2019
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.10.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The (un)making of “CSA people”: Member retention and the customization paradox in Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California

Abstract: Former CSA members say the share not meeting their needs is a top reason for leaving. However, CSA share customization has no effect on CSAs' retention rates. Together these findings are the customization paradox, to be investigated further. "CSA people" are those willing and able to subject themselves to CSA's requirements. CSA people can be cultivated, but structural processes are eroding the population.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
49
1
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 43 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
1
49
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The analysis has proceeded from a very different starting place than most other analyses about CSA retention, which have focused almost entirely on former members and the reasons why they left (e.g., [12]). The literature on former members suggests that getting the product mix more in line with former members' wants would increase retention rates; however, Galt et al [11] and our analysis above demonstrate that share customization has no effect on retention rates. Galt et al ([11] p. 10) call this the "CSA customization paradox" and suggest that, while former members note that they want more choice within the share, they "actually want more choice for non-seasonal produce," which CSAs cannot address while staying true to the model of ecologically-based, local-farm provisioning.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…The analysis has proceeded from a very different starting place than most other analyses about CSA retention, which have focused almost entirely on former members and the reasons why they left (e.g., [12]). The literature on former members suggests that getting the product mix more in line with former members' wants would increase retention rates; however, Galt et al [11] and our analysis above demonstrate that share customization has no effect on retention rates. Galt et al ([11] p. 10) call this the "CSA customization paradox" and suggest that, while former members note that they want more choice within the share, they "actually want more choice for non-seasonal produce," which CSAs cannot address while staying true to the model of ecologically-based, local-farm provisioning.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 60%
“…For the second variable category, share configuration variables, only two were significant at the 5% level. Importantly, and as we reported elsewhere [11], the strategy most frequently advocated in the literature-shares are customizable in terms of items-has no effect on retention rates. For the 16% of customizable CSAs-those that allow their members to configure their share items-retention rates were no different from standard CSAs (those with a standardized box).…”
Section: Share Content Variablessupporting
confidence: 68%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Other studies have focused on the environmental aspect of CSA, and how it embraces the principles of agro-ecology [71,72], or defines itself as "green business" [73,74], creating a way to pursue sustainable food practices involving both production and consumption. Finally, some research contributions have reported the motivations and psychological outcomes from CSA, such as the perception of healthy diet [75], the leisure dynamics of belonging to a group of people sharing the same values and purposes [76], and satisfaction with the activities involved [77]. This variety of perspectives and disciplines studying CSA has allowed for a multifaceted view of the phenomenon, but it has overlooked the richness of a more integrative and comprehensive look at this consumption model with the aim to consider both consumers' and producers' perspectives in parallel.…”
Section: The Community Supported Agriculture Formatmentioning
confidence: 99%