4.4 Article

CSA shareholder food lifestyle behaviors: a comparison across consumer groups

期刊

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 855-869

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10460-017-9779-7

关键词

Community supported agriculture; Food lifestyle behaviors; Political ecologies of health

资金

  1. United States Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Marketing Service through the Farmers' Market Promotion Program [14-FMPPX-KY-0072]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Community supported agriculture (CSA) programs are transforming the way people relate to food and agriculture. Many researchers have considered the transformative potential of CSAs on economic, social, and environmental relations. They illustrate how participants are embedded in broader political economic transformations. The same focus, however, has not been given to CSAs' transformative impact on individual shareholders-especially in terms of their relationship to food and health. We draw together literatures from behavioral economics, econometrics, and political ecology to evaluate the potential impacts of CSA participation on food lifestyle behaviors. Using primary data drawn from a survey of four groups with distinct food acquisition environments, we compare respondents' self-assessed food-related behaviors along three different categories: (1) produce versus processed food consumption, (2) food away from home consumption, and (3) food acquisition and interest in nutrition. By documenting between-group differences, we confirm that shareholders display significant absolute differences to other groups along numerous indicators related to the above-stated categories and in general assessments of health. These differences correspond directionally to behaviors public health officials identify as correlated to beneficial health outcomes. We conclude by theorizing how the food environments delineated by a CSA exchange relationship provide unique reflexive opportunities for participants to develop diverse food-related skills and behaviors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据