Even though both farmers' markets and community supported agriculture were first developed to provide markets for farmers, recently the goals of food security have been attached to these market‐based alternative food institutions, based on their potential to be 'win‐win” economic solutions for both small‐scale farmers and low‐income consumers. This article reports on survey and interview research conducted in California during 2004–2005 designed to examine to what extent CSAs and farmers' markets are addressing food security in both concept and practice. Findings show that managers of these institutions generally support the idea of improving the affordability of the food they provide, and most have made an effort to do so, although these efforts vary with institutional capacity. Still, some hedged their interest in supporting food security goals with countervailing concerns such as the need to support farmers first. It is ironic, then, that the way that private CSAs and farmers' markets achieve some elements of food security is by virtue of the support of public food assistance programs.

ABSTRACT. Information is critical for environmental governance. The rise of digital mapping has the potential to advance privateland conservation by assisting with conservation planning, monitoring, evaluation, and accountability. However, privacy concerns from private landowners and the capacity of conservation entities can influence efforts to track spatial data. We examine public access to geospatial data on conserved private lands and the reasons data are available or unavailable. We conduct a qualitative comparative case study based on analysis of maps, documents, and interviews. We compare four conservation programs involving different conservation tools: conservation easements (the growing but incomplete National Conservation Easement Database), regulatory mitigation (gaps in tracking U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's endangered species habitat mitigation), contract payments (lack of spatial data on U.S. Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program due to Farm Bill restrictions), and property-tax incentives (online mapping of Wisconsin's managed forest tax program). These cases illuminate the capacity and privacy reasons for current incomplete or inaccessible spatial data and the politics of mapping private land. If geospatial data are to contribute fully to planning, evaluation, and accountability, we recommend improving information system capacity, enhancing learning networks, and reducing legal and administrative barriers to information access, while balancing the right to information and the right to privacy.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract