported!in!the!Agricultural!Census!
suggest!that!Frederick’s!local!food!system!is!quite!robust.!!Direct!farm!sales!in!the!
county!for!2007!were!a!little!over!2.5!million!dollars.!!Direct!sales!per!capita!were!$11.40!
per!person.!!And!the!percent!of!sales!from!direct!sales!was!2.02%!(five!times!the!
national!average).!
!
Local#food#system#collective#action#
Our!research!uncovered!no!purely!civil!society!groups!in!Frederick!County!that!
were!dedicated!to!local!food!development.!!There!are!several!public!sector!
!
!
132!
organizations!in!Frederick!County!that!actively!work!with!the!public!and!private!
sectors!to!facilitate!local!food!development,!but!these!will!be!addressed!in!the!section!
on!institutional!arrangements!below.!!There!are!also!a!number!of!environmental!and!
land!use!organizations!in!the!county,!but!these!are!mostly!focused!on!environmental!
and!land‐use!issues!and!in!field!visits,!their!representatives!did!not!draw!parallels!
between!these!goals!and!local!food!systems!issues.!
There!are!two!state‐level!civil!society!groups!that!work!on!local!food!policy!and!
local!food!development.!!The!Maryland!Independent!Consumers!and!Farmers!
Association!(MICFA)!is!a!producers!group!that!advocates!for!policy!changes!at!the!state‐
level!that!affect!local!food!development.!!Also,!the!Maryland!Direct!Farm!Market!
Association!(MDFMA)!publicizes!lists!of!farms!that!offer!direct!sales!through!county!
extension,!libraries!and!other!public!facilities!across!the!state.!!There!is!also!the!North!
American!Farmers’!Direct!Marketing!Association!(NAFDMA),!which!some!interview!
participants!mentioned,!but!this!is!a!national!group!and!does!not!work!on!local!issues.!
There!seems!to!be!little!formal!local!food!collective!action!happening!outside!of!
the!public!sector.!!Most!local!food!development!is!the!result!of!coordination!between!
individual!producers!or!distributors!and!the!public!sector.!!For!example,!some!farmers!
and!the!Office!of!Economic!Development!(OED)!staff!are!working!to!develop!a!new!local!
dairy!processing!and!bottling!plant.!!!
We’ll!see!what!the!farmers!buy!into.!!Personally!I!like!an!LLC!or!new!generation!
co‐op.!!I!want!to!see!the!consumer!buy!in!with!shares!so!we!give!them!a!reason!
to!buy!the!milk.!!We!create!an!obligation!to!buy!your!own!milk.!(Agriculture!
Economic!Development!Specialist)!!!
!
!
133!
!
! Most!of!the!energy!for!this!development!is!coming!from!the!County!and!the!will!
to!organize!in!order!to!expand!the!local!food!system!appears!to!be!lacking!in!the!private!
sector.!!For!example,!the!OED!and!a!local!food!distributor!has!tried!to!develop!a!local!
institutional!buying!program!primarily!between!producers!and!restaurants,!but!without!
significant!success.!!They!report!that!farmers!often!bypass!the!distributor!and!sell!to!
restaurants!directly.!!Restaurants!have!complained!that!the!supply!of!local!produce!is!
not!consistent!enough!to!make!menu!decisions.!!Acting!independently,!some!producers!
have!developed!their!own!LFS!niche!based!on!a!strategy!of!diversified!production!and!
are!unwilling!to!increase!their!production!of!produce!to!supply!institutions.!!In!this!case,!
the!lack!of!commitment!by!producers!and!buyers!in!the!private!sector!has!limited!the!
expansion!of!local!food!markets!regardless!of!institutional!support!from!the!County.!
! One!participant!said!that!his!local!food!customer!network!mostly!grows!through!
his!own!advertising!efforts!or!word!of!mouth.!!LFS!producers!talked!about!working!
independently!with!businesses,!institutions!or!consumers,!and!collaborating!with!the!
Office!of!Economic!Development.!!Some!local!producers!are!members!of!the!state!local!
food!group,!NAFMDA,!but!most!said!they!don’t!belong!to!any!formal!group!in!the!
county.!!Producers!consistently!said!that!they!network!informally!or!work!alone,!but!
that!they!are!collaborative!rather!than!competitive!when!they!do!work!with!each!other.!
There!are!five!farms!in!the!area.!!We!are!informal.!!We!used!to!have!meetings.!!
We!stopped.!!We!send!each!other!members.!!We!see!each!other!at!the!common!
market.!!We!used!to!have!a!lot!of!meetings!when!the!USDA!started!with!their!
organic!standards,!to!discuss!how!we!would!handle!them.!!There!would!be!a!long!
list!to!discuss!if!we!had!time.!!With!the!high!demand!(for!local!food)!our!
!
!
134!
relationship!is!about!cooperation!not!competition.!(CSA!Farmer)!
!
Overall,!there!is!little!evidence!that!producers!are!organized!and!acting!collectively!at!
the!county‐level!to!expand!the!local!food!system.!!In!the!absence!of!local!food!groups,!
there!is!little!evidence!of!resource!mobilization!or!of!efforts!to!frame!local!food!as!a!
community!issue.!!!
#
Local#food#system#institutional#arrangements#
By!contrast,!Frederick!County!has!a!robust!institutional!infrastructure!and!many!
programs!and!policies!specific!to!local!food!system!development.!!There!is!a!public!
program!for!farmers’!market!development,!a!local!ordinance!for!on‐farm!sales!and!
processing,!several!local!food!directories!published!by!the!Office!of!Economic!
Development!in!hard!copy!and!on!the!Internet,!a!county‐level!direct!marketing!
program,!a!local!“Homegrown”!label!and!buy!local!campaign,!and!an!institutional!buying!
program.!!Frederick!also!has!an!agricultural!economic!development!staff!person!who!
actively!works!with!farmers!to!create!opportunities!for!local!food!markets.!!Frederick!
also!has!programs!for!local!processing!of!value‐added!products!and!alternative!
production!techniques!through!Extension,!as!well!as,!an!agritourism!promotion!program!
through!the!Frederick!County!Office!of!Economic!Development.!!!
Existing!public!sector!organizations!and!staff!generate!most!of!the!local!food!
development!activity.!!The!Frederick!County!Office!of!Economic!Development!has!a!
dedicated!staff!member!working!on!agricultural!economic!development!and!15%!of!the!
OED!budget!is!dedicated!to!agriculture!economic!development.!!In!addition,!this!office!
!
!
135!
sponsors!the!Agricultural!Council,!which!works!on!both!market!and!policy!matters!
related!to!agriculture.!!Also,!the!Maryland!Agricultural!Extension!Service!sponsors!Grow!
It!Eat!It:!Maryland’s!Food!Gardening!Network!with!classes!in!Frederick!for!small‐scale!
producers!and!hobby!gardeners!and!farmers.!!!
Frederick!County!has!successfully!developed!local!funds!and!accessed!state!and!
federal!resources!for!both!farmland!preservation!and!agricultural!economic!
development.!!!For!example,!15%!of!the!county!economic!development!budget!is!
dedicated!to!agricultural!development!as!mentioned!above.!!The!Tourism!Council!has!
invested!in!promotional!material!such!as!the!farm!guide.!!The!local!extension!office!also!
has!a!few!staff!members!who!specialize!in!and!offer!classes!for!small‐scale!local!food!
production.!!In!addition,!Frederick!County!has!matched!available!state!funds!for!local!
farmland!preservation!and!conservation!programs.!!!
! Most!of!the!policies!and!programs,!however,!are!developed!through!the!OED!
and!the!efforts!of!the!Agriculture!Economic!Development!Specialist.!!The!Agriculture!
Economic!Strategic!Plan,!created!by!the!OED,!serves!as!the!guiding!policy!document!for!
LFS!development.!!The!following!quote!explains!how!this!document!guides!LFS!
development.!
Everything!you!see!we!do!comes!out!of!the!analysis!of!the!Agriculture!Strategic!
Plan.!!Ag!policy!is!out!of!a!SWAT!analysis.!!The!priorities!and!goals!of!the!group!
haven’t!changed.!!Things!that!have!changed!are!the!areas!we!want!to!address!
within!the!goal.!!We’ve!taken!on!five!priorities!with!specific!goals!and!did!specific!
objective!for!those!goals.!(Agriculture!Economic!Development!Specialist)!!!
!
This!plan!is!the!starting!point!for!most!of!the!active!programs!and!policies!related!to!
!
!
136!
local!foods!in!Frederick!County.!The!plan!describes!the!general!goals!for!LFS!
development,!which!the!AEDS!and!Agriculture!Business!Council!has!further!developed!
into!measurable!objectives,!identified!sources!of!funding,!developed!timelines,!and!
assigned!responsibilities.!!No!other!case!study!county!has!a!clearly!defined!plan!to!guide!
LFS!development.!
! Although!Frederick!has!a!significant!amount!of!LFS!policies!and!programs,!there!
are!still!land!use!regulations!that!hinder!LFS!development.!!One!participant!said!that!
some!zoning!in!Frederick!has!prevented!farmers!from!being!able!to!process!in!farm!
zones.!!!
Hedge!Apples,!which!is!run!by!a!foundation!produces!apples.!!They!tried!to!
expand!their!operation!but!ran!into!trouble!with!the!county!zoning!regulations!
regarding!buildings!and!processing!on!farm‐zoned!land.!!The!county!board!was!
initially!unhelpful.!!There!was!a!lack!of!understanding!by!decision‐makers!of!the!
situation.!!But!the!planning!board!finally!approved!after!one!key!planning!board!
member!led!the!effort!to!get!the!variance.!(Agriculture!Reporter)!!
!
! In!addition,!there!is!conflict!between!some!public!health!regulations!that!are!
hindering!local!food,!while!others!support!its!development.!!For!example,!there!is!a!new!
regulation!requiring!licensure!to!sell!canned!goods!at!local!markets.!!Frederick!County!
sponsors!a!class!for!$150!per!year!for!food!preservation!licensure,!but!some!interview!
participants!remarked!that!the!cost!and!time!to!get!licensure!is!enough!to!inhibit!them!
from!selling!canned!goods.!!In!another!instance,!an!interview!participant!said!that!the!
health!department!had!recently!changed!the!regulations!allowing!more!flexibility!in!
local!processing.!
!
!
!
137!
! Despite!some!conflict,!however,!it!seems!that!the!public!sector!in!Frederick!
County!is!doing!everything!it!can!to!develop!local!food.!!Interviewees!seemed!informed!
about!LFS!activities!and!the!policies!and!programs!that!exist!to!support!it.!!There!is!a!
dedicated!staff!person!who!has!had!significant!success!in!developing!programs!and!
accessing!resources.!!There!is!the!Agriculture!Business!Council!that!has!a!variety!of!
members!from!farm!and!non‐farm!backgrounds!actively!developing!policy!to!facilitate!
LFS!development.!!There!is!a!policy!document!that!clearly!defines!the!goals!of!LFS!
programs!and!is!supported!by!important!decision!makers!in!the!county.!!
! An!important!function!of!the!Agriculture!Economic!Development!Specialist!(AEDS)!
is!as!the!link!between!producers!and!various!kinds!of!consumers.!!The!AEDS!does!a!lot!of!
the!things!that!civil!society!groups!are!doing!in!Kent!County.!!The!AEDS!connects!
producers!with!chefs,!tracks!volumes!of!food!that!need!to!be!sold!each!week,!facilitates!
the!communication!between!producers!and!buyers!through!email,!etc.!!The!AEDS’s!and!
the!OED’s!central!role!in!LFS!development!was!echoed!by!most!of!the!interview!
participants.!!For!example,!there!were!several!mentions!of!regulations!that!have!
hindered!local!food!activity,!but!the!OED!staff!was!aware!of!the!problem!and!actively!
working!to!resolve!it!to!the!benefit!of!the!LFS!producer.!!!
!
Links#between#collective#action,#
institutional#arrangements#and#LFS#outcomes#
! In!Frederick!County,!some!of!the!institutional!support!for!local!food!system!
development!may!be!the!result!of!an!earlier!period!of!collective!action!for!land!use!
!
!
138!
reform,!growth!control!and!farmland!preservation.!!As!those!with!interest!in!land!
preservation!gained!some!political!power!beginning!in!the!late!1970s,!traditional!
agricultural!interests!lost!some!of!their!influence!over!land!use!decision‐making!in!the!
county.!!This!shift!has!left!room!for!other!interests,!including!local!food!systems,!to!
become!part!of!the!public!agenda.!!!
! A!lot!of!the!initial!institutional!development!for!local!food!occurred!as!a!result!of!
an!agriculture!task!force!that!was!formed!at!the!county!level!several!years!ago.!!This!
resulted!in!the!development!of!the!Agriculture!Business!Council,!which!was!the!impetus!
for!creating!an!Agriculture!Economic!Development!Specialist!position.!!At!least!one!
participant!suggested!that!this!all!occurred!because!the!political!climate!happened!to!be!
right!at!the!time.!!!
The!Agriculture!Business!Council!formed!five!years!ago!when!the!political!climate!
was!supportive!of!agriculture!as!part!of!economic!development!efforts!in!the!
county.!!Our!big!success!was!hiring!(the!AEDS)!out!of!Pennsylvania!about!one!year!
ago.!(Local!Civic!Leader)!!
!
! Participants!also!suggested!that!agriculture!is!considered!important!for!many!
reasons!and!by!a!diversity!of!interests.!Numerous!participants!commented!on!the!ways!
that!agriculture!is!viewed!through!a!multifunctional!lens.!!For!example,!“The!State!
recognizes!the!importance!of!the!agriculture!sector:!economically,!socially,!
environmentally”!(Beef!farmer).!!Participants!also!noted!that!the!institutional!actors!are!
part!of!a!tight!network.!!Various!public!sector!groups!and!individuals!overlap!in!their!
responsibilities!and!roles.!!Those!with!an!interest!in!LFS!development!are!also!involved!
with!farmland!preservation.!!!
!
!
139!
The!Agriculture!Business!Council!is!a!county!council!and!the!board!of!directors!
for!agriculture!programs.!!From!the!Agriculture!Business!Council!there!are!
representatives!from!the!Business!Development!Advisory!Council!which!is!the!
board!of!directors!for!Economic!development!for!the!community.!(Economic!
Development)!
!
! One!possible!consequence!of!this!tight!network!of!public!sector!actors!that!see!
the!importance!of!agriculture!as!a!multifunctional!land!use!is!that!a!diversity!of!farmers!
can!find!representation!in!the!public!sector!and!there!are!resources!for!a!large!diversity!
of!farm!types!including!LFS!farms.!
People!at!the!market!and!bigger!growers!both!meet!with!the!county!economic!
development!offices.!!They!also!represent!needs!of!small!farms.!!There’s!no!
qualitative!difference!between!small!and!large!farms.!(LFS!Farmer)!
!
! Despite!the!multifunctional!lens!of!the!public!sector!there!is!still!conflict!between!
farmland!preservation!programs!and!regulations!and!local!food!system!needs.!!For!
instance,!although!the!land!use!regulations!were!effective!at!keeping!some!land!in!
agriculture,!according!to!some!interview!participants,!land!use!regulations!also!hindered!
some!new!types!of!farming!in!the!county.!!For!example,!the!agricultural!extension!agent!
commented!that,!“planning!and!zoning!has!been!a!problem!for!some!new!types!of!
agricultural!operations,!limiting!the!construction!of!on‐farm!processing,!agritourism,!etc.!!
This!is!particularly!true!if!land!is!under!agricultural!conservation!easement”!(Extension!
Agent).!!!
! In!addition,!participants!are!unsure!if!farmland!specific!land!use!regulations!have!a!
positive!effective!on!the!agricultural!industry!beyond!providing!a!pocket!of!land!and!
money!on!which!farmers!can!depend.!!“While!agricultural!land!preservation!is!nice!and!
!
!
140!
provides!a!cash!infusion!for!farmers,!it!is!not!clear!if!it!affects!the!viability!of!
commercial!agricultural!operations”!(Extension!Agent).!!Further,!some!participants!
thought!the!farmland!preservation!programs!have!made!agricultural!land!worthless!
because!farmers!can’t!use!the!land!as!collateral!with!banks!to!get!loans!to!expand!their!
businesses.!
Frederick!doesn’t!have!an!allegiance!to!local!agriculture.!!In!1987!there!was!a!
drought.!!I!wanted!to!buy!the!farm,!but!needed!to!put!it!into!PDR.!!That’s!how!I!
got!the!farm.!!The!guy!I!bought!it!from!had!the!farm!in!PDRF.!!But!preservation!
wasn’t!worth!anything.!!When!it!first!started!I!was!the!biggest!advocate.!!Now!I!
hate!it!because!the!banks!won’t!use!the!land!as!collateral!as!a!farm,!because!I!
can’t!sell!the!land.!(LFS!Farmer)!
!
! Data!from!the!landowner!survey!also!support!the!suggestion!that!land!use!
regulations!and!preservation!programs!created!and!managed!by!the!county!planning!
office!are!not!seen!as!supportive!by!local!food!system!farmers.!!Table!24!shows!the!
comparison!between!LFS!farmers!and!Non‐LFS!farmers!on!questions!from!the!
landowner!survey!related!to!policy,!institutional!support!for!agriculture,!and!collective!
action.!!Only!24%!of!LFS!farmers!perceived!that!the!County!was!supportive!of!farming,!
compared!to!30.6%!of!Non‐LFS!farmers.!!This!supports!the!idea!that!the!land!use!
regulations!and!programs!that!are!operated!by!the!County!government!may!have!
negative!impacts!on!local!food!farmers.!!!
! If!local!food!system!activities!can!be!negatively!affected!by!land!use!regulations,!
then!this!suggests!that!LFS!activities!may!require!special!consideration!in!the!course!of!
typical!land!use!planning!and!specific!policies!and!programs!that!help!facilitate!LFS!
development.!!This!is!not!the!case!for!agricultural!economic!development!policies!and!
!
!
141!
programs!however.!!Half!of!LFS!farmers!compared!to!34.8%!on!non‐LFS!Farmers!!
Table!24.!!Comparison!Between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!Farmers,!Frederick!County!
!
%!LFS!Farmers!
%!Non‐LFS!Farmers!
Perception!of!positive!impact!of!agriculture!
economic!development!policies!
50!
34.8!
Perception!of!support!for!farming!
!
!
County!government!
24.0!
30.6!
City!government!
12.0!
10.4!
Economic!development!organizations!
40.0!
22.9!
Environmental!organizations!
16.0!
16.3!
General!public!
32.0!
16.3!
Farm!Bureau!
64.0!
79.6!
Has!membership!in!group!
!
!
A!farm!organization!(Farm!Bureau,!Grange,!
Farmers’!Union,!etc.)!
84.0!
62.0!
A!farm!commodity!group!
45.8!
25.5!
Any!other!type!of!local!farm‐related!association!
63.6*!
31.9!
Note:#*!Significant!at!the!.01!level!using!the!Fisher’s!Exact!test#
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
!
perceived!a!positive!impact!from!local!agricultural!economic!development!policies.!!This!
again!suggests!that!LFS!policies!and!programs!may!be!more!essential!for!LFS!
development!in!a!rigorous!land!use!and!farmland!policy!climate.!!This!is!also!supported!
by!the!perception!by!40%!of!LFS!farmers!that!economic!development!organizations!are!
supportive!of!farming!in!the!county.!!! !
#
Yamhill!County,!Oregon!
! Yamhill!County,!Oregon!is!located!in!the!Pacific!Northwest!in!the!Willamette!
Valley.!!The!earliest!white!inhabitants!were!involved!with!the!fur!trade!in!the!early!to!
mid‐!1800s.!!Yamhill!County!developed!as!an!agricultural!and!timber!community!and!has!
long!ranked!as!one!of!Oregon’s!most!agriculturally!productive!counties.!!Beginning!in!
!
!
142!
the!later!1960s,!new!residents!from!other!areas!in!the!west!moved!to!Yamhill!and!
began!planting!grapes!in!the!Willamette!Valley.!!Since!that!time,!the!wine!and!grape!
industry!has!really!exploded!and!raised!the!profile!of!Yamhill!and!surrounding!counties!
as!a!premier!wine!growing!region.!!This!has!attracted!new!residents!and!many!tourists.!!
The!culture!is!politically!and!socially!liberal!as!Oregon!was!one!of!the!first!states!to!enact!
comprehensive!statewide!planning!regulations!and!strict!growth!control!standards.!!!
There!has!been!a!strong!belief!among!the!controlling!majority!in!the!importance!of!state!
government!control!of!or!participation!in!land!use,!economic!development,!social!
services,!etc.!!As!such!there!has!been!much!less!local!control!of!land!use!and!agricultural!
economic!development!than!in!the!other!case!study!counties.!!In!regards!to!local!foods,!
there!are!several!state‐level!initiatives!for!sustainable!agriculture!but!much!less!local!
government!involvement!in!this!issue.!
!
Geography#
! Yamhill!County!is!located!on!the!west!side!of!the!lower!middle!part!of!the!
Willamette!Valley.!!The!Willamette!River!runs!along!the!eastern!border!of!the!county!
and!the!western!boundary!runs!within!11!miles!of!the!Pacific!Ocean!at!its!closest!point.!!
Yamhill!County!is!718!square!miles.!!According!to!NRI!data,!44%!of!the!land!is!in!forest,!
25.6%!is!in!cropland,!7.7%!is!in!pastureland,!and!4.6%!is!in!developed!uses!(National!
Resource!Inventory!2002).!!The!landscape!is!a!series!of!valleys!bordered!by!rolling!hills!
creating!a!very!pastoral!image.!
!
!
!
143!
Demographic#
! As!of!2007,!the!population!of!Yamhill!was!96,573.!!The!majority,!about!70%!of!
the!residents!live!in!urbanized!areas.!!The!density!of!population!outside!the!urbanized!
area!is!37!people!per!square!mile,!and!the!overall!population!density!is!119!people!per!
square!mile.!!There!are!a!total!of!ten!incorporated!cities,!and!21!unincorporated!areas!in!
Yamhill!County.!!Yamhill!is!part!of!the!Portland!metropolitan!area,!which!has!a!
population!of!a!little!more!than!1.9!million.!!The!county!population!grew!in!the!1990s!a!
total!of!29.7%!with!an!annual!average!rate!of!2.6%.!!Population!growth!slowed!
somewhat!between!2000!and!2007!with!a!total!growth!of!13.6%!and!a!yearly!average!of!
1.8%.!!!
!
Income#
! The!income!profile!of!Yamhill!County!is!slightly!less!than!the!national!average.!!
Table!25!shows!the!socioeconomic!profile!of!residents.!!The!median!income!in!2000!was!
$44,111.!!The!poverty!rate!was!9.2%.!!The!percent!of!households!with!incomes!over!
$100,000!was!10.7%.!!These!data!suggest!that!there!is!potential!for!consumer!demand!
of!local!foods!but!perhaps!not!as!much!as!in!Frederick!County.!!!
Table!25.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Yamhill!Residents!
Income!Characteristics!
Median!Income!($)!
44,111!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
9.2!
Percent!of!Households!with!Incomes!over!$100,000!
10.7!
Source:#US!Census!2000!
!
!
144!
!
!
Economy#
#The!sectors!that!employ!the!most!people!include!manufacturing!(19.4%),!
educational,!health!and!social!services!(18.6%)!and!retail!(11.5%).!!Agriculture!employs!
about!4.5%!of!the!local!population,!and!2.8%!of!the!population!claim!farming!as!their!
occupation.!!Yamhill!has!the!largest!share!of!agricultural!employment!of!any!of!the!case!
study!counties!(Bureau!of!Labor!Statistics!2007).!!!
#
Agriculture#
! Table!26!shows!the!distribution!of!commodities!for!Yamhill!County!by!sales!and!
number!of!farms.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!majority!of!farms!
Yamhill!County!are!raising!fruits,!nuts,!and!berries!(25%),!forage!(25%),!and!cattle!
(23.7%).!!The!majority!of!sales!are!from!nursery!and!greenhouse!(43.6%)!and!fruits,!nuts!
and!berries!(18.3%).!!As!in!Kent!County,!the!strength!of!fruits,!nuts!and!berries!could!
indicate!the!potential!for!a!local!food!system!as!these!crops!tend!to!be!higher!value!and!
can!be!sold!locally.!
Table!26.!!Top!Commodities!by!Sales!and!Number!of!Farms,!Yamhill!County!
!
Percent!of!County!
Farm!Sales!
Percent!of!County!Farms!
Raising!
Cattle!and!calves!
1.8!
23.7!
Poultry!
6.2!
7.8!
Nursery!&!Greenhouse!
43.6!
6.2!
Fruits!nuts!&!berries!
18.3!
25.0!
Forage!
N/A!
25.2!
Note:#N/A=!not!available#
Source:!US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
145!
!
!
! The!Census!of!Agriculture!also!classifies!Yamhill!County!farms!into!a!range!of!types!
based!on!farm!size!and!principle!occupation!of!the!operator.!!Table!27!shows!the!
distribution!of!farm!types!by!number!of!farms!and!acres!of!farmland.!!The!results!
suggest!that!the!majority!of!farms!are!small!family!and!hobby!farms,!which!could!
indicate!the!potential!for!more!local!food!system!activity.!!More!than!three‐fourths!of!
farms!are!small!farm,!which!manage!a!little!more!than!40%!of!all!of!the!farmland!in!the!
county.!!In!comparison,!4.2%!of!farms!that!are!large!and!very!large!family!farms!manage!
about!a!third!of!the!farmland!in!the!county.!!About!7%!of!farms!are!nonfamily!farm!
businesses,!which!manage!17.5%!of!the!farmland.!!
! Yamhill!County!ranks!fifth!in!the!state!for!agricultural!production!(Oregon!
Department!of!Agriculture!2009).!The!agricultural!sector!of!Yamhill!County!can!be!
classified!as!growing!from!1987!to!1997!and!intensifying!from!1997!to!2007.!!The!most!
recent!numbers!indicate!that!the!number!of!farms!and!land!in!farms!has!decreased!
slightly!from!1997!to!2007!(2.8%!and!11.7%,!respectively),!while!there!has!been!
considerable!growth!in!sales!and!sales!per!acre!of!farmland!during!the!same!period.!!
Farm!sales!have!increased!by!28.2%!from!about!$166!million!per!year!in!1997!to!$231!
million!per!year!in!2007.!!Sales!per!acre!of!farmland!have!increased!45.2%!from!$818!
per!acre!per!year!in!1997!to!$1,535!per!acre!per!year!in!2007.!!!
!
!
146!
This!is!consistent!with!results!from!the!landowner!survey,!which!shows!that!
the!majority!of!farmers!have!made!changes!to!their!farms!in!the!last!five!years!to!
expand!or!intensify!production.!!Table!28!shows!the!percent!of!farmers!in!Yamhill!
County!using!!
Table!27.!!Distribution!of!Farm!Types!by!Number!of!Farms!and!Acres!of!Farmland!
!
%!Farms!
%!Acres!
Small!Family!Farms!(Sales!<!$250,000)!
!
!
Limited!resource!!
12.2!
5.4!
!Retirement!!
22.1!
15.8!
!Residential/lifestyle!!
42.5!
16.5!
!Higher!sales!!
1.8!
4.6!
Total!small!
78.6!
42.4!
Large!Family!Farms!(Sales!$250,000+)!!
!
!
!Large!($250,000‐$499,000)!!
1.5!
7.5!
!Very!large!($500,000+)!!
2.7!
25.7!
Total!large!and!very!large!family!
4.2!
33.2!
Nonfamily!
7.0!
17.5!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
#
intensification,!growth,!decline!and!de‐intensification!strategies.!!About!50%!of!
respondents!used!some!type!of!growth!strategy,!and!64.3%!used!an!intensification!
strategy.!!Almost!a!third!of!farmers!have!shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!
more!value!per!acre.!!As!in!the!other!case!study!counties,!some!farmers!may!shift!to!
higher!value!crops!in!order!to!develop!local!markets.!
Yamhill!is!also!the!center!of!Oregon’s!wine!industry!with!over!80!wineries!and!
200!vineyards.!!The!best!agricultural!land!was!thought!to!be!in!the!lowlands!of!the!
valleys!until!the!1980s!when!existing!and!new!agriculturalists!began!planting!the!rockier!
hill!areas!with!grape!vines.!!Since!then!the!wine!industry!has!really!exploded!in!Yamhill!
!
!
147!
County.!!It!has!the!most!area!of!any!Oregon!county!planted!in!vineyards.!!There!are!
also!six!American!Viticulture!Areas!in!Yamhill!County,!which!are!designated!wine‐grape!
areas.!!Additionally,!sales!from!fruits,!nuts!and!berries,!which!includes!grapes,!has!
increased!from!12.1%!in!2002!to!18.3%!in!2007.!!The!wine!industry!also!brings!in!!
Table!28.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Using!Adaptation!Strategies,!Yamhill!County!!
!
Percent!of!Farms!!
Indicators!of!De‐intensification!
!
Decreased!capital!investment!in!buildings!
5.0!
Decreased!investment!in!equipment!
4.9!
Increased!land!in!conservation!programs!
4.5!
Decreased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
5.4!
Idled!or!left!fallow!some!farmland!
14.6!
Used!any!de‐intensification!strategy!
19.6!
Indicators!of!Decline!
!
Decreased!farmland!owned!
0.0!
Decreased!farmland!rented!
7.7!
Decreased!livestock!sold!
16.0!
Decreased!value!of!gross!sales!
7.9!
Sold!land!for!nonfarm!development!
6.2!
Used!any!decline!strategy!
17.9!
Indicators!of!Growth!
!
Increased!farmland!owned!
16.3!
Increased!farmland!rented!
26.9!
Increased!livestock!sold!
32.0!
Increased!value!of!total!gross!sales!
60.5!
Used!any!growth!strategy!
50.0!
Indicators!of!Intensification!
!
Increased!capital!investment!in!farm!buildings!
40.0!
Increased!investment!in!farm!equipment!
63.4!
Decreased!land!in!conservation!programs!
4.5!
Increased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
16.1!
Shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!
28.0!
Used!any!intensification!strategy!
64.3!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
#
!
!
148!
considerable!tourist!dollars!aside!from!the!sales!generated!directly!from!grape!
growing!or!wine!making.!!High‐end!hotels,!restaurants!and!shopping!areas!have!been!
developed!in!response!to!the!interest!in!wine.!!!
!
Land#use,#regulation,#and#development#
! Yamhill!is!unique!among!the!case!study!counties!because!it!has!the!most!
restrictive!land!use!regulations.!!Unlike!Frederick!County,!which!has!a!mix!of!incentive!
based!policies,!voluntary!programs!and!land!use!regulations!to!preserve!farmland!and!
develop!agriculture,!Yamhill!County’s!land!use!regulations!are!mandatory!and!there!are!
very!few!voluntary!farmland!preservation!programs!as!they!are!in!Frederick!County.!!In!
addition,!land!use!regulations!are!state!mandates!and!as!such!have!removed!much!of!
the!local‐level!control!and!flexibility!of!land!use!decision‐making!that!exists!in!the!other!
case!study!counties.!!!
! The!backbone!of!the!Oregon!regulatory!environment!is!based!on!urban!growth!
boundaries!(UGB)!and!exclusive!agricultural!zoning!(EAZ).!!The!UGB!determines!the!
outer!limits!of!urban!development!around!cities!and!towns.!!The!EAZ!strictly!restricts!
land!use!to!agricultural!or!forestry!purposes!in!the!areas!zoned!as!such.!!In!1966,!a!
diversity!of!community!members!throughout!Oregon!initiated!legislation!that!mandated!
comprehensive!planning!at!the!local!level!that!must!meet!state!standards.!!The!UGB!and!
EAZ!policies!were!established!as!state!standards!shortly!after!this.!!Each!county!was!
required!to!develop!a!comprehensive!plan!that!would!guide!all!future!development,!
trumping!the!authority!of!local!zoning!regulations!and!decision‐makers.!!As!part!of!that!
!
!
149!
plan,!each!county!was!required!to!establish!UGBs!and!EAZs.!!Initially!and!for!many!
decades!following,!there!has!been!strong!public!support!for!the!state‐level!legislation.!!!
! Now,!this!appears!to!be!changing.!!With!increased!pressure!to!develop!from!
exurbanites!and!the!desire!of!some!landowners!and!farmers!to!subdivide,!sell!or!
develop!all!or!parts!of!their!land,!support!for!restrictive!land!use!policies!has!waned.!!In!
2004,!by!popular!vote,!the!state!passed!Measure!37,!which!allows!property!owners!
whose!property!value!is!reduced!by!environmental!or!other!land!use!regulations!to!
claim!compensation!from!state!or!local!government.!!If!the!government!fails!to!
compensate!a!claimant!within!two!years!of!the!claim,!the!law!allows!the!claimant!to!use!
the!property!under!the!regulations!in!place!at!the!time!the!property!was!purchased.!!For!
those!who!have!owned!land!before!the!1966!legislation,!this!has!meant!they!can!regain!
the!right!to!develop!their!land!without!government!oversight.!!!
! There!are!still!those!who!are!vehemently!opposed!to!developing!land!outside!of!
the!UGB!or!land!that!has!been!zoned!exclusively!for!agricultural!use.!!This!has!resulted!in!
heavy!involvement!and!intense!debate!in!the!media!and!other!public!forums!from!both!
sides!of!the!ideological!divide.!
!
Local#food#system#activity#
! Yamhill!is!interesting!because!it!has!only!a!moderate!amount!of!local!food!
system!activity!compared!to!the!other!case!study!counties!despite!being!the!only!county!
that!had!a!vibrant!growing!agricultural!sector.!!According!to!Internet!research,!there!
were!two!farmers!markets,!seven!CSAs,!no!institutional!buying!programs!and!several!
!
!
150!
agritainment!farms!and!farm!stands.!!According!to!interview!participants,!there!is!
really!one!main!farmers’!market!in!McMinnville!on!Saturday!mornings.!!It!was!started!in!
2001!by!a!couple!of!local!farmers!with!some!funding!from!the!McMinnville!Downtown!
Association.!!The!Downtown!Association!also!now!manages!the!market.!!The!market!
does!emphasize!producer‐only!products!and!features!a!new!local!winery!every!week!
and!in!this!way!taps!into!the!local!wine!culture.!
! According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!
the!local!food!system!consisted!of!375!farms!that!reported!direct!sales,!which!equated!
to!17.7%!of!all!farms.!!Nineteen!farms!reported!marketing!through!a!CSA.!!Data!from!the!
landowner!survey!also!show!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!the!local!food!system.!
Table!29!shows!the!proportion!of!farmers!in!the!sample!that!participate!in!the!local!food!
system.!!According!to!these!data,!16.3%!of!farmers!sell!directly!to!consumers!and!20.4%!
sell!directly!to!institutions;!much!of!this!may!be!due!to!wine!growers!selling!to!
restaurants.!!No!farmers!reported!selling!through!a!farmers’!market!or!CSA.!Overall,!
36.4%!report!using!at!least!one!of!these!three!types!of!LFS!marketing!approaches.!!!
! Results!also!show!that!farmers!have!made!or!intend!to!make!changes!to!access!
local!markets.!!About!a!third!of!farmers!have!increased!direct!selling!activity!over!the!
last!five!years.!!Roughly!half!of!Yamhill’s!farmers!expect!to!increase!sales!over!the!next!
five!years.!!In!addition,!23.4%!have!made!changes!to!their!marketing!strategies!to!access!
local!markets.!!Finally,!14.6%!of!farmers!have!made!changes!to!their!crops!or!livestock!in!
order!to!better!access!local!markets.!!!
!
!
151!
! Despite!the!number!of!farms!participating!in!direct!sales,!total!direct!farm!
sales!in!the!county!was!a!little!over!1.2!million!dollars!for!2007.!!This!places!Yamhill!
fourth!in!the!amount!of!direct!sales!compared!to!the!other!case!study!counties.!!In!
addition,!Yamhill!had!$13.12!in!direct!sales!per!capita!and!0.46%!of!total!agricultural!
sales!for!the!county!from!direct!sales.!
!
Table!29.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System,!Yamhill!County!
!
Percent!of!Farmers!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
16.3!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
0.0!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
20.4!
Uses!any!of!these!three!
36.4!
!
!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
Increased!direct!sales!
32.2!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!local!customers!!
23.4!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!customers!
14.6!
!
!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!5!years!
53.8!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
#
! The!local!food!scene!in!Yamhill!seems!to!center!on!the!wine!industry!as!people!
come!from!all!over!to!taste!and!buy!wines.!!Interview!participants!talked!about!the!
synergy!between!wine!and!local!food.!!!
There!is!this!sort!of!interesting!interplay!between!the!restaurant!culture!and!the!
wine!culture!that!has!evolved!and!has!really!led!to!most!of!the!restaurants!in!
Portland.!!It’s!a!big!part!of!their!promotion!to!buy!local!and!sustainable.!!I!see!it!as!
this!snowballing!trend!happening!right!now,!where!people!are!more!concerned!
about!where!their!food!is!coming!from!and!that!market!and!that!in!turn!suits!the!
farmer!well.!!I!think!that!that’s!going!to!be!a!positive!trend!in!the!future.!
(Winemaker)!
!
!
!
152!
Many!of!the!wineries!do!not!sell!outside!of!the!area,!and!as!a!result,!a!lot!of!the!local!
food!system!activity!revolves!around!agritourism.!!!
!
Local#food#system#collective#action#
Research!uncovered!three!civil!society!groups!working!on!local!food!issues!in!
Yamhill!County.!!Slow!Food!Yamhill,!a!local!branch!of!the!international!Slow!Food!
organization,!works!on!increasing!awareness,!availability!and!access!to!local!food.!!Most!
of!the!activities!involve!promoting!events!that!feature!local!foods!to!increase!awareness!
to!residents.!!This!group!reports!a!small!membership,!most!of!which!are!individuals!
interested!in!food!culture.!!Producers!were!not!heavily!involved!in!this!group.!!The!
second!group!is!the!Salvation!Army.!!The!only!local!food!issue!this!group!is!involved!in!is!
the!management!of!a!community!garden.!!This!group!also!does!not!include!producers.!
The!third!group!is!a!collection!of!a!few!producers,!led!by!one!LFS!farmer,!which!
organized!the!weekly!farmers’!market.!!This!was!also!the!only!example!of!successful!
resource!mobilization!related!to!local!food!systems.!!The!farmers’!market!group!was!
able!to!access!a!small!amount!of!funding!from!the!McMinnville!Downtown!Association!
to!start!the!market!several!years!ago.!!Other!than!this,!there!has!been!little!local!
collective!action!around!food,!agriculture!or!land!use!since!the!1970s’!land!use!
movement.!!!
! Individual!farming!sectors!seem!to!be!segregated!and!well!organized!around!their!
own!issues.!!This!is!especially!true!of!the!wine!industry.!!Many!participants!noted!the!
exclusivity!of!the!wine!industry.!!Said!a!planner,!“The!wine!industry!grows!off!itself”!
!
!
153!
(Planner).!!A!farmer!said,!“The!wine!people!seem!to!be!very!cliquish.!!They!are!in!
their!own!little!world!and!everyone!else!stays!away”!(Dairy!Farmer).!
We’ve!always!had!a!really!strong!advocacy!group!called!the!Oregon!Wine!
Growers.!!We’re!constantly!networking!together!on!problems.!!When!problems!
arise!we!do!reach!out.!(Winemaker)!
!
According!to!a!review!of!the!local!newspaper,!local!food!production!is!not!heavily!
featured!in!the!local!media,!except!in!relation!to!occasional!wine!and!food!events,!and!
several!mentions!of!the!community!garden!operated!by!the!Salvation!Army.!!!
! Local!Food!System!producers!say!they!do!most!of!their!own!organizing!and!work!
through!the!local!farmers’!market,!as!there!aren’t!any!local!farm!organizations!that!fit!
their!needs.!
We!are!not!involved!in!any!farm!organization!because!there!are!none!in!the!
county!that!seem!to!fit.!!We!are!members!of!Oregon!Tilthe,!a!statewide!organic!
certifying!organization.!!We!farm!1.5!acres.!!We!run!a!48‐member!CSA.!!We!took!
brochures!around!town.!!The!newspaper!did!a!story.!!We!networked.!!We!also!
listed!with!Local!Harvest.!!Some!people!were!aware!of!CSAs.!(LFS!Farmers).!
! !
!
Local#food#system#institutional#arrangements#
#There!is!weak!public!sector!support!for!LFS!development!in!Yamhill!County.!!
Most!interview!participants!said!that!they!were!not!aware!of!any!policies!or!programs,!
particularly!economic!development!related!to!local!food!systems.!!I!was!also!unable!to!
confirm!the!existence!of!any!of!the!programs!to!facilitate!the!development!of!local!food!
systems.!!There!also!is!not!a!dedicated!staff!for!agricultural!economic!development!
within!the!county.!
! There!are,!however,!significant!farmland!protection!and!land!use!regulations!at!
!
!
154!
the!state‐level!that!have!resulted!in!the!preservation!of!large!expanses!of!open!land!
zoned!exclusively!for!agricultural!uses.!!According!to!respondents,!however,!this!type!of!
land!use!regulation!can!create!barrier!to!local!food!development!in!several!significant!
ways.!!First,!the!existing!land!use!regulations!and!planning!tools!are!mostly!geared!
towards!traditional!forms!of!agriculture!and!may!not!offer!the!same!protections!or!
opportunities!to!local!food!farms,!which!tend!to!be!smaller!in!size!and!are!more!
successful!in!a!mixed!land!use!context.!!One!interviewee!gave!the!example!of!the!right!
to!farm!law.!!“Right!to!farm!law!only!covers!current!practices,!not!new!practices”!
(Nursery!Industry).!
! Second,!some!participants!suggested!that!the!land!use!laws!are!so!restrictive!that!
they!limit!the!ability!of!small!farmers!to!develop!in!the!county.!!For!example,!one!
respondent!talked!about!a!man!who!wanted!to!grow!blueberries!to!sell!locally.!!He!
bought!a!farm,!but!wasn’t!able!to!build!a!house!on!the!property!because!of!the!
restrictive!land!use!laws.!!So!he!had!to!drive!after!work!every!day!from!the!town!to!
farm.!!Eventually!he!sold!his!farm.!!!
! Participants!repeatedly!said!that!the!land!use!laws!make!it!difficult!for!small!
farmers!to!be!profitable,!build!a!house!on!their!land,!make!an!income,!and!get!their!
products!to!market!because!roads!are!so!hard!to!get!built.!!As!one!participant!
suggested,!the!land!use!is!so!restrictive!that!it!inhibits!farmers’!ability!to!develop.!
If!you!have!time!you!should!go!to!our!farmers!market.!!It’s!really!beautiful!and!nice!
but!it’s!not!making!those!people!profitable.!!Those!people!have!a!lot!of!time!to!be!
able!to!go!out!and!grow!truck!farms!and!come!down!once!a!week!and!sell!their!
crops.!!They!do!it!because!they!like!to!do!it.!!It’s!not!going!to!support!a!family.!!If!
!
!
155!
you!want!small!farms!you!need!people!to!be!able!to!live!on!a!farm!and!have!a!
source!of!income!that!helps!support!that.!!If!you!want!a!farm!to!be!profitable!to!
only!farmers,!it!has!to!be!big!enough!to!support!them!and!cover!overhead.!!When!
we!limit!that!flexibility!we!limit!the!ability!to!have!these!small!farms!and!to!put!
them!into!our!food!chain.!(Yamhill!County!Commissioner)!
!
! In!addition!to!the!restrictive!land!use!institutions,!participants!suggested!that!the!
institutions!that!should!be!working!on!agriculture!economic!development!are!not!doing!
so.!!One!participant!suggested!that!extension!should!be!doing!more!to!develop!local!
agriculture!economic!development!but!they!are!not!because!of!the!structure!of!the!
extension!agency!and!the!motivation!of!the!staff.!!!
The!obvious!answer!as!to!who!should!be!promoting!local!agriculture!would!be!the!
local!Extension,!but!they’re!not.!!All!around!us!we!have!Extension!offices!in!the!
counties.!!Except!in!Yamhill!County!there!is!actually!a!decent!tax!base!to!support!
their!programs!because!the!other!counties!have!to!go!for!grants.!!When!you!are!
grant!funded!largely,!you!have!to!do!what!the!grantors!are!willing!to!pay!for.!!So!at!
the!district!we!have!a!little!tax!base,!which!is!good!to!keep!a!couple!staff,!but!
grants!are!¾!of!our!money.!!I!don’t!see!that!at!Extension.!!In!Yamhill!they!don’t!
have!any!small!farms!program.!(Government!Agency)!
!
The!Agricultural!Extension!agency!in!Yamhill!has!two!agents!that!split!their!time!
between!two!counties!and!are!not!motivated!to!seek!resources!through!grant!writing!or!
to!develop!new!programs!to!create!or!expand!local!markets.!
! Finally,!participants!did!say!there!was!interest!in!local!food!system!development!
but!most!of!this!was!occurring!at!the!state‐level.!!
Economic!development!is!one!of!the!main!things!that!the!director!(of!the!State!
Department!of!Agriculture)!is!interested!in!and!it!has!to!do!with!value!added!
agriculture!and!trying!to!move!farmers!away!from!the!conventional!agriculture!
that!is!competing!at!the!low!end!with!china!to!the!high!value!agriculture!that!is!
providing!niche!marketing!opportunities,!like!the!nursery!industry!and!other!things!
that!can!be!sold!for!higher!price,!give!a!better!return!to!the!farmers!or!their!not!
competing!with!commodities!anymore!but!establishing!a!market!that!can!be!
!
!
156!
defined!more!uniquely.!(Winemaker)!
!
Participants!did!note,!however,!that!although!there!is!interest!in!local!food!system!
development!it!has!been!a!struggle!to!make!progress!in!that!direction.!
It’s!been!hard!to!make!any!real…she’s!really!been!trying…to!try!to!move!people!in!
that!direction,!but!the!fighting!back!from!the!conservatives!is!huge.!!If!you!even!
mention!the!word!sustainability!all!their!flags!go!up.!!You!can’t!say!that!because!
that’s!against!conventional.!!It!is!seriously!on!everyone’s!agenda!at!the!agriculture!
department!to!try!to!help!people.!!Next!Friday!is!a!new,!some!kind!of!sustainability!
research!center!for!Oregon!agriculture!to!try!to!help!people!move!in!that!
direction.!!The!governor!is!signing!it.!!It’s!a!state!initiative.!(Winemaker)!
!
!
Links#between#collective#action,##
institutional#arrangements#and#LFS#outcomes!
! The!state‐level!farmland!protections!have!set!the!stage!for!agriculture,!but!there!
is!little!local!collective!action!or!local!institutional!arrangements!that!are!facilitating!local!
food!system!development.!!Rather,!most!land!use!and!agricultural!development!efforts!
seem!to!be!directed!at!larger‐scale!agricultural!industries.!!This!may!be!because!the!land!
use!regulations!have!provided!a!stable!base!of!farmland!on!which!farmers!can!depend!
and!grow.!!Larger‐scale!agriculture!remains!a!viable!and!growing!industry!in!Yamhill!
County.!!Hence!there!may!be!less!interest!and!resources!directed!towards!local!food!
system!development.!
! LFS!farmers!in!Yamhill!repeatedly!commented!that!there!were!no!groups!that!
supported!their!particular!needs.!!This!is!somewhat!supported!with!data!from!the!
landowner!survey!that!shows!that!LFS!farmers!are!slightly!less!likely!to!participate!in!
local!farm‐related!groups!(Table!30).!!Despite!a!lack!of!membership!in!farm‐related!
!
!
157!
organization,!LFS!farmers!were!as!or!more!likely!to!perceive!the!city!and!county!
governments,!environmental!groups,!the!general!public!and!the!Farm!Bureau!as!
supportive!of!farming.!!This!suggests!that!LFS!farmers!in!Yamhill!are!mostly!working!on!
their!own!or!networking!informally!without!the!significant!membership!in!groups!or!
institutions,!but!they!are!somewhat!more!satisfied!with!the!levels!of!institutional!and!
public!support!for!farming!than!their!Non‐LFS!counterparts.!!However!few!of!the!
differences!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!subgroups!are!statistically!significant.!
Table!30.!!Comparison!Between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!Farmers,!Yamhill!County!
!
%!LFS!Farmers!
%!Non‐LFS!Farmers!
Perception!of!positive!impact!of!agriculture!economic!
development!policies!
22.7!
13.5!
Perception!of!support!for!farming!
!
!
County!government!
59.1!
47.1!
City!government!
50.0*!
18.2!
Economic!development!organizations!
15.0!
24.1!
Environmental!organizations!
38.1!
25.7!
General!public!
47.6!
23.5!
Farm!Bureau!
65.0!
59.5!
Has!membership!in!group!
!
!
A!farm!organization!(Farm!Bureau,!Grange,!Farmers’!
Union,!etc.)!
30.4!
43.2!
A!farm!commodity!group!
13.1!
31.3!
Any!other!type!of!local!farm‐related!association!
26.1!
31.4!
Note:#*Significant!at!the!.05!level!using!the!Fisher’s!Exact!test!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!#
!
!
Hall!County,!Georgia!
! Hall!County,!Georgia!is!located!in!the!southern!United!States.!!It!was!founded!in!
the!early!1800s!and!was!historically!an!early!center!of!mining!and!logging.!!The!area!
developed!as!a!summer!resort!because!of!nearby!mountains!and!lakes.!!Hall!County!
!
!
158!
later!developed!into!a!manufacturing!and!processing!center.!!Cotton!mills!and!
lumber!shipping!were!the!first!major!industries,!which!was!followed!by!poultry!
processing!after!World!War!II.!!The!culture!is!politically!and!socially!conservative!and!
Hall!County,!along!with!neighboring!Forsyth!County,!has!become!infamous!for!several!
incidences!of!racial!crimes!and!intolerance.!!In!regards!to!local!foods,!the!majority!
believes!that!agriculture!economic!development!is!a!private!sector!matter.!!As!result!
there!is!little!local!government!involvement!in!agricultural!economic!development!or!
local!foods.!!!
!
Geography#
Hall!County!has!a!hilly!topography!with!a!generally!rural!character!in!the!
northern!and!eastern!portions!of!the!county!and!is!located!38!miles!north!of!the!Atlanta!
metropolitan!area.!!Lake!Lanier!borders!the!western!edge,!while!the!southern!areas!are!
the!most!heavily!populated.!!Most!of!the!agricultural!land!occurs!in!the!northern!half!of!
the!county.!!According!to!the!NRI!data,!37.3%!of!land!is!in!forest,!27.8%!is!in!developed!
uses,!18.2%!is!in!pastureland,!and!0.2%!is!in!cropland!(National!Resource!Inventory!
2002).!
#
Demographics#
! Hall!County!is!part!of!the!Gainesville!metropolitan!area,!which!is!in!the!county.!!
The!population!in!2007!was!estimated!at!180,175.!!Hall!County!has!had!the!most!rapid!
population!growth!of!any!of!the!case!study!counties.!!In!the!1990s,!the!population!grew!
!
!
159!
by!45.6%!with!an!annual!growth!rate!of!3.9%.!!!This!has!slowed!slightly!with!a!yearly!
average!growth!of!3.7%!from!2000!to!2007!with!a!total!of!29.4%.!!The!overall!population!
density!is!335!people!per!square!mile.!!Most!of!the!growth!has!occurred!in!Gainesville!
and!the!southern!end!of!the!county.!!About!33%!of!the!population!resides!in!the!non‐
urbanized!areas.!
#
Income#
! The!socioeconomic!profile!of!residents!in!Hall!County!is!about!the!same!as!the!US!
average.!!Table!31!shows!the!incomes!characteristics!of!Hall!County.!!The!median!
income!in!2000!was!$44,908.!!The!poverty!rate!was!12.4%!and!the!percent!of!
households!with!incomes!over!$100,000!is!12.7%.!!These!data!suggest!that!is!income!is!a!
predictor!of!the!amount!of!local!food!demand;!Hall!County!should!have!an!average!
amount.!
Table!31.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Hall!County!Residents!
Income!Characteristics!
Median!Income!($)!
44,908!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
12.4!
Percent!of!Households!with!Incomes!over!$100,000!
12.7!
Source:#US!Census!2000!
#
#
Economy#
! The!sectors!that!employ!the!most!people!include!manufacturing!(25.5%),!
educational,!health!and!social!services!(15.3%)!and!retail!(11.1%).!!Agriculture!employs!
!
!
160!
about!1.6%!of!the!local!population,!and!0.9%!of!the!population!claim!farming!as!
their!occupation.!!The!Hall!County!website!claims!that!the!county!has!a!diversified!
economic!base!and!doesn’t!claim!any!single!industry,!outside!of!agriculture,!that!is!
dominant!(Bureau!of!Labor!Statistics!2007).!
!
Agriculture#
! Agriculture!is!the!principal!industry!in!Hall!County.!!Gainesville!has!been!called!
the!“poultry!capital!of!the!world”!due!to!the!concentration!of!poultry!processing!
facilities!in!the!city.!!This!seems!an!accurate!title!given!that!96.1%!of!sales!are!from!
poultry!in!the!county!and!that!figure!has!been!increasing!steadily!over!many!census!
periods.!!!Most!of!this!is!concentrated!among!relatively!few!farms!with!only!22.8%!of!
farms!raising!poultry!in!2007.!!Table!32!shows!the!distribution!of!commodities!for!Hall!
County!by!sales!and!number!of!farms.!!According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!the!
majority!of!farms!in!Hall!County!raise!cattle!(42.6%),!forage!(38.4%),!and!poultry!
(22.8%).!!As!noted,!the!overwhelming!majority!of!sales!are!from!poultry!(96.1%),!trailed!
by!cattle!(2.3%).!!Although!the!largest!percentage!of!sales!comes!from!poultry,!a!much!
smaller!percentage!of!farms!raise!poultry!(22.8%).!!!
! The!Census!of!Agriculture!classifies!Hall!County!farms!into!a!range!of!types!based!
on!farm!size!and!principal!occupation!of!the!operator.!!The!results!suggest!that!the!
majority!of!farms!are!small!family!and!hobby!farms,!which!again!suggests!along!with!
other!structural!conditions!like!population!growth!that!Hall!County!could!have!potential!
for!a!local!food!system.!!Table!33!shows!the!distribution!of!farm!types!by!number!of!
!
!
161!
farms!and!acres!of!farmland.!!Approximately,!three‐fourths!of!farms!are!small!farms,!
which!manage!62.8%!of!the!farmland!in!the!county.!!In!comparison,!12.5%!of!farms!are!
large!and!very!large!family!farms,!which!manage!about!a!quarter!of!the!farmland.!!
About!3%!of!farms!are!nonfamily!farm!businesses,!which!operate!farms!on!4.7%of!the!
farmland!in!the!county.!!!
Table!32.!!Top!Commodities!by!Sales!and!Number!of!Farms,!Hall!County!
!
Percent!of!County!
Farm!Sales!
Percent!of!County!Farms!
Raising!
Cattle!and!calves!
2.3!
42.6!
Dairy!
0.6!
2.3!
Poultry!
96.1!
22.8!
Forage!
N/A!
38.4!
Note:#N/A!=!not!available#
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
Table!33.!!Distribution!of!Farm!Types!by!Number!of!Farms!and!Acres!of!Farmland!
!
%!Farms!
%!Acres!
Small!Family!Farms!(Sales!<!$250,000)!
!
!
Limited!resource!!
15.4!
10.0!
!Retirement!!
19.5!
18.2!
!Residential/lifestyle!!
38.5!
31.4!
!Higher!sales!!
4.4!
3.2!
Total!small!
77.8!
62.8!
Large!Family!Farms!(Sales!$250,000+)!!
!
!
!Large!($250,000‐$499,000)!!
3.6!
4.0!
!Very!large!($500,000+)!!
8.9!
19.6!
Total!large!and!very!large!family!
12.5!
23.6!
Nonfamily!
2.9!
4.7!
#Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
!
! The!agricultural!sector!of!Hall!County!can!be!classified!as!declining!from!1987!to!
1997!and!stable!from!1997!to!2007.!!The!most!recent!data!show!that!the!number!of!
!
!
162!
farms!and!the!land!in!farms!has!decreased!from!1997!to!2007.!!There!were!856!
farms!in!1997!and!799!in!2007,!which!is!a!loss!of!6.7%.!!Land!in!farms!also!declined!from!
59,868!acres!in!1997!to!57,272!acres!in!2007,!which!is!a!decrease!of!4.3%.!!Also!the!
percent!of!land!in!hay!almost!doubled!from!8%!in!2002!to!15.5%!in!2007!indicating!that!
some!farmers!are!shifting!to!less!intense!forms!of!production.!!Farm!sales!and!sales!per!
acre!of!farmland!have!increased!during!this!period!though,!suggesting!that!production!is!
intensifying!on!the!remaining!farmland!in!the!county.!!Farm!sales!increased!from!
$144,158!in!1997!to!$181,527!in!2007.!!!Sales!per!acre!also!increased!from!$2,408!in!
1997!to!$3,168!in!2007.!!!
! These!trends!are!consistent!with!the!results!from!the!landowner!survey,!which!
shows!that!the!majority!of!farmers!in!that!sample!have!made!changes!to!their!farms!in!
the!last!five!years!to!intensify!production.!!Table!34!shows!the!percent!of!respondents!
using!intensification,!growth,!de‐intensification,!and!decline!strategies!in!the!landowner!
survey!sample.!!Almost!half!of!farmers!used!an!intensification!strategy,!while!roughly!a!
third!used!a!de‐intensification!or!decline!strategy.!!Unlike!the!other!case!study!counties!
however,!only!10%!of!farmers!shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!
acre.!!This!could!indicate!less!local!food!system!activity!relative!to!the!other!case!study!
counties.!!
!
Land#use,#regulation,#and#development#
Although!there!is!some!discussion!of!conservation!subdivisions!among!the!
planning!staff,!decisions!regarding!rezoning!and!development!are!generally!made!
!
!
163!
through!the!planning!commission!and!by!the!elected!county!commissioners.!!
Participants!seemed!to!agree!that!landowners!in!the!county!were!interested!in!retaining!
the!right!to!develop!their!land!as!opposed!to!putting!land!into!conservation.!!The!county!
had!attempted!to!increase!population!density!in!the!southern!portion!of!the!county!by!!
Table!34.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Using!Adaptation!Strategies,!Hall!County!!
!
Percent!of!Farms!!
Indicators!of!De‐intensification!
!
Decreased!capital!investment!in!buildings!
7.7!
Decreased!investment!in!equipment!
5.9!
Increased!land!in!conservation!programs!
14.3!
Decreased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
8.3!
Idled!or!left!fallow!some!farmland!
27.8!
Used!any!de‐intensification!strategy!
37.5!
Indicators!of!Decline!
!
Decreased!farmland!owned!
5.3!
Decreased!farmland!rented!
0.0!
Decreased!livestock!sold!
35.7!
Decreased!value!of!gross!sales!
20.0!
Sold!land!for!nonfarm!development!
15.8!
Used!any!decline!strategy!
37.5!
Indicators!of!Growth!
!
Increased!farmland!owned!
0.0!
Increased!farmland!rented!
16.7!
Increased!livestock!sold!
7.1!
Increased!value!of!total!gross!sales!
20.0!
Used!any!growth!strategy!
16.7!
Indicators!of!Intensification!
!
Increased!capital!investment!in!farm!buildings!
46.2!
Increased!investment!in!farm!equipment!
35.3!
Decreased!land!in!conservation!programs!
0.0!
Increased!sales!while!land!remained!same!
4.2!
Shifted!to!crops!or!livestock!that!generate!more!sales!per!acre!
10.0!
Used!any!intensification!strategy!
50.0!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
#
reducing!the!minimum!lot!size.!!This!was!unpopular!with!landowners!in!the!northern!
part!of!the!county!because!they!believed!it!made!their!land!less!valuable.!!It!was!also!
!
!
164!
more!unpopular!with!older!landowners!who!were!nearing!retirement!and!
depending!on!the!sale!of!their!land!for!income.!!As!a!result!of!the!controversy,!the!
zoning!map!was!changed!in!2004!to!1‐acre!lots!throughout!the!county.!!!
In!2006!the!county!was!updating!their!comprehensive!plan.!!Although!the!county!
government!remains!dominated!by!local!lifelong!resident!landowners!and!farmers,!the!
current!County!Commission!has!made!changes!to!the!existing!zoning!regulations.!!They!
are!currently!updating!the!development!code,!which!has!not!been!updated!for!
approximately!30!years.!!!
According!to!members!of!county!government,!the!current!philosophy!is!to!seek!a!
balance!between!maintaining!open!space!and!agriculture!and!facilitating!development.!!
Yet!there!are!no!programs!in!the!county!to!preserve!open!space!or!agricultural!land.!!
According!to!the!current!zoning!it!is!possible!to!develop!conservation!subdivisions!or!
clustered!developments.!!Yet!these!zoning!rules!are!only!on!the!books!and!not!well!
defined.!!The!county!does!not!offer!incentives!for!these!alternative!types!of!
development.!!Outside!of!government!efforts!to!preserve!open!space!or!agricultural!
land,!there!is!one!environmental!group!that!protested!development!around!Lake!Lanier!
in!the!northern!part!of!the!county.!!The!group!threatened!to!sue!the!county!and!a!
landowner,!but!the!case!never!went!to!court.!
Several!participants!mentioned!informational!workshops!about!PDR!and!TDR!
programs!that!were!held!by!the!county.!!There!was!apparently!no!interest!from!
landowners.!!There!are!also!no!easement!programs!in!the!county.!!Right‐to‐farm!laws!do!
!
!
165!
exist!at!the!state!level,!but!according!to!participants!they!are!not!very!effective.!!As!
in!other!counties!in!the!study,!Hall!requires!that!new!buyers!are!notified!of!the!realities!
of!farming!at!the!time!of!purchase,!including!smells,!dust,!and!slow‐moving!machinery!
on!the!roads.!
!
Local#food#system#activity#
! Hall!County!has!some!local!food!system!activity!although!less!than!the!other!four!
case!study!counties.!!There!is!only!one!farmers’!market!that!has!been!operating!since!
the!1960s!out!of!the!county!fairgrounds.!!There!are!no!CSAs!or!institutional!buying!
programs.!!Research!indicated!there!is!only!one!prominent!farm!stand!and!a!few!
agritainment!farms.!!!
! Overall,!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!is!less!than!in!the!other!counties.!!!
According!to!the!2007!Agricultural!Census,!only!19!farms!reported!direct!sales,!which!
are!only!2.38%!of!all!farms,!and!only!one!farm!reported!marketing!through!a!CSA.!!Data!
from!the!landowner!survey!suggest!that!the!extent!of!farmer!participation!is!greater!
than!reported!in!the!census.!!Table!35!shows!the!proportion!of!farmers!in!the!sample!
who!participate!in!the!local!food!system.!!Approximately!27%!of!farmers!sell!directly!to!
consumers!from!their!farms,!and!27%!sell!directly!at!a!farmers’!market!or!CSA.!!About!
9%!of!farmers!sell!to!local!institutions.!!Overall!approximately!48%!of!farmers!are!
engaged!in!one!of!these!three!types!of!LFS!marketing!approaches.!!These!data!suggest!a!
lot!of!individual!producer!action!without!necessarily!indicating!the!development!of!a!
local!food!system.!!For!example,!the!farmers’!market!has!been!operating!for!decades!
!
!
166!
and!so!there!is!likely!a!long!history!of!families!selling!excess!produce!at!the!market.!!
There!was!no!evidence!of!new!markets!or!efforts!to!create!new!markets.!!Also,!the!third!
of!producers!who!indicated!that!they!sell!directly!to!consumers!from!their!farm!could!
indicate!the!common!habit!of!farmers!selling!excess!produce!to!their!neighbors.!!
Approximately!20%!of!farmers!said!they!have!increased!sales!over!the!last!five!years,!
but!only!about!5%!have!made!changes!to!their!marketing!or!crops!and!livestock!with!the!
intention!of!accessing!local!customers.!!
!
Table!35.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System,!Hall!County!
!
Percent!of!Farmers!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
27.3!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
27.3!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
9.1!
Uses!any!of!these!three!
47.4!
!
!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
Increased!direct!sales!
20.0!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!local!customers!!
5.3!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!customers!
5.6!
!
!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!the!next!5!years!
36.4!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
#
! Finally!data!on!the!scale!of!direct!sales!reported!in!the!Agricultural!Census!
suggest!that!Hall’s!local!food!system!is!weak!in!comparison!to!the!other!case!study!
counties.!!Direct!farm!sales!in!the!county!for!2007!were!only!$159,000.!!Direct!sales!per!
capita!were!only!$0.88!per!person.!!Further,!the!percent!of!sales!from!direct!sales!in!
2007!was!only!0.09%.#
! According!to!interview!participants,!if!there!is!any!local!food!activity!it!is!limited!
!
!
167!
to!about!26!farmers!that!participate!in!the!twice‐weekly!farmers’!market,!which!was!
referred!to!by!interviewees!as!a!side!project!and!not!something!you!can!make!a!living!
from.!!!
There!are!twenty‐six!farmers!that!participate.!!“But!you!don’t!make!a!living!off!
alternative!agriculture!in!this!county.!!You!just!do!it!as!a!side!project.!!For!
instance,!Dennis!Bottom!grows!Christmas!trees,!has!a!truck!farm!and!raises!
cattle,!but!he!is!a!lawyer!full!time.!(Traditional!Farmer)!
!
! It!seems!that!there!once!was!more!of!a!local!food!economy!because!the!farmers’!
market!has!existed!for!at!least!20!years,!but!that!has!dwindled!with!the!loss!of!
agriculturally‐minded!people,!loss!of!canning!and!processing!for!farm!animals,!etc.!!!
If!the!original!old!farmer!is!still!there,!he!wants!to!stay!in!farming.!!Rarely!do!the!
second!generation!want!to.!!If!their!land!is!worth!five!million!dollars,!going!out!
chasing!cows!at!4!AM!when!it’s!20!degrees…!rarely!do!they!love!it!as!much!
because!they!didn’t!build!it!up.!(Real!Estate!Developer)!
!
! “So!people!aren’t!attached!to!the!farming!lifestyle?”!(Researcher)!
!
!You!could!make!that!statement.!!The!older!generation!still!wants!their!land.!!
They!are!the!ones!most!reluctant!to!let!it!go.!!Once!they’re!gone,!it’s!the!second!
generation!that!lets!it!go.!(Real!Estate!Developer)!!!
!
! Even!at!the!largest!local!farm!stand!only!about!25%!of!the!products!are!from!a!
local!source!including!the!owner’s!farm!or!other!area!farms.!!This!can!barely!be!
considered!local!by!the!more!stringent!standards!of!the!other!case!study!counties.!!
Overall,!despite!a!sizable!percent!of!farmers!reporting!direct!selling!in!the!landowner!
survey,!interview!participants!and!data!from!the!census!suggest!that!the!local!food!
system!is!due!mostly!to!the!long‐standing!farmers’!market!and!producers!acting!
independently!to!sell!produce!from!their!farm.!
!
!
168!
Local#food#system#collective#action#
! Interview!participants!talked!about!a!dearth!of!local!collective!action.!!The!
agricultural!industry!in!Hall!County!is!completely!dominated!by!the!poultry!sector,!which!
is!controlled!by!the!poultry!companies.!!The!poultry!companies!manage!the!sector!
through!contract!production.!!Production!contracts!outline!the!amount!of!production!
producers!are!responsible!for,!and!the!price!per!unit!producers!receive.!!Poultry!
companies!provide!the!chickens!and!the!feed!and!dictate!how!the!birds!are!raised,!the!
length!of!production,!and!the!facilities!used.!!Participants!noted!that!the!typical!
agriculture!collective!action!groups!such!as!the!Farm!Bureau!really!have!limited!
influence!because!the!poultry!processing!companies!have!so!much!control!over!every!
aspect!of!production.!!!
! Unlike!the!other!case!study!counties,!there!is!no!sense!that!the!idea!of!local!food!
is!beginning!to!coalesce.!!Producers!generally!felt!that!the!general!public!did!not!have!
much!interest!in!agriculture.!!Land!use!specialists!had!only!a!cursory!knowledge!of!the!
industry.!!Most!agriculture!specialists!had!limited!interest!in!or!knowledge!of!local!food!
initiatives.!!Local!food!issues!were!not!featured!in!local!newspapers.!!Traditional!
agriculture!was!on!its!way!out!in!Hall!County!and!most!participants!didn’t!seem!
interested!in!finding!an!alternative!to!preserve!the!agricultural!industry.!!!In!addition,!
there!seemed!to!be!very!little!resistance!from!the!majority!of!producers!to!sell!their!
land!when!the!situation!presented!itself.!
#
#
!
!
169!
Local#food#system#institutional#arrangements#
! I!was!unable!to!verify!the!existence!of!any!local!food!system!programs!or!
policies.!!Also,!unsurprisingly,!the!county!does!not!have!an!agricultural!economic!
development!staff!person.!
! For!the!most!part!when!participants!were!asked!questions!about!alternative!
agriculture,!agriculture!economic!development!or!local!food!system!policies!and!
programs!they!responded!that!they!are!not!aware!of!any!existing!policies!or!programs!
or!of!any!intentions!to!create!them.!!Participants!most!often!talked!about!the!negative!
consequences!of!policies:!the!loss!of!processors,!the!problems!with!regulations,!etc.!!!
Several!respondents!noted!that!the!county!decision‐makers!and!the!regulatory!
environment!are!becoming!more!restrictive!even!for!traditional!agricultural!
development.!!!According!to!farmers!interviewed,!banks!are!less!willing!to!loan!money!
to!farmers!to!expand,!even!for!the!poultry!industry,!which!is!still!strong!in!the!county.!!In!
another!example,!respondents!talked!about!the!easement!policy!that!provides!a!tax!
break!for!agricultural!land.!!According!to!respondents,!landowners!break!the!easement,!
preferring!to!pay!the!penalty!in!order!to!sell!or!develop!their!land.!!!
! Finally!the!institutional!people!interviewed!in!planning,!NRCS,!Extension,!and!
regional!planning!were!not!aware!of!what!their!institutional!colleagues!are!doing!
related!to!land!use!and!agriculture.!!Planners!especially!were!not!aware!of!which!
agricultural!organizations!existed!in!the!county,!or!any!efforts!to!do!agriculture!
economic!development.!!Planners!talked!about!agriculture!as!if!it!is!just!like!any!other!
!
!
170!
industry!in!the!county.!!It’s!easy!to!conclude!from!this!that!agriculture!is!not!really!
valued!as!a!land!use!or!an!industry!in!Hall!County.!
!
Links#between#collective#action,##
institutional#arrangements#and#LFS#outcomes#
! Overall,!in!Hall!County,!there!is!a!very!small!amount!of!local!food!activity!and!the!
people!that!are!producing!and!selling!for!local!markets!are!doing!so!mostly!
independently.!!Participants!were!generally!unaware!of!any!institutional!efforts!to!
develop!local!food!and!most!felt!that!even!the!traditional!civil!society!groups!that!
support!agricultural!development!were!ineffective!in!Hall!County.!Data!from!the!
landowner!survey,!again,!complicate!the!picture!of!the!local!food!system!in!Hall!County.!!!
Table!36!shows!the!comparison!between!LFS!farmers!and!Non‐LFS!farmers!on!questions!
from!the!landowner!survey!related!to!policy,!institutional!support!for!agriculture,!and!
collective!action.!!According!to!these!data,!larger!percentages!of!LFS!farmers!perceive!
that!the!county!and!city!governments!are!supportive!of!farming.!!33.3%!of!LFS!farmers!
compared!to!zero!Non‐LFS!farmers!perceive!that!county!government!is!supportive!of!
farming.!!This!result!is!also!statistically!significant.!!About!a!quarter!of!LFS!farmers!
compared!to!zero!Non‐LFS!farmers!perceive!the!city!government!as!supportive.!!
However,!only!50%!of!LFS!farmers!compared!to!85.7%!of!Non‐LFS!farmers!think!the!
Farm!Bureau!is!supportive!of!farming.!!Drawing!conclusions!from!this!data,!it’s!possible!
that!LFS!farmers!are!satisfied!with!public!institutions!despite!the!lack!of!formal!
programs!and!policies!to!aid!the!development!of!local!food!systems!because!the!
!
!
171!
producers!are!acting!independently!selling!mostly!of!their!farms.!!The!fact!that!half!
of!farmers!in!the!sample!belong!to!a!farm!organization!like!the!Farm!Bureau,!but!only!
50%!compared!to!85.7%!of!Non‐LFS!Farmers!find!this!organization!supportive!of!
farming,!suggests!that!the!farm!groups!in!the!county!are!not!involved!with!local!food!
issues!and!that,!again,!much!of!the!local!food!activity!is!autonomous!producer!action.!!
!
Table!36.!!Comparison!between!LFS!and!Non‐LFS!Farmers,!Hall!County!
!
%!LFS!Farmers!
%!Non‐LFS!Farmers!
Perception!of!positive!impact!of!agriculture!economic!
development!policies!
N/A!
N/A!
Perception!of!support!for!farming!
!
!
County!government!
33.3*!
0.0!
City!government!
25.0!
0.0!
Economic!development!organizations!
N/A!
N/A!
Environmental!organizations!
12.5!
7.1!
General!public!
12.5!
15.4!
Farm!Bureau!
50.0!
85.7!
Has!membership!in!group!
!
!
A!farm!organization!(Farm!Bureau,!Grange,!Farmers’!
Union,!etc.)!
50.0!
50.0!
A!farm!commodity!group!
0.0!
7.1!
Any!other!type!of!local!farm‐related!association!
16.7!
7.1!
Note:#N/A!=!not!available,!*Significant!at!the!.05!level!using!the!Fisher’s!Exact!test#
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
!
!
172!
CHAPTER!5!
#
CASE!STUDY!COMPARISONS#
In!this!section!I!compare!the!patterns!and!relationships!among!core!variables!in!
the!five!case!study!counties.!!First,!I!present!summary!information!about!the!extent!of!
local!food!system!activity!in!each!of!the!first!study!sites.!!I!then!compare!the!potential!
role!of!structural!or!background!contextual!factors!in!shaping!opportunities!for!the!
emergence!of!local!food!systems!in!each!county.!!Following!this,!I!examine!the!links!
between!local!food!system!activity,!LFS!collective!action,!LFS!institutional!arrangements,!
and!political!landscape!across!these!counties.!!Finally,!I!point!to!some!general!
conclusions!about!the!observed!patterns!that!appear!to!explain!variation!in!the!
emergence!of!LFS!activity.!!!
!
Relative!Development!of!Local!Food!Systems!
! Initially,!the!case!study!results!illustrate!variability!in!the!degree!of!LFS!
development!in!the!five!study!counties.!!LFS!activity!can!be!characterized!according!to!
three!different!sets!of!indicators!of!the!existence,!extent!and!scale!of!local!food!systems.!!!
! Table!37!combines!data!from!various!sources!that!quantifies!the!existence!of!
different!types!of!local!food!system!activity!in!each!county.!!The!results!make!clear!that!
Frederick!County!has!the!most!organized!local!food!markets!including!eight!farmers’!
markets!and!eighteen!CSAs!in!addition!to!numerous!farm!stands!and!agritainment!
operations.!!In!contrast,!Hall!County!had!the!least!amount!of!local!food!system!activity!
!
!
173!
with!just!one!farmers’!market!and!one!prominent!farm!stand,!but!no!CSAs,!
institutional!buying!programs!or!other!LFS!market!outlets!identified.!
Table!37.!!Existence!of!Local!Food!Systems!
!
Farmers’!
Markets!
CSAs!
Institutional!
Buying!
Programs!
Agritainment!
Farm!
Stands!
!
!
Rating!
Cache!
3!
4!
0!
Yes!
Yes!
Med!
Kent!
6!
2!
2!
Yes!
Yes!
Med‐High!
Frederick!
8!
18!
0!
Yes!
Yes!
High!
Yamhill!
2!
7!
0!
Yes!
Yes!
Med!
Hall!
1!
0!
0!
Yes!
Yes!
Low!
#Source:#Internet!Websites!
!
#
! The!extent!of!local!food!systems!reflects!the!proportion!of!farmers!who!
participate!in!these!markets!and!was!measured!using!three!variables!from!the!2007!
Agricultural!census:!the!number!of!farms!with!direct!sales,!the!percent!of!farms!with!
direct!sales,!and!the!number!of!farmers!marketing!through!a!CSA.!!Table!38!summarizes!
the!extent!of!local!food!systems!for!each!county.!!According!to!these!measures,!Yamhill!
County!has!the!largest!sheer!extent!of!LFS!activity,!with!375!or!17.7%!of!farms!reporting!
direct!sales!and!19!farms!reporting!that!they!market!their!products!through!a!CSA.!!
Again,!Hall!County!has!smallest!extent!of!farmer!participation!in!local!food!systems!with!
only!19!or!2.4%!of!farms!reporting!direct!sales!and!one!farm!reporting!that!they!market!
their!products!through!a!CSA.!!!
!
!
174!
Table!38.!!Extent!of!Local!Food!Systems!
!
Number!of!Farms!with!
Direct!Sales!
Percent!of!Farms!
with!Direct!Sales!
Number!of!Farms!
Marketing!
through!a!CSA!
!
!
Rating!
Cache!
100!
8.4%!
6!
Med!
Kent!
171!
14.3%!
8!
High!
Frederick!
158!
11.0%!
12!
Med!
Yamhill!
375!
17.7%!
19!
High!
Hall!
19!
2.4%!
1!
Low!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
#
! The!landowner!survey!also!provides!information!on!the!extent!of!farmer!LFS!
participation!in!each!case!study!county!(Table!39).!!The!results!suggest!that!Kent!County!
had!the!highest!percent!of!farmer!participation!with!54.5%!of!all!farmers!reporting!
engagement!in!at!least!one!of!three!LFS!channels.!!Hall!County!had!the!second!highest!
participation!with!47.4%!of!farmers!reporting!involvement!in!at!least!one!LFS!market.!!
About!36%!of!farmers!in!Yamhill!reported!engagement!in!LFS!activity.!!In!Frederick!
County!20.7%!of!farmers!reported!involvement!in!at!least!one!LFS!activity.!!Finally,!
Cache!County!had!the!lowest!participation!with!only!12.5%!of!all!farmers!reporting!
engagement!in!any!of!the!LFS!activities.!!!!
Table!39.!!Percent!of!Farmers!Reporting!Direct!Selling!Activity!
!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!from!farm!
7.7!
45.5!
17.2!
18.2!
31.6!
Direct!sales!to!consumers!at!farmers!market/CSA!
4.7!
27.3!
6.9!
0.0!
31.6!
Sales!to!local!institutions!or!businesses!
6.2!
22.7!
6.9!
22.7!
10.5!
Uses!any!of!these!three!LFS!markets!
12.5!
54.5!
20.7!
36.4!
47.4!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rating!
Low!
High!
Med!
Med!
Med‐High!
Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
!
175!
! Data!from!the!landowner!survey!also!show!changes!in!farmer!participation!
each!case!study!county.!!Table!40!shows!data!from!the!landowner!survey!comparing!
changes!in!LFS!farm!activity!for!Cache,!Frederick,!Kent,!Yamhill!and!Hall!counties!over!
the!last!five!years,!as!well!as!expectations!for!change!in!the!coming!5!years.!!!
! The!results!suggest!that!Yamhill!County!farmers!have!had!the!most!dynamic!shift!
toward!LFS!marketing!outlets!in!the!last!five!years.!!Almost!a!third!of!LFS!farmers!in!
Yamhill!County!increased!their!direct!sales!during!this!period,!and!over!half!say!they!
plan!to!increase!direct!sales!in!the!next!five!years.!!The!largest!proportion!of!farmers!
reporting!making!changes!in!their!marketing!strategies!and/or!crops!and!livestock!in!
order!to!access!local!customers!was!also!found!in!Yamhill!County.!!!
! Ranked!just!behind!Yamhill!were!farmers!In!Kent!County,!where!almost!27%!
reported!increases!in!direct!sales!over!the!last!five!years!and!44%!said!they!planned!to!
do!more!in!the!coming!years.!!In!addition!19%!and!11%!of!Kent’s!farmers!report!making!
changes!to!their!marketing!strategies!or!mix!of!crops!and!livestock!in!order!to!access!
more!local!customers.!
! At!the!other!extreme,!Cache!and!Frederick!farmers!were!notably!the!least!
dynamic!with!respect!to!LFS!activity.!!Just!10‐12%!of!farmers!in!these!counties!increased!
direct!sales!between!2002‐2007,!few!reported!making!changes!specifically!to!increase!
access!to!local!customers,!and!relatively!small!proportions!of!the!farmer!population!(10‐
17%)!planned!to!increase!such!sales!in!the!next!5!years.!!!
! Hall!County!represents!an!intermediate!case,!where!a!sizeable!portion!of!farmers!
!
!
176!
reported!increasing!direct!sales!(either!in!the!recent!past!or!for!the!coming!5‐year!
period),!but!relatively!few!reported!making!changes!in!their!operations!to!better!access!
local!customers.!
! Overall,!these!results!suggest!that!producers!in!Kent!and!Yamhill!counties!have!
been!most!active!in!making!decisions!about!their!farms!to!consciously!access!available!
local!markets,!which!could!indicate!future!growth!in!the!local!food!system.!!In!contrast!
Frederick!and!Cache!county!producers!have!done!the!least!to!access!available!markets.!!!
Table!40.!!Extent!of!Farmer!Participation!in!the!Local!Food!System!
!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Changes!made!by!farmers!over!last!5!years!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Increased!direct!sales!
12.8!
26.7!
10.5!
32.3!
20.0!
Made!changes!in!marketing!strategy!to!access!
local!customers!!
5.4!
19.0!
9.1!
23.4!
5.3!
Made!changes!in!crops/livestock!to!access!local!
customers!
4.8!
11.1!
3.7!
14.6!
5.6!
Farmers!that!expect!to!increase!direct!sales!over!
the!next!5!years!
17.0!
44.4!
10.0!
53.8!
36.4!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Rating!
Low!
High!
Low!
High!
Med!
#Source:#Landowner!Survey!
!
#
! Finally,!the!scale!of!local!food!system!development!was!estimated!by!three!
measures!of!the!dollar!value!of!direct!sales!in!the!county:!direct!sales,!direct!sales!per!
capita,!and!the!percent!of!sales!from!direct!sales!(Table!41).!!According!to!two!of!these!
measures,!Frederick!County!has!the!local!food!system!with!the!largest!scale!with!
$2,561,000!in!direct!sales!and!2.02%!of!total!gross!farm!sales!attributable!to!direct!sales.!!
However,!indicators!of!the!scale!of!a!local!food!system!that!are!adjusted!to!population!
!
!
177!
(e.g.,!volume!of!direct!sales!per#capita)!may!better!reflect!the!degree!to!which!local!
foods!are!available!to!and!purchased!by!local!consumers.!!From!this!perspective,!Cache!
County!reports!the!highest!level!of!direct!sales!per!capita!at!$14.09,!followed!closely!by!
Yamhill!County!with!$13.12!and!Frederick!County!with!$11.40.!!Despite!the!reports!of!
extensive!LFS!development!in!our!interviews,!census!data!suggest!that!Kent!has!a!level!
of!total!direct!sales!roughly!equal!to!Cache!County,!despite!a!population!that!is!over!five!
times!as!large.!!While!Yamhill!has!a!sizeable!amount!of!direct!sales!per!capita,!its!
extensively!developed!commercial!farm!sector!generates!sufficient!receipts!such!that!
LFS!activity!is!under!0.5!percent!of!total!sales!in!the!county.!!Hall!County!ranks!last!on!all!
three!measures!of!local!food!system!scale!with!only!$159,000!in!total!sales,!representing!
$0.88!direct!sales!per!capita!and!0.09%!of!total!farm!sales.!!!
Table!41.!!Scale!of!Local!Food!Systems!
!
Direct!Sales!
Direct!Sales!per!
Capita!
Percent!of!Sales!from!
Direct!Sales!
Rating!
Cache!
1,534,000!
14.09!
1.13!
Med‐High!
Kent!
1,642,000!
2.72!
0.84!
Med!
Frederick!
2,561,000!
11.40!
2.02!
High!
Yamhill!
1,267,000!
13.12!
0.46!
Med!
Hall!
159,000!
0.88!
0.09!
Low!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
#
! Table!42!shows!rankings!for!the!counties!according!to!each!of!the!concepts!used!
to!measure!local!food!system!activity.!!This!table!also!includes!an!overall!ranking!based!
on!consideration!of!all!measures!together.!!Overall!when!considering!all!of!the!
indicators!of!local!food!system!activity!discussed!above,!Kent!County!ranks!the!highest!
!
!
178!
in!local!food!system!activity.!!Kent!had!the!largest!extent!of!farmer!participation!
according!to!all!of!the!measures!used!to!assess!participation.!!Kent!County!ranked!in!the!
middle!in!terms!of!the!existence!of!local!markets!and!the!scale!of!local!food!system!
activity.!!Frederick!and!Yamhill!counties!have!an!overall!local!food!system!ranking!of!
medium‐high.!!Frederick!scored!highest!on!both!the!existence!of!local!food!activity!and!
the!scale!of!activity,!while!only!ranking!in!the!medium!to!low!categories!for!the!extent!of!
farmer!participation.!!Yamhill!County!ranked!highest!based!on!two!measures!of!extent!
(Agricultural!Census!and!Landowner!changes),!while!only!ranking!in!the!middle!for!the!
number!of!local!food!markets,!the!amount!of!direct!selling!activity!and!the!dollar!value!
of!the!local!food!system.!!Overall!Cache!County!ranked!in!the!middle!for!local!food!
system!activity!with!a!relatively!large!scale!given!the!population!size,!but!low!farmer!
participation.!!
! Finally,!although!the!landowner!survey!data!suggested!higher!farmer!participation,!
overall!Hall!County!had!the!least!local!food!system!activity.!!A!well‐developed!local!food!
system!involves!coordinated!markets.!!So!while!Hall!County!producers!are!engaged!in!
direct!selling!from!their!farms!and!participation!in!the!long‐running!farmers’!market,!
there!is!no!evidence!of!significant!coordinated!local!food!market!activity!or!significant!
efforts!to!alter!production!to!capture!available!local!consumers.!!Aside!from!the!
landowner!survey,!all!of!the!other!data,!the!Agricultural!Census,!interviews,!Internet!
websites,!newspapers!and!other!documents,!suggest!that!the!local!food!activity!is!
limited!to!a!small!number!of!producers.!!So!the!overall!ranking!for!local!food!system!
!
!
179!
activity!in!Hall!County!is!low.!!
Table!42.!!Local!Food!System!Activity!Ranking!
!
Existence!
Extent!
(Census)!
Extent!(Direct!
Selling)!
Extent!
(Changes)!
Scale!
Overall!
Cache!
Med!
Med!
Low!
Low!
Med‐High!
Med!
Kent!
Med‐High!
High!
High!
High!
Med!
High!
Frederick!
High!
Med!
Med!
Low!
High!
Med‐High!
Yamhill!
Med!
High!
Med!
! ! High!
Med!
Med‐High!
Hall!
Low!
Low!
Med‐High!
Med!
Low!
Low!
#
!
Impact!of!Structural!Conditions!on!!
Local!Food!System!Activity!
!
! Structural!conditions!in!the!case!study!counties!have!the!potential!to!affect!both!
the!supply!and!demand!sides!of!local!food!systems.!!!The!factors!that!could!influence!the!
ability!of!local!markets!to!be!successful!(demand)!include!things!that!relate!to!the!
consumer!base!like!population!growth!and!change,!income!levels!and!settlement!
patterns.!!These!factors!indicate!whether!or!not!there!is!a!significant!consumer!
population!that!will!support!a!local!food!system.!!The!literature!suggests!that!larger,!
more!densely!populated!communities!with!higher!incomes!are!more!likely!to!participate!
in!local!food!systems.!!The!structural!factors!that!may!influence!the!ability!or!desire!of!
farmers!to!develop!local!food!markets!(supply)!include!the!conditions!of!local!
agriculture!and!land!use!that!make!it!more!or!less!possible!to!switch!to!local!food!
production.!!These!factors!include!the!commodity!mix!of!farms,!the!size!of!farms,!
existing!land!use!and!the!general!agricultural!trajectory!of!the!county.!
#
!
!
180!
Population##
Each!of!the!case!study!counties!have!experienced!significant!population!growth!
in!the!last!several!decades,!but!they!have!unique!differences!in!their!historical!patterns!
of!land!use,!the!pattern!and!concentration!of!population!growth,!and!the!characteristics!
of!their!agricultural!industries!that!may!influence!how!local!food!systems!are!developing!
in!each.!
Each!of!the!counties!has!experienced!significant!population!change!since!1990.!!
Table!43!shows!population!growth!data!for!the!case!study!counties.!!In!the!1990s!
population!growth!change!ranged!from!approximately!a!15%!increase!in!Kent!County!to!
a!46%!increase!in!Hall!County.!!Annual!growth!rates!ranged!from!1.4%!in!Kent!County!to!
3.9%!in!Hall!County.!!From!2000!to!2007!population!growth!changes!ranged!from!a!5.2%!
increase!in!Kent!County!to!a!29.4%!increase!in!Hall!County.!!Cache,!Frederick!and!
Yamhill!counties!had!similar!population!increases!and!growth!rates!during!these!
periods.!!!
Table!43.!!Population!Change!
!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Population!
!
!
!
!
!
1990!
70,183!
500,631!
150,208!
65,551!
95,428!
2000!
91,391!
574,335!
195,277!
84,992!
139,277!
2007!(est.)!
108,887!
604,330!
224,705!
96,573!
180,175!
Rate!of!Change!(overall)!
!
!
!
!
!
1990‐2000!
30.2!
14.7!
30.0!
29.7!
45.9!
2000‐2007!
19.1!
5.2!
15.1!
13.6!
29.4!
Annual!Rate!of!Growth!
!
!
!
!
!
1900‐2000!
2.7!
1.4!
2.7!
2.6!
3.9!
2000‐2007!
2.5!
0.7!
2.0!
1.8!
3.7!
#Source:#US!Census!of!Population!1990!and!2000!
#
!
!
181!
Despite!similar!trends!in!population!change,!the!sheer!size!of!the!potential!
urban!food!market!appears!to!be!important.!!For!example,!although!Cache,!Frederick!
and!Yamhill!had!very!similar!percent#changes!in!population,!Frederick!has!the!largest!
county!total!population!(224,705)!of!those!three!counties!suggesting!that!there!is!a!
larger!pool!of!potential!consumers.!!Similarly,!although!Kent!County!had!the!slowest!
growth!rate!among!the!study!sites,!they!had!a!much!larger!total!population!(604,330)!
suggesting!again!that!the!pool!of!available!consumers!is!much!larger.!
Differences!in!population!densities!in!RUI/AI!counties!can!influence!how!easily!
producers!and!consumers!can!organize!and!develop!local!markets,!but!also!can!affect!
the!potential!for!conflict!between!farmers!and!nonfarm!neighbors!in!agricultural!areas.!!
Table!44!shows!the!population!density!in!each!of!the!case!study!counties.!!Cache!County!
appears!to!have!the!lowest!overall!population!density,!and!most!people!live!within!the!
boundaries!of!incorporated!municipalities.!!Outside!of!urban!areas,!Cache’s!population!
density!is!only!13!people!per!square!mile.!!!In!contrast,!the!most!densely!settled!
counties!are!Kent,!Hall!and!Frederick.!!However,!Kent!County!retains!most!of!its!
population!within!urban!areas,!while!Hall!and!Frederick!have!populations!that!are!more!
dispersed!across!the!landscape.!!Yamhill!County!offers!an!interesting!example!of!
intermediate!population!density!(overall),!but!relatively!low!population!density!outside!
of!urban!areas!(perhaps!reflecting!the!impact!of!their!urban!growth!boundary!rules).!!It!
is!plausible!that!areas!with!more!concentrated!urban!populations!(e.g.,!Cache,!Kent)!can!
more!readily!develop!centralized!local!food!markets.!!However,!the!most!robust!LFS!
!
!
182!
activity!among!the!case!studies!was!found!in!counties!with!surprisingly!dense!non‐
farm!populations!living!in!agricultural!areas!(Kent!and!Frederick).!!This!suggests!that!
competition!from!or!conflict!with!nonfarm!neighbors!associated!with!rural!residential!
development!does!not!serve!as!an!obstacle!to!the!emergence!of!LFS!systems!in!the!
study!counties.!!
Table!44.!!Indicators!of!Population!Density,!Case!Study!Counties,!2000!
!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Population!Density!(persons/sq!
mile)!
!
!
!
!
!
Overall!
78!
671!
295!
119!
354!
Urban!Areas!
1,963!
2,224!
1,775!
N/A!
907!
Non‐urban!Areas!
13!
131!
95!
32!
141!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Percent!of!population!living!
outside!urbanized!area!
16.6%!
14.8%!
28.5%!
29.5%!
33.1%!
Size!of!Nearest!Metropolitan!
Area!(population)!
102,720!
740,482!
4,796,183!
1,927,881!
139,277!
Source:#US!Census!of!Population!2000!
!
!
! Additionally,!Frederick,!Yamhill!and!Kent!counties!are!embedded!in!significantly!
larger!metropolitan!areas!than!either!Cache!or!Hall.!!Frederick!is!located!close!to!
Washington,!DC!and!Baltimore,!MD.!!Yamhill!is!very!near!Portland,!OR,!while!Grand!
Rapids,!MI!is!located!largely!within!Kent!County.!!As!a!result,!Frederick!and!Yamhill!have!
metropolitan!populations!well!in!excess!of!one!million!people,!while!Kent!has!a!
metropolitan!area!population!of!more!than!700,000.!!In!contrast,!Cache!County!is!part!
of!the!Logan!metropolitan!area!with!a!population!of!102,720,!and!Hall!County!is!part!of!
the!Gainesville!metropolitan!area!with!a!population!of!139,277.!!The!largest!major!
!
!
183!
metropolitan!areas!near!Cache!(Salt!Lake!City)!and!Hall!(Atlanta)!counties!are!
located!farther!than!the!metropolitan!areas!near!Frederick,!Yamhill!and!Kent.!!Again,!
both!size!of!the!pool!of!potential!local!consumers!and!their!distance!from!producers!can!
limit!the!accessibility!of!consumers!to!producers!and!the!size!of!the!local!food!system.!!!
#
Income#
#According!to!the!research!on!local!food!systems!presented!in!the!introduction,!
income!of!local!consumers!is!a!possible!predictor!of!the!amount!of!local!food!activity.!!
Consumers!with!higher!incomes!are!more!likely!to!buy!local!foods.!!Based!on!the!income!
characteristics!of!the!case!study!counties!(Table!45),!Frederick!County!has!the!most!
favorable!socioeconomic!conditions!to!create!demand!for!local!food!systems.!!Frederick!
has!the!highest!median!income!($60,276),!the!lowest!poverty!rate!(4.5%),!and!the!
highest!percent!of!households!with!incomes!over!$100,000!(22.9%).!!In!contrast!Cache!
County!has!the!lowest!median!income!($39,730),!the!highest!poverty!rate!(13.5%)!and!
the!lowest!percent!of!households!with!incomes!over!$100,000!(9%).!!The!income!
characteristics!in!Kent,!Yamhill!and!Hall!counties!range!between!Frederick!and!Cache!
counties.!!Kent,!Yamhill!and!Hall!counties!have!similar!median!incomes.!!Kent!and!
Yamhill!have!similar!poverty!rates,!while!Kent!and!Hall!have!more!similar!percent!of!
households!with!incomes!over!$100,000.!!!
#According!to!these!data,!higher!incomes!are!associated!with!greater!amounts!of!
local!food!activity.!!Frederick!and!Kent!counties!have!the!highest!median!income,!the!
lowest!poverty!rates!and!the!highest!percent!of!households!with!incomes!over!$100,000!
!
!
184!
and!have!the!most!local!food!activity!among!the!case!study!counties.!!However,!
Cache!County!has!the!lowest!median!income,!poverty!rate,!and!percent!of!households!
with!incomes!over!$100,000!and!has!a!moderate!amount!of!local!food!system!activity.!!
Hall!County!has!a!very!similar!socioeconomic!profile!to!Kent,!but!very!little!local!food!
system!activity.!!This!suggests!that!the!income!profile!of!the!consumer!base!is!important!
for!the!existence!of!any!local!food!activity!but!may!not!determine!the!quantity!or!quality!
of!the!local!food!system.!
Table!45.!!Socioeconomic!Profile!of!Residents,!Case!Study!Counties,!2000!
Income!Characteristics!
!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Median!Income!($)!
39,730!
45,980!
60,276!
44,111!
44,908!
Poverty!Rate!(%)!
13.5!
8.9!
4.5!
9.2!
12.4!
Percent!of!Households!with!
Incomes!over!$100,000!
9.0!
15.1!
22.9!
10.7!
12.7!
Source:!US!Census!of!Population!2000!
!
#
Land#use#
Patterns!of!land!use!and!the!spatial!distribution!of!population!within!the!case!
study!counties!can!influence!the!availability!of!suitable!agricultural!land!for!LFS!farms!
and!the!accessibility!of!consumers!to!producers.!!Table!46!shows!distribution!of!key!land!
uses!in!the!case!study!counties.!!In!Frederick!and!Yamhill!counties,!between!75‐80%!of!
the!land!is!in!cropland,!pasture!or!forest.!!In!Kent!and!Hall!counties!40‐45%!of!the!land!is!
in!developed!or!other!uses.!!Meanwhile,!Cache!and!Yamhill!counties!have!a!relatively!
low!percent!of!land!in!developed!uses!(4.4%!and!4.5%).!!Cache!County!is!a!unique!case!
!
!
185!
because!almost!50%!of!the!land!is!public!land,!most!of!which!is!used!for!grazing!of!
sheep!and!beef!cattle.!!However,!local!food!production!is!concentrated!on!the!
remaining!private!land.!!
These!results!suggest!that!there!is!simply!more!land!available!for!agricultural!use!
in!Yamhill!and!Frederick,!which!could!be!favorable!for!local!food!systems!if!large!
expanses!of!agricultural!land!were!important!for!their!development.!!However,!large!
expanses!of!land!may!not!be!a!necessary!condition!for!the!development!of!local!food!
systems.!!Local!food!systems!depend!on!the!presence!of!consumers!and!market!outlets!
both!of!which!are!more!easily!located!in!places!with!more!urban!development.!!!Given!
this,!Kent!and!Hall!counties!are!better!suited!for!local!food!system!development,!while!
Cache!and!Yamhill!counties!may!be!the!least!favorable!locations!for!local!food!systems.!
Table!46.!!Percent!of!County!Land!in!Various!Land!Uses,!2002!
!
Percent!of!Land!
Land!Use!Category!
Cache!
Kent!
Frederick!
Yamhill!
Hall!
Cropland!!
24.2!
25.7!
36.2!
25.6!
0.2!
Pasture!
5.5!
8.7!
15.5!
7.6!
18.2!
Forest!
16.0!
25.4!
29.7!
44.0!
37.2!
Developed!Uses!
4.4!
31.1!
14.0!
4.5!
27.8!
Other!
49.6!
8.8!
4.3!
18.0!
16.7!
Source:#National!Resource!Inventory!2002!
#
Dominant#commodities#
#Overall!there!is!very!little!variation!in!the!agricultural!industries!of!the!case!study!
counties.!!Table!47!shows!the!top!three!commodities!by!farm.!!First,!cattle!and!calves!
!
!
186!
and!forage!are!two!of!the!top!three!commodities!raised!by!farms!in!all!of!the!case!
study!counties,!with!forage!serving!as!the!most!common!commodity!raised!everywhere.!!
Generally!speaking,!beef!and!forage!production!systems!reflect!some!of!the!less!
intensive,!less!rapidly!changing!segments!of!the!U.S.!farm!sector.!!!
Meanwhile,!Hall!County!stands!out!for!having!the!greatest!proportion!of!farms!
that!raise!poultry!(22.8%),!a!commodity!that!exemplifies!a!more!“industrial”!form!of!
agricultural!organization!due!to!its!extremely!high!capital!investment!requirements!and!
contract!arrangements!linking!producers!to!vertically!organized!processing!firms.!!
Interestingly,!Cache!and!Frederick!counties!have!a!significant!percent!(over!20%)!of!
farms!that!raise!small!grains!–!wheat,!barley,!and!oats,!crops!that!are!not!typically!
associated!with!dominant!forms!of!agriculture!in!21st!century!American!agriculture.!!
Only!one!county!‐‐!Kent!County!‐‐!has!a!significant!fraction!of!farms!(22.4%)!that!
raise!corn,!the!most!ubiquitous!commodity!grain!crop!raised!in!the!U.S.!!Meanwhile,!
Yamhill!County!is!the!only!county!with!a!significant!portion!of!farms!(25.2%)!raising!
crops!that!are!often!associated!with!local!food!systems!‐‐!fruits,!nuts!and!berries,!though!
these!numbers!reflect!recent!growth!in!the!wine!industry!in!Oregon’s!Willamette!Valley.!!
In!none!of!the!study!counties!was!vegetable!production!a!significant!activity!on!a!
sizeable!number!of!farms.!
! A!different!picture!of!the!importance!of!different!commodities!to!local!farming!
systems!is!illustrated!in!Table!48,!where!the!top!three!commodities!are!ranked!by!total!
sales!in!2007.!!The!sale!of!dairy!products!is!one!of!the!top!commodities!in!each!of!the!!
!
!
187!
Table!47.!!Top!Three!Most!Commonly!Raised!Commodities!in!Case!Study!Counties!
!
Cattle!and!
Calves!
Poultry!
Forage!
Fruits,!Nuts,!
Berries!
Wheat!
Sorghum,!
Barley,!Oats!
Corn!
Cache!
44.5!
!
64.4!
!
21.5!
!
Kent!
20.5!
!
38.1!
!
!
22.4!
Frederick!
33.8!
!
58.8!
!
21.6!
!
Yamhill!
23.7!
!
25.2!
25.2!
!
!
Hall!
42.6!
22.8!
38.4!
!
!
!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
#
case!study!counties.!!It!is!the!most!significant!source!of!farm!income!in!Frederick!and!
Cache!counties,!with!41%!and!39%!of!sales!from!dairy!respectively,!and!constitutes!over!
20%!of!sales!in!Kent.!!Meanwhile,!cattle!and!calves!are!a!significant!source!of!income!in!
Cache!(29%)!and!Frederick!(12%).!!The!farm!sectors!in!Kent!and!Yamhill!receive!a!
significant!percentage!of!gross!receipts!from!the!sale!of!nursery/greenhouse!products!
and!fruits,!nuts!and!berries.!!In!these!two!counties,!nursery!and!greenhouse!sales!make!
up!33‐44%!of!farm!receipts,!but!likely!contribute!little!to!local!food!systems!(given!that!
these!products!tend!not!to!be!edible).!!However,!the!17‐18%!of!fruit,!nut!and!berry!sales!
may!partly!reflect!local!food!marketing!activities.!!Income!from!grains,!oilseeds!and!
beans!make!up!7%!of!sales!in!Cache!County!and!14%!of!sales!in!Frederick!County,!but!
again!likely!reflect!sales!through!conventional!agricultural!markets!more!than!local!food!
systems!activity.!!The!dominance!of!poultry!production!in!the!income!portfolio!of!Hall!
County!(96%!of!sales)!suggests!that!the!overwhelming!amount!of!local!farm!production!
is!marketed!through!highly!integrated!industrial!agricultural!channels.!!!
!
!
!
188!
Table!48.!!Top!Three!Commodities!by!Sales!
!
Cattle!and!
Calves!
Dairy!
Poultry!
Fruits,!Nuts,!
Berries!
Nursery!and!
Greenhouse!
Grain,!
Oilseed,!
Beans!
Cache!
29.4!
39.1!
!
!
!
6.9!
Kent!
!
20.4!
!
17.4!
32.6!
!
Frederick!
11.8!
40.6!
!
!
!
14.1!
Yamhill!
!
7.7!
!
18.3!
43.6!
!
Hall!
2.3!
0.6!
96.1!
!
!
!
Source:#US!Census!of!Agriculture!2007!
!
#
! Taken!as!a!whole,!it!is!evident!that!the!locally!important!commercial!agricultural!
commodities!that!dominate!in!each!of!these!RUI/AI!counties!are!rarely!of!a!type!that!
would!be!expected!to!serve!as!a!foundation!for!a!robust!local!food!system!(e.g.,!fruits!
and!vegetables),!though!most!places!have!widespread!local!cattle!and!dairy!production!
capacity!which!could!(in!theory)!help!serve!local!markets!for!meat!and!milk!products!
produced!outside!the!dominant!industrial!livestock!commodity!chain.!!Given!that!the!
volume!of!direct!sales!of!local!foods!still!represent!a!very!small!portion!of!county‐level!
farm!sales!(0.1‐2.0!%),!it!may!be!possible!to!conclude!that!the!local!mix!of!commodities!
(or!the!dominance!of!different!types!of!commodities!in!a!county)!may!have!little!to!do!
with!the!ability!of!individual!producers!to!develop!and!grow!alternative!local!marketing!
enterprises.!
#
Structure#of#local#agriculture#
In!terms!of!the!impact!of!local!farm!structure,!it!is!worth!noting!that!all!of!the!
case!study!counties!have!a!similar!percent!of!farms!(73.6‐78.6%)!categorized!as!small!
family!farms!with!sales!under!$250,000!(Table!49).!!Additionally,!residential/lifestyle!
