Strengthening Farmer-consumer Connections for Sustainable Agricultural Systems

Results and Discussion

Objective 1 

In 2021 and 2022 we collected ecological and social data from 15 farms. We found that local small-scale farmers emphasize the crucial importance of financial sustainability and diverse business strategies. Farmers prioritize diversifying income streams, such as incorporating various livestock alongside crop production, to enhance profitability and ensure farm viability. This is tied closely to sustainable practices, such as focusing on soil health, which respondents noted directly correlates with financial returns. Sustainability also extends to agriculture and biodiversity, with a strong emphasis on using native plants to support local ecosystems, benefiting soil health, pollinators, and wildlife. Furthermore, holistic farm management is common, where farmers integrate sustainable practices across all farm operations, including energy use (solar panels), waste management (composting and biodigesters), and crop choices (perennial plantings). This interconnected approach not only addresses financial and ecological sustainability but also enhances the overall health and diversity of the farming environment.

Farmers recognize that their customers highly value the personal relationships and sense of community that arise from direct interactions with those who grow their food. Many consumers initially drawn to local food for its health and freshness end up appreciating the social connections they develop with their farmers. This trend underscores the importance of social relationships in supporting farm businesses. Additionally, consumers are drawn to the health benefits of organic and fresh produce, which they associate with superior taste and nutritional value. There's also a significant appreciation for the resilience of local supply chains, particularly highlighted during disruptions like the COVID pandemic. Convenience is another critical value, with farmers adapting to deliver directly to consumers with busy lifestyles to maintain support. However, there is a gap in consumer understanding regarding the environmental impact of farming practices and the economic realities of producing sustainable food. Farmers wish that customers would better recognize the time, effort, and costs involved in sustainable farming, which are often not reflected in their willingness to pay higher prices for locally grown, organic products.

We also found that these farms provided important conservation value for shrubland birds where if the farmers added 5% shrub cover to their farm as hedgerows, field edges, or similar woody vegetation, it increased occupancy  probability. Specifically eight of the focal species showed a 60-80% increase in occupancy probability with the presence of only 5% shrub land cover within 1,000 meters of a point location. These findings suggest the importance of small patches of managed natural or semi-natural shrub-scrub on working farms. A manuscript on this data is out for review. We modeled the loss of farmland in the region showing that developed open space was revealed to significantly impact rural spaces, pasture, and evergreen forest most frequently (Albright et al. 2023). Lastly we showed the impacts of this change on ecosystem function (Vickery et al. 2023). This last effort aligned the local measures of the HFI collected on each farm with regional scale patterns in the Upstate region.

Objective 2A:

The coefficients for the attribute variables of the RPL are shown in Table 1. All coefficients are significant at the 95% confidence interval except for the variable associated with increasing the buffer size around crops (Buffer) to prevent erosion and water contamination. Accordingly, Buffer has the lowest associated WTP, at only $0.87 for every additional 5% of land dedicated to buffers (Table X). Animal welfare is ranked as the most important attribute to survey respondents in an independent question, and shows up as the largest coefficient in the model and the highest WTP for Certified Humane Standards over conventional standards. As the highest WTP value, interaction with income significantly constrains the value, allowing for a more conservative estimate for the broader population of $34.57 per week. This is followed by the Pest attribute, where respondents expressed a WTP of $19.62 for produce resulting from Integrated Pest Management practices that minimize chemical inputs. Soil quality and animal Habitat have similar WTP estimates. Of particular note, the positive coefficient associated with Habitat indicates a preference for pollinator habitat protection over bird habitat.  

Table 1. Coefficients for random parameter model of attributes in choice experiment, including interactions of demographic variables for respondents over 40 and income bracket divided by number of people in the household.

Perhaps surprisingly, the ASC coefficient is negative in the final model, which indicates a resistance to choosing the status quo option. A negative preference for the ASC is a fairly unusual finding as respondents often are resistant to choice scenarios and hence “opt out” as a protest response  (Allen and Moore 2016). We suspect that this result comes from two aspects of the design and model estimate. One, middle-aged and older respondents were more likely to choose the status quo alternative, as indicated by the significant positive value of interacting the ASC with the Midage variable. We believe this also is an outcome of the sampling method, as market attendees opted into participation, and online respondents were paid by a third-party vendor. To the extent that status quo responses reflect protesting the survey itself as opposed to actual WTP for sustainable land management, this was minimized by our design. 

Throughout the project, our farmers showcased remarkable creativity by implementing a variety of interventions aimed at enhancing communication and customer retention. Key initiatives included redesigning their websites to make them more user-friendly and engaging, and hosting celebratory events that highlight nature and farming. Farmers also experimented with new CSA models by offering various share sizes and types to cater to different customer needs. Additionally, new farm stands and customer surveys were introduced to gather direct feedback on preferences, enhancing the overall customer experience. Embracing agritourism, they planned activities that draw visitors directly to their farms and enhanced menus to highlight the use of local produce. Social media outreach was amplified through new messaging strategies and short, informative videos that engage consumers. The diversity of crops was also expanded to tap into alternative markets. These efforts were complemented by hosting additional on-farm events and conducting surveys in restaurants to further understand and meet consumer demands. These interventions collectively reflect the innovative approaches our farmers are taking to sustain and grow their customer base.

Objective 3

Farmers in our studies communicated that the lack of a social network created challenges for their farming knowledge and practice. The quick turnover of farmers, coupled with using the internet instead of personal connections for information, has left farmers feeling alone in their work. Although they respect each other, the view of a competitive marketplace also further alienates farmers from each other. This brings both human and ecological challenges including loneliness, confusion about market changes, slower adoption of new sustainable farming techniques, and less political and social power for farmers as a whole in South Carolina. In fact, during this grant period, two of our five participating partners lost or changed businesses. One restaurant closed and one farmer split from his business partner and changed business models. We are currently working with one of our farmers on a grant that would seek to improve social-cohesion among framers in the region. 

Objective 4: 

Over three years, we hosted a series of workshops aimed at enhancing the knowledge and networking capabilities of farmers. In 2021, we conducted an online workshop attended by farmer participants and researchers to share initial research findings and to increase social ties among producers and business entities. This included presentations by undergraduate researchers on customer survey data and an interactive session on a forthcoming Willingness-to-Pay survey. The following year, the workshop was held in-person at the Feed & Seed facility, a local food hub. This session focused on deepening discussions on local food systems and customer involvement, coupled with a facility tour and a brainstorming session for farmers to plan future interventions. In the third year, the workshop took place at Top Soil, a restaurant that sources directly from our farmers. This event focused on sharing the outcomes of the farmers' interventions and featured a networking session, enhancing interactions among the farmers and students, who also presented their findings from participating in the SARE program. Each workshop was structured to build on the previous year's efforts, fostering a growing community of practice among local farmers and researchers.