Content uploaded by Joshua B. Gruver
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joshua B. Gruver on Apr 23, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
‘Slow to change’: Farmers’perceptions
of place-based barriers to
sustainable agriculture
Samantha Grover*and Joshua Gruver
Ball State University, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306, USA.
*Corresponding author: sgrover@umn.edu
Accepted 9 November 2016 Research Paper
Abstract
Smallholder farmers are an important and growing segment of the farm population in Indiana and in the USA. Past
research regarding farmer decision-making has been inconsistent and has largely focused on the larger-scale, conven-
tional farmer, leaving smallholders poorly understood. There is a need to better understand the management decisions
of smallholder farmers within their regional context to promote efforts toward environmental, social and economic sus-
tainability. Through in-depth qualitative inquiry, this study investigated the impact of regional factors that influence
farmers’decisions and the barriers and opportunities most relevant to farm viability and sustainability in the context
of East Central Indiana (ECI). Semi-structured interviews with 15 key informants and 33 farmers informed our under-
standing of the factors most relevant to small-scale farming in the region. Several important themes emerged related to
perceived barriers to sustainable farm management, including markets; structures and regulations; time and labor; envir-
onmental/ecological factors; and networking and access to educational support. The results of this study complement
the findings of previous work that describe the complex framework farmers navigate when making decisions on the
farm. Further, subtle regional factors emerged that significantly impact farmers’decisions, emphasizing the importance
of local context in crafting agricultural policies and outreach efforts. Implications and recommendations for ECI are
discussed.
Key words: farmer attitudes, qualitative methods, small farms, place-based, stewardship
Introduction
Small-scale, diversified farms are an important and
growing segment of the U.S. farming population. Not
only are they critical stewards of our natural resources,
but small farms also compose an important part of the
social fabric of rural America by contributing to culture
and tradition through promoting self-empowerment and
community responsibility; providing places for families to
pass on values of hard work and responsibility; and provid-
ing a human connection to food and the earth (NCSF,
1998). The definition of a small farm has been somewhat
ambiguous throughout the literature. Small farms have
been defined by terms such as land acreages operated,
number of livestock units, value of farm output, farm
assets, and farm income (Lewis 1978 in Gebremedhin
and Christy, 1996, p. 59). In 2013, the USDA-ARS
released a more concise classification system for small
farms to provide better longitudinal comparison. While
the authors’synthesis of past research reflects findings
across definitions, selection methods for this research
align more closely with the latter, including an additional
focus on local food production (see Methods section).
Although practicing agriculture at a small scale does not
ensure that sustainable practices are used, small farms in
general are more likely to practice and promote sustainable
agricultural practices than large farms (D’Souza and
Ikerd, 1996; Tavernier and Tolomeo, 2004). Nonetheless,
agricultural research and subsidy payments have tradition-
ally been devoted to increasing yields and the needs of
larger-scale, conventional production agriculture rather
than rewarding small family farms and sustainable prac-
tices (Tilman et al., 2002; Riedl, 2007).
Agricultural practices of the last 60 years have generally
resulted in significant environmental degradation, includ-
ing loss of biodiversity, marginalized water quality (fresh
and salt water), and loss of ecosystem services (Tilman
et al., 2002). These impacts and peoples’response to
them vary regionallyand are very much dependent on miti-
gating factors such as regional economics, environmental
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems: Page 1 of 13 doi:10.1017/S1742170516000442
©Cambridge University Press 2017
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
factors (e.g., terrain and soil type) and social factors
(Sassenrath et al., 2010). Community characteristics such
as links to marketing channels (and whether these are
regional or more global in nature); community support
and knowledge of farming systems and the commitment
to local economy; and connections and accessibility to
internal and external change agents (i.e., scientists, policy
makers, educators, etc.) all impact how different areas of
the country practice agriculture and respond to the risks
and rewards that chosen practices bring (Gliessman,
2010; Sassenrath et al., 2010).
Managing agricultural lands sustainably over the next
50 years will ideally result in increased societal benefits
including: higher crop yields; greater efficiencies in
water, nitrogen and phosphorous use; management prac-
tices that are ecologically and sociologically mindful; the
sensible use of pesticides and herbicides; and significant
changes in livestock production (Tilman et al., 2002).
Deficiencies in the existing literature highlight the need
for more research that preserves important contextual
factors and allows for direct application by regional agri-
cultural professionals. The authors of this study believe
that there is insufficient understanding of the factors
that influence decision-making on small, diversified
family farms, especially within specific regional contexts.
Because each region holds unique characteristics that
may impact the local food system, solutions must be
grounded in place-based research within the community
of concern.
Achieving a paradigmatic shift in the way agriculture is
done will require, among other things, that farmers are
appropriately rewarded for the work they do, particularly
if they are using sustainable agricultural practices (Tilman
et al., 2002). Recognizing there is a delicate balance of
practicality, economics, social drivers and environmental
factors that shape the management decisions farmers
make, this research seeks to explore the question of
what it means to be a smallholder farmer in East
Central Indiana (ECI). Through in-depth qualitative
inquiry, this study more specifically investigates the fol-
lowing questions in the context of ECI: What are the
factors farmers consider when making decisions about
sustainability on their farm? What are the barriers and
opportunities in regard to sustainable management on
small farms? What is the importance of regional context
in farming decisions?
Past research focusing on farmers’management deci-
sions is useful in providing guidelines for future research,
but it is limited in significant ways. Several studies (Gould
et al., 1989; Westra and Olson, 1997; Soule et al., 2000;
Farmer and Betz, 2016) have attempted to link demo-
graphic and farm variables with conservation decisions,
but there has been little, if any strong agreement in
results (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Prokopy et al.,
2008). Although uncovering these quantitative relation-
ships could make targeting programs more efficient,
few if any variables have accurately predicted farm
management behavior despite decades of research.
Others have investigated the more in-depth motivational
and attitudinal aspects of farmer decision-making
(Salamon et al., 1997; Petrzelka et al., 1996; Sassenrath
et al., 2010). While these studies provide critical insight
and have built a strong framework for understanding
farmers’complex decision-making processes, they do
not fully address the personal and nuanced decision-
making processes that inhibit or motivate farmers’
actions. The authors of this study hope to gain insight
into the situational and contextual details informing man-
agement behaviors by engaging in extensive on-farm
interviews with small-scale farmers about the challenges
or barriers in ECI that keep them from maintaining the
long-term viability of their farms—and how those bar-
riers may be more or less pronounced due to regional
socio-cultural, economic and environmental factors.
Currently, there is a groundswell of interest in ECI in
promoting small-scale, diversified agriculture. In 2012, a
feasibility study was commissioned with a goal to
expand the marketplace for Indiana-raised and Indiana-
consumed food (Aubrey, 2012). Among other things, the
study predicted that the market size in Central Indiana
is not only large enough to accommodate more specialty
crop producers, but that most of the anticipated growth in
the specialty crops sector (i.e., fruits and vegetables, tree
nuts, dried fruits and horticulture and nursery crops
including floriculture) (USDA NASS, 2012) will come
from farms of less than 200 acres. This is even more
likely considering that rising costs of land, equipment
and buildings have created significant barriers to entry
for larger-scale conventional agriculture (Ahearn et al.,
2005). Consequently, the number of small, diversified
farms is expected to increase. Overall, there seems to be
a desire in Indiana to ‘grow more farmers,’but there is
also an inclination that some of the critical infrastructure
(communication and distribution networks, processing
facilities, educational resources) needed to support this
growth may be lacking in the state (Meter, 2012). A better
understanding of producers’decision-making processes
will not only allow for a more efficient allocation of
support resources, but will also provide insight into the
relevant drivers for sustainable management in ECI and
in places with similar regional characteristics in the
USA. The results of this study are not intended to gener-
alize the views of ECI farmers, but rather, to enhance
understanding of the context-specific factors that shape
intention and behavior among smallholder farmers
toward engaging in sustainable management practices.
What influences management decisions on
the farm?
Farmer motivations, attitudes and perceptions, although
complex and somewhat difficult to measure, are import-
ant drivers of farmer decision-making (Alonge and
Martin, 1995). Several studies have explored farmers’
2 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
motivations for choosing whether to adopt sustainable
management practices, with varying results (Ryan et al.,
2003; Chouinard et al., 2008; Sassenrath et al., 2010).
Farmers describe gaining personal benefit from independ-
ence, working outside and being close to nature, acting as
stewards for the environment, and interacting with the
community, among other things as important motivators
to farm and choose sustainable methods (Ahnström et al.,
2009). In other research, family factors such as tradition
of innovation (Salamon et al., 1997) and identification
of an heir (Inwood and Sharp, 2012) were found relevant.
Still, although farming is often described as a ‘lifestyle
choice’based on non-economic factors, it is also a busi-
ness, and thus cannot be separated from economic moti-
vations and the need to make a living. That is, although
farmers may be motivated by a sense of stewardship,
adopting conservation measures is also a business deci-
sion, so must be practical and cost-effective to the
farmer’s operation to be successful (Hoag et al., 2012).
Overall, motivational studies stress that farmers balance
a number of factors when trying to achieve ‘good prac-
tice’(as defined by each individual) on their farms
(Lemon and Park, 1993; Karami and Keshavarz, 2010).
Attitudinal research provides further insight into
farmers’behavior. Farmers are more likely to adopt sus-
tainable management practices if they have a positive atti-
tude toward stewardship and the environment (Lynne
et al., 1988; Sullivan et al., 1996; Prokopy et al., 2008),
if they value the off-farm benefits of conservation prac-
tices (Reimer et al., 2012) and if they have favorable atti-
tudes toward the community (Petrzelka et al., 1996).
Conversely, farmers may be less likely to adopt sustain-
able management practices if they have favorable attitudes
toward economic rationality and conventional farming
methods (Petrzelka et al., 1996), and if they have stronger
beliefs in technology (Lynne et al., 1988). However, atti-
tudes by themselves do not necessarily predict behavior;
attitudes are simply a predisposition to act in a given
way (Karami and Keshavarz, 2010; Heberlein, 2012).
Even if farmers have positive environmental attitudes, in
order to actually adopt an environmental behavior they
must also be aware of the practice, believe it is feasible,
and find it consistent with their goals (Pannell, 1999).
There is also strong evidence that external factors such
as social, economic and geographic circumstances shape
the regional conditions that help to determine what type
of farming systems will arise. Comparing drivers for
adoption of sustainable systems in the Northeast versus
Southeast USA, Sassenrath et al. (2010) showed that
despite having similar motivations, key regional factors
impacted farmers’ability to adopt sustainable systems.
In the Northeast, farmers were more inclined to adopt
more localized and diverse systems because local market-
ing channels were well developed, as opposed to global
marketing channels which were more prominent in the
Southeast. Market conditions such as price levels, con-
sumer willingness-to-pay, transportation and supply
chain transaction costs, labor markets, local agricultural
policy and proximity to urban areas (Mishra et al.,
2002) are all regionally specific factors that can work to
induce or deter farmers from adopting more diversified
systems (Bowman and Zilberman, 2013). Farmers’deci-
sions are both limited and augmented by such political,
economic, social and ecological contextual factors
(Duram, 2000), supporting the notion that the broader
community significantly impacts the type of agricultural
systems adopted. Therefore, barriers to the adoption of
sustainable systems must be understood within the
specific community context (Karami and Keshavarz,
2010).
Theoretical framework
Social–psychological theory suggests that behavioral
intention is not only informed by attitudes, but also by
the interactions among values, beliefs and subjective
norms (Fishbein and Azjen 1975; Heberlein, 2012).
According to the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) pio-
neered by Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), beliefs toward an
outcome, evaluation of an outcome, beliefs of what
others might think, what experts think and motivations
to conform—all inform attitudes and subjective norms,
which in turn influence intentions and behaviors. Still,
there is evidence that physical and social situational
context can play a significant role in driving behavior
(Heberlein, 2012). External factors have indirect bearing
on attitudes and subjective norms by modifying the struc-
ture of a person’s beliefs (Davis et al., 1989). Karami
and Kesharvarz’s(2010) framework of farmer behavior
depicts attitudes as bound partly by gender norms
and influenced heavily by religion and spiritual values,
access to information, attitudes of nearby reference
groups, quality of life and personal characteristics.
Similarly, a model produced by Ahnström et al. (2009)
describes farmer attitudes and perceptions as being
influenced by nature, agri-environmental schemes, sub-
jective norm attitudes and, perhaps most importantly,
the ‘context box’(Ahnström et al., 2009). Farmers, the
authors argue, shape their perspectives and attitudes
based on the way they perceive the context in which
they operate. Factors such as education, economics,
extension, farm history and the existence of farm heirs
make up the context box and act not only upon the
farmer directly, but also affect the larger norm attitudes
and the way agri-environmental schemes are designed.
In this way, situational and social constraints serve as
thresholds for attitudes. Strong attitudes can overcome
these thresholds, while weak attitudes tend not to. This
may help explain that although two farmers could have
nearly identical environmental attitudes, they may
choose to act differently in accordance with their farm
structure, management style, individual circumstances
and cultural norms in the surrounding community. The
fault in most studies is that they often fail to account
3Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
for the multitude of factors that influence attitudes
(Reimer et al., 2012), and do not adequately recognize
the importance of location and individual farmer circum-
stances in shaping attitudes and behaviors (Ahnström
et al., 2009). Though not empirically testing TRA, the
framework guides research questions in this study to
address noticeable gaps in the smallholder farming litera-
ture that fail to speak toward factors such as individual
circumstances, regional culture, physical location, local
economy and historical land-use context. This research
seeks to understand which factors bound within the
community context of ECI are most important in
shaping the decisions of small farmers contributing to
local food systems.
Methods
Study region
In the eight-county ECI region (see Fig. 1), most farms
(71% or 3716 farms) report annual sales of less than US
$100,000. Nearly 70% of all farms have fewer than
180 acres, and most farms (88%) are owned by families
or individuals (USDA NASS, 2012). The top crop items
produced by acreage are by far corn for grain and soy-
beans for beans. However, a diverse range of other com-
modities is also produced in the region with notable
market values, such as milk and dairy products; vegeta-
bles, melons, potatoes and sweet potatoes; grains, oilseeds,
dry beans and dry peas; sheep, goats and their products;
and fruit, nuts and berries (USDA NASS, 2012).
This study employed qualitative research methods to
gain a deeper understanding of how farmers perceive situ-
ational circumstances as influencing their motivations
and management practices. The study counties were
chosen based on geographic proximity to Muncie,
Indiana, the center and largest urban area in ECI, as
well as the center of the ECI business development unit.
Fifteen key informant (KI) interviews were conducted
to build an understanding of the regional context and to
gain initial access to the population. KIs were selected
based on their positions in communities/organizations
or by their locally described reputations as knowing a
lot about smallholder farming in ECI (Elmendorf and
Luloff, 2001). The pool included professionals from
Extension, state and county farm and natural resource
agencies, market masters and identified leaders among
local farmers. Discussions focused on regional cultural
characteristics and farming history, challenges often dis-
cussed with farmers and availability of educational and
other types of resources. KIs identified potential intervie-
wees based on their knowledge of the farmers’eligibility
and willingness to participate in an interview. This
method of chain referral (Biernacki and Waldorf, 1981)
was also used to draw on farmers’knowledge of add-
itional participants in order to collect a range of perspec-
tives to best understand and represent the study region. In
order to conduct the KI and producer interviews,
researchers sought and received IRB (Institutional
Review Board) approval.
Farms were selected based on the following criteria,
which are modified from the USDA definition for ‘low-
sales, small family farm:’(a) farm controls fewer than
260 acres of land; (b) a majority of farmland is oper-
ator-owned; (c) ownership structure for the farm is indi-
vidual or family-owned (related by blood, marriage or
adoption); (d) annual farm revenues do not exceed US
$150,000; and (e) a significant portion of the farm’s
output is dedicated to crop or animal products, or both,
destined for direct sales to consumers or local food
markets (e.g., u-pick operations, farm stands, farmers
markets, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA),
local groceries or auctions). These criteria were meant
to reflect current and predicted trends among smallholder
farmers in the USA, and also include a focus on locally
marketed food production.
Data were collected through in-depth, face-to-face inter-
views with farmers from all eight study counties in May
Figure 1. ECI study region included the following counties:
Delaware, Blackford, Jay, Randolph, Wayne, Henry, Madison,
Grant.
4 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
through September 2012. Participant selection was purpos-
ive so as to maximize the diversity of stories and experiences
represented by small-scale farmers in the ECI region. Every
attempt was made to achieve a diversity of farmer experi-
ences, farm types, farm sizes and geographic characteristics.
Based on standards set by previous qualitative research in
the agricultural field (Duram, 2000; Reimer et al., 2012;
Zwickle et al., 2012) 33 interviews were conducted with
farmers, until saturation was reached. A semi-structured
format was used to maintain objectivity while allowing
the researcher flexibility to explore topic areas further as
they became relevant. Following the emergent nature of
qualitative research, interview questions were adjusted as
themes began to arise in the research identifying the most
salient topics related to small-scale diversified farming in
ECI. Interviews were audio-recorded and/or documented
with detailed notes by the researcher and lasted between 1
and 4 hours. At the end of the interview, farmers were
asked to complete a short demographic questionnaire to
provide additional background and contextual information.
Content analysis was used to code transcripts accord-
ing to individual units of meaning in the data. Codes
were then organized into relevant themes, which identified
commonalities across interviews. Prior to data collection,
the researcher disclosed potential biases by drafting a list
of preconceived ideas about the culture of the study region
based on time spent living and working in ECI. A second-
ary coder confirmed themes that arose from the data and
peer debriefing was used to provide a second or third per-
spective. Thick description and direct quotations accom-
pany the analysis to illustrate the themes.
The results of this research are associated with a larger
study examining the relationship between soil manage-
ment and social characteristics of farmers. Farmers were
asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their percep-
tions and management techniques in regard to soil, and
soil samples were taken at each farm. Results from that
aspect of the study are beyond the scope of this paper
and will not be discussed in this text, but are available in
Grover (2013).
Results
KIs provided regional context and informed questions
drafted on the interview protocol. Because producer mar-
keting challenges were a prominent theme KIs identified,
specific questions in the interview protocol were directed
to further explore these issues; and in fact, marketing
became an exceedingly relevant topic throughout the
farmer interviews. A related topic that became prominent
was KIs’views of the farming culture in ECI. Several
speculated that ECI’s history of the tradition and domin-
ance of conventional agriculture may have stifled the
growth of the small farm/local food movement compared
with other areas in the state. While informants did not say
precisely why ECI has been slower to adopt a local foods
model than other areas in the state, several theories arose
related to geography, economics and the ubiquitous pres-
ence of conventional agriculture in ECI compared with
other regions.
KIs’attention to the polarization in farm sizes that has
occurred in ECI is testament to the continuing dominance
conventional production has on the regional farming
culture. Aspects of farming culture became significant
throughout the farmer interviews, particularly as related
to ecological concerns and educational needs. These
issues will be further discussed in the sections that
follow. A full account of the KI interviews is available
in Grover (2013).
Farmer interviews: markets
Markets were by far the most prominent topic farmers
discussed regarding challenges in maintaining long-term
farm viability. Farmers perceived a low level of awareness
about local foods among consumers in ECI, although
most said awareness had grown in recent years. Several
were convinced that most people ‘don’t know what
good food is,’noting changes in consumer preferences
toward convenience foods. They perceived a particularly
low willingness-to-pay on the part of consumers in ECI
compared with other areas in Indiana, as well as a lack
of understanding of locally based agriculture and the
cost and processes associated with farming and food pro-
duction. Several farmers in this study traveled to markets
in the greater Indianapolis area, although somewhat
regretfully. Farmers noted that the market was much
larger in those areas and customers in the metro seemed
to have greater appreciation for local foods compared
with ECI. Farmers linked this willingness-to-pay to
higher levels of education and income, but in some
cases, to a different mindset in more urban areas.
‘The community here is just not—it doesn’t have that mental-
ity. I don’t know if they were just broke or what, but they just
wanted to get something for nothing.’
While producers felt somewhat satisfied with the prices
they received for their products, many felt that the
strength of the market affected what they could produce.
Several farmers, for instance, had an interest in switching
to more organic or ‘natural’practices, but did not think
enough customers would be willing to pay an extra
premium. Many farmers also felt that they could not
raise their prices to account for increases in production
costs over the years because of competition from big
box stores and consumer expectations for low prices.
Farmers often pointed to larger-scale economic forces
as affecting the market for their products. Many men-
tioned the economic recession in the USA, although it
was viewed to have both positive and negative effects on
the market for local products. Farmers linked consumers’
low willingness-to-pay to job losses and lowered incomes
over the last several years, especially noting the decline
5Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
of manufacturing industries in ECI. At the time data were
collected, ECI’s unemployment rate was higher than
national and state averages (BLS, 2012; USDA ERS,
2012), at 9.7% compared with 8.3% in Indiana and 8.1%
nationwide. Over the period from 2006 (prior to the
Great Recession) to 2012, median income in ECI counties
remained fairly stagnant, although ‘real’(CPI inflation-
adjusted) median income fell by about 13% (BLS, 2012).
Manufacturing jobs were negatively impacted over the
same period. Statewide, manufacturing jobs declined by
17.3%; in the Muncie metropolitan area (the only geo-
graphic subset available), losses in the industry were as
high as 41.6% (BLS, 2012).
Farmers were also attuned to the issue of market com-
petition. In addition to discussing price competition from
big box stores, many farmers also readily described com-
petition with other local producers; although, farmers
seemed to have differing definitions of what it means to
compete with one another. Some saw their consumer
base as being limited to a small geographic range, or to
a particular type of consumer, whereas others felt that
anyone nearby growing similar products constituted
competition.
‘The biggest challenge for me farming here has been to grow
something that does very well, and that everybody else
doesn’tgrow.’
‘Other farmers say, ‘Well, I don’t know how you can sell it
at that price.’And it’s like, well, I don’t compete with you. I
don’t live on your side of town. We don’t compete with other
vendors, and we don’t compete with the grocery stores.’
A number of producers mentioned the increasing presence
of Amish populations in the small farming community
over the last decade (Amish farmers were interviewed as
well). Non-Amish farmers seemed to have a general
respect for the Amish way of life and the quality of
Amish produced products, but expressed concerns with
market competition.
‘The Amish are going to be real competitors for anyone else
because they are working hard at it–they’re doing all the
information gathering and research. And I wish them well,
but I can’t compete with them in price.’
Farmers were further concerned about competition from
‘non-growers’(particularly those who sold products
through farmers markets). According to farmers, some
market vendors purchase food at lower prices from
Amish-run produce auctions (one auction opened just
outside ECI in 2004, and another within ECI in 2007).
Reportedly, some of these vendors resell auction-bought
produce at farmers markets or roadside stands with
little or no indication to consumers of where the food
came from. Several farmers openly described contention
with these ‘non-growers.’
‘It’s not so much an open conflict as it is kind of a seething
wound [laughs]. It’s something that those of us that grow
our own are very proud.’
Some farmers seemed to view this practice as an issue of
deception. They were indignant when comparing their
own labor and investment spent in bringing their products
to market to their ‘non-grower’counterparts.
‘Every time they go and sell something they bought, they
don’t put no work into, we bring stuff home…It’sa
farmers market. If you aren’t growing it, you’re not a
farmer. That’s false advertisement, that’s cheating.’
Still, there was a range of acceptance for this type of
market competition. While some were adamantly in
favor of a grower-only model, others felt it was acceptable
to engage in some resale, as long as vendors primarily pro-
duced their own goods. In fact, some producers engaged
in resale as a way to supplement their own products to
offer more to consumers, to increase their profit
margins, and/or to have a source of backup income in
the event of a crop loss; they felt it was simply another
outlet to diversify the sale of their product and an import-
ant way to ensure a more stable income.
Another market-based issue was farmers’indication
that supply chain costs for organic production are particu-
larly high in the area. Since there is not a well-developed
organic sector in ECI, they said, it is difficult to access
the inputs needed for organic production (e.g., fertilizers,
feeds and approved pesticides), making the cost of
organic production too high for many to justify.
Producers cited that Indiana, and ECI in particular, has
been slower than many other areas to embrace the local
and organic food movement and believed that supply infra-
structure had not developed accordingly for that reason.
Structures and regulations
Almost every farmer mentioned regulatory issues at
some point during the interview. Many felt that small
farmers were overburdened by excessive or inappropri-
ate regulations at the federal and state level. For the
most part, farmers felt that policies were enacted with
large-scale operations in mind, feeling that many regu-
lations were inappropriate to their scale, making the
compliance process onerous—both time and cost pro-
hibitive. Farmers also felt disadvantaged by govern-
ment subsidy structures that favored large-scale
production, noting that the system encourages cheap
food, making it harder for small farmers to compete.
Several felt that government ‘got in the way’of what
they needed to do to be successful in operating and
growing their farm.
‘I don’t like government intervention at all…(speaking of
health regulations) It’s a one size fits all rule that just
simply doesn’tfit me, and it wouldn’tfit anybody else
doing what I’m doing…’
Many farmers expressed concern over predicted changes
in health and safety regulations. Farmers worried that
any increase in certification or regulatory costs would
6 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
hurt their already slim profit margins. Farmers also felt
impeded by disjointed regulations at the more local
level. Several mentioned that health requirements varied
from county to county, and even market to market,
making the selling process confusing and time consuming.
Although a majority of the farmers viewed government
regulations as a barrier, there were some exceptions.
Several mentioned taking advantage of recent grant
opportunities such as USDA high tunnel grants, or
other incentive programs. Most were apathetic to regula-
tions requiring training for pesticide and fertilizer applica-
tion. A few suggested that government could sometimes
be an asset.
‘There’s a lot of folks that live in this area, they don’t want the
government involved at all. But the government will give you
money if you work within their guidelines. And they know
what they’re talking about.’
Time and labor
Nearly all farmers mentioned time, or lack thereof, as a
constraint on their operations. Many worked full-time
jobs on top of farming and struggled with expanding
their operations or implementing new practices. While
some aspired to leave their off-farm job to farm full-
time, several farmers viewed what they do as a lifestyle
choice that must be supported by an off-farm income.
Yet, time was limited even for the full-time farmer.
Many talked about challenges in becoming more
efficient with all of their resources, but especially with
their time. Those who farmed full-time often described
struggling with being able to get everything done.
Although general farm work was often discussed,
several farmers also particularly noted struggles in
finding the time to market products adequately or to
learn about and set up new marketing avenues.
‘I wish I had more time to focus on marketing, because with
both of us working full-time outside of the farm, there’s just
not enough hours in the day. I think if I could dedicate some
more time to it, we’d see the changes and progress that we
want to see sooner.’
Farmers also discussed time in a more long-term sense.
Many felt limited in what they could do with their oper-
ation because of their age, talking about the ways they
might change their operation, ‘if they were younger’(a
number of farmers did not begin selling extensively from
their farm until retirement age). Many noted that the
work is too hard to continue doing at the same rate as
the body ages. Several farmers struggled with hiring
labor to help ease their time constraints. For many, the
cost of labor was too high to justify at their scale.
Others struggled with being able to find workers who
were able to do the work to their standards and stay
long enough to become skilled at the job. Many farmers
felt not only that ‘kids don’t know how to work
anymore,’but some also worried that people in general
may not have as much interest in farming as they used to.
Environmental/ecological factors
Farmers identified the biggest positive aspects about
farming in ECI to be the good soils and climate for
growing crops (and, in fact, were hard pressed to come
up with anything else that was particularly positive
about the farming region). Yet, farmers also felt that
much of the land in the area was ‘tired’from conventional
agriculture practices. Many criticized or commented on
the non-use of crop rotations as an example of the
lacking agricultural diversity in the region. Several dis-
cussed struggles with maintaining and/or improving soil
fertility, especially producers who were farming land for-
merly in conventional production.
‘The land was in really poor shape when we got it, and it’s
taking a long time to build the ground back up. We realize
it took a long time for it to get that way and it will probably
take a long time to build it back up, but we would like for it to
happen faster.’
Several farmers also mentioned issues related to chemical
drift as a challenge for growing organically. A few noted
that even if they wanted to certify their farm organically,
it would not be possible because of their proximity to
other conventional farms.
Networking and access to educational
support
Farmers generally felt that their educational needs were
underserved. Resources such as Extension, they said, typ-
ically favored conventional farming. They especially felt
that there was not enough information for growing horti-
cultural crops in ECI soils and climate region, expressing
frustration in seeking information online or from
Extension, and only being able to find information
catered to faraway places. Several felt that traditional edu-
cational resources were lagging in ECI.
‘When you read and you go to conventions, you realize
Indiana is really far behind in the fruit and vegetable business.
Even your extension agents don’t seem to be real proactive.
Maybe there’s not enough fruit and vegetable growers here?
So you can’t really fault them, but I just wish we could
have a little bit more sometimes.’
Some were frustrated with the available educational
resources because they were ‘overly academic,’feeling
that educators did not have adequate hands-on training,
or did not make enough site visits to understand
farmers’situations. While some farmers felt positive
about the support they received from educational agen-
cies, many preferred learning from other farmers, or at
least from those with hands-on experience.
7Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
‘They’ve got the degree, but they haven’t got the common
sense knowledge. You can write a cookbook, but that
doesn’t mean you can cook.’
Farmers often described learning from and receiving
support from other farmers. Many found valuable rela-
tionships at various state or regional conferences.
‘I think organizations where the members are willing to share
information…those kinds of things are vital for a small
farmer, especially a person that’s trying to do it as an individ-
ual. It’s kind of like your little mini support group.’
At the same time, farmers seem to be disconnected from
each other in the local ECI region. Few were able to
describe many others in ECI who were doing similar
things as them, and often farmers were only able to iden-
tify others farmers who attended their same market.
One farmer illustrated the relative rarity of his type of
operation in the area by the ‘abnormal’nature of his prac-
tices compared to peers.
‘I’ve been known to go to the dark side—organic fruits and
vegetables…I’m doing strange stuff—which, for around
here, strange means I try very hard to do no sprays or
chemicals.’
Some farmers perceived that there simply were not very
many similar producers in the area, while others figured
that there were similar farmers were around, but they
just were not acquainted. One farmer mentioned her dis-
appointment at the lack of a strong communal feeling
among small farmers in the area.
‘I feel incredibly isolated here. I know there a couple other
people in our county, probably, but there aren’t many small
farms that are doing non-conventional farming.’
Most farmers were open to the idea of a more forma-
lized network for small farmers in ECI, although they
expressed several concerns. The biggest concern was
time—farmers worried that the benefits would not be
worth the cost of time that could be better spent on
the farm. Still, some had reservations because they
were skeptical about the expertise of other farmers in
such a group.
‘Sometimes I get information from other farmers, but that’s
kind of like, take it with a grain of salt because you don’t
always know what they’re really telling you.’
On one hand, farmers found the knowledge gained from
each other as an important resource. Several supported
the idea of collaborating to share ideas and resources.
Yet, several farmers thought there might be a limit to
the degree that farmers in the area would be willing to
cooperate to share resources and information.
‘Not everyone’s going to be your best bud, but the people who
are reasonable and open hook up. There’s people around here
that are very competitive and secretive and guarding them-
selves all the time. I try to exercise my faith in those
matters and realize that there’ll be plenty for me.’
Discussion
Farmers in this study identified a number of barriers
similar to those experienced by farmers nationwide.
However, as predicted, some aspects were more pro-
nounced and/or more specific to regional context of
ECI, suggesting the need for more localized attention in
the formation of initiatives aimed to promote local food
production and consumption. In this study, as throughout
the literature (Gebremedhin and Christy, 1996; Eastwood
et al., 2004; Hall et al., 2006; Cantor and Strohlic, 2009),
market conditions were found to be a significant limiter
on farmers’ability to sustain and grow their operations.
Still, the specificinfluencing factors farmers described in
ECI merit further consideration.
For instance, farmers’struggle in receiving adequate
prices for their product is consistent with other findings
that describe barriers related to competition from big
box stores, consumers’general lack of understanding
and trends related willingness-to-pay for food on a
national scale (Thilmany et al., 2008; Martinez et al.,
2010). However, farmers’suggestion that ECI consumers
have an especially low willingness-to-pay for local pro-
ducts compared with other nearby locations because of
income and education may suggest a regionally pro-
nounced barrier related to economic development consist-
ent with county-level census data. At the time of data
collection, ECI counties had some of the highest
poverty levels in the state at 18.6%, compared with
15.5% in Indiana and 15.9% nationwide. Educational
attainment for adults 25 and older for completion of a
bachelor’sdegreeorhigherover2010–2014 was only
17.1% in ECI, compared with 23.6% statewide and 29.4%
nationally (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013;2014). This finding
may lend some support to the suggestion by Délier et al.
(2003) that a vibrant rural economy may be necessary to
support small-scale farms and not vice versa. Of course, it
is possible that ECI consumers have a lower willingness-
to-pay for other reasons. Although consumer attitudes are
beyond the scope of this study, consumer education helps
to drive marketing (Sassenrath et al., 2010) and thus may
be an important part of the solution.
Farmers’perceptions of market competition as a chal-
lenge was not surprising given the results of past research
(Lawless, 1999; Cantor and Strohlic, 2009), but subtleties
that emerged from this study shed light on cultural and
political issues specific to ECI that may shape regional
conditions. In particular, farmers perceived demographic
changes over the last decade including influxes of Amish
populations settling in ECI as having influenced both
the farming culture and markets in the region in unique
ways. While Amish populations are challenging to quan-
tify and track, data available suggests that Indiana has the
third highest Amish population in the USA, with an esti-
mated 45,144 adherents in 2010 (Grammich et al., 2012),
over half of which are located in ECI counties. Data also
suggest that major gains (50% or more) and/or new
8 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
settlements occurred in ECI from 2000 to 2010
(Grammich et al., 2012). Produce auctions largely oper-
ated and utilized by Amish farmers launched in the
decade prior to study created a new market mechanism
for growers and have built linkages with farmers’
markets. Yet, they have also introduced new types of com-
petition, illustrated by the conflicts farmers described
between ‘growers’and ‘non-growers.’These conflicts
seem to be largely the result of inconsistent market rules
and enforcement and the absence of state regulations gov-
erning sales at farmers markets. While a ‘grower only’
market structure would likely be supported by some, it
is also worth considering that ‘non-growers’also sell pro-
ducts grown in ECI, helping to support other farmers and
keep food dollars in the local economy. Still, the conflict
between these groups is significant and creates a social
barrier to cooperation among those working toward a
more localized food system. Future policy governing
farmers’market sales, then, should focus on requiring
more transparency in the sale of local products both to
foster cooperation between producers and to provide
better consumer information. While we cannot be sure
whether these types of issues in regard to market compe-
tition are specific to ECI, they are likely to be more preva-
lent in states such as Indiana that do not have statewide
regulations governing resale at farmers markets.
Parallels related to the cultural mix of the region may
also exist in other areas where non Euro-American popu-
lations engaging in small-scale agriculture have developed
a strong market presence. Evidence from ECI suggests
that because of differences in regional demographics,
solutions to address market concerns should be inclusive
and crafted with sensitivity to cultural dynamics and pro-
ducer relationships (Koontz and Johnson, 2004).
This research also demonstrates the important role
subjective norms play in how likely local food systems
are to develop and succeed. Consistent with the history
Meter (2012) provided, farmers in this study held the
opinion that the organic and local food movement has
been slower to develop in ECI than in other areas of
the country and other areas in Indiana. Farmers as well
as KIs linked this effect not only to demographic and eco-
nomic conditions, but also to geography and land-use
history. According to interviewees, high-quality soils
and flat terrain in ECI promoted the use of large-scale
equipment for conventional production in the region
compared with other areas in the state where other
models prevailed due to tradition and geographic condi-
tions. As a result, the prolonged presence and dominance
of conventional agriculture in ECI has had a strong
influence on subjective norms in the region for what
types of agriculture are viewed as deviant. Because the
use of alternative practices is perceived to be less well
developed in ECI, farmers may feel social pressure to
conform to the conventional mode of production, as evi-
denced by statements of how ‘strange’farmers felt their
use of organic or alternative practices was in the area or
by the irritation some expressed toward ‘not being con-
sidered a farmer’because of the size and nature of their
operation. In this way, the regional setting may present
additional social barriers to the adoption of more sus-
tainable practices in ECI. The increased pressure to
conform to subjective norms may make it more difficult
for farmers to engage in alternative methods of produc-
tion in other areas throughout the Great Plains, which
is also supported in previous research (Duram, 2000).
Of course, practical implications of the tradition and
land-use history in the region also include restrictions
on farmers’ability to choose organic practices because
of the proximity to conventional producers and the lack
of local food systems infrastructure in the region.
Indiana as a whole imports approximately 90% of its
food. This ‘importing behavior’has gifted the state
great efficiencies for shipping food long distances, but
few efficiencies for local food trade (Meter, 2012). Since
this was not a comparative study, however, it is difficult
to gauge the extent of this challenge compared with
other areas in the state. Future research should explore
the extent of support for the local food movement
between ECI and more (supposedly) progressive areas
of the state in terms of both farmer attitudes as well as
supporting infrastructures available. The finding that
this challenge seems to be more pronounced in regions
where culture has favored conventional agriculture
implies that a blanket solution may not be appropriate.
Given farmers’perceptions of consumer attitudes in
ECI, as well as the difficulties many farmers described
in terms of effectively marketing their products, add-
itional support may be needed to help farmers expand
their markets and speed the development of the local
food economy. One model that may be effective is the cre-
ation of a regional food hub which could offer infrastruc-
tural support to producers, increase market access for
purchasers, and serve as a conduit for information flow
and sharing (Hardy et al., 2006;Barhametal.,2012).
Engaging local institutions (e.g., universities, hospitals
and other major employers) in the regional food
economy could offer a way forward.
The finding of structures and regulations as a barrier is
similar to results found by other researchers (Duram,
2000); in this study and in past research, farmers consist-
ently seemed to feel that regulations at the federal and
state level were not scale-appropriate to their operations.
If a more robustly developed local food system is
desired, more opportunities such as small producer
grants, which farmers discussed in a positive manner,
should be encouraged, while policies giving favoritism
to conventional production should be discouraged.
Regulations could also be revised toward more of a
sliding-scale approach to account for the scale and diver-
sity of farms and the needs of small businesses. The
Tester-Hagan Amendment in the recent Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) is one example of how this
might be implemented. In an effort to provide more
9Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
scale-appropriate oversight for food safety, the amend-
ment exempts small producers who sell within a 275-
mile radius of their farm from complying with stringent
record-keeping and plan-making requirements otherwise
required through FSMA but maintains practical require-
ments that maintain product traceability. Still, more
careful work is needed to reduce regulatory barriers that
are impractical for small producers while maintaining
food safety and integrity.
Time and labor are related to economies of scale, so
given that this study focused on small-scale farmers, it
was unsurprising to find these as barriers. Time and
labor are common constraints found in others studies
and are recognized by the USDA as barriers for farmers
involved in local food production (Martinez et al., 2010;
Sassenrath et al., 2010; Zwickle et al., 2012). Several
farmers specifically mentioned time constraints in
regard to marketing (e.g., not having enough time to
market properly or to expand their markets as they
would like to), so it seems that the lack of time can have
reinforcing negative effects. Potential solutions in this
regard could include offering additional marketing educa-
tion for farmers, and/or encouraging the formation of
cooperative marketing systems that would help farmers
share marketing burdens.
Some of the related issues farmers discussed with
regard to labor are also worth noting in more detail.
Farmers’challenges finding good labor and their views
that ‘people just aren’t interested in agriculture
anymore’must be addressed if we desire to maintain
and grow the farming population. The suspected decline
in skill and interest in farming is troubling. Steps should
be taken to promote farming as a viable and desirable
career, along with other actions to improve the markets
and profitability of small-scale farming. Initiatives such
as the USDA’s beginning farmer program should con-
tinue to be implemented, and hopefully will help to
encourage farmers to begin operations at a younger age
to alleviate some of the challenges many farmers experi-
ence related to their age and health. Continued invest-
ment in programs like 4-H and FFA that encourage
children to develop interests and skills in agriculture
will be vital.
The main ecological factors farmers described, soil
productivity and chemical drift, are challenges identified
by organic farmers on a national scale (Hanson et al.,
2004; Pimentel et al., 2005) and are likely to continue to
be a problem in future years. Still, chemical drift is par-
ticularly detrimental to small-scale farmers because
small properties do not allow for as large of a land
buffer between adjacent fields where chemicals are used.
The problem may be further exacerbated in areas such
as ECI where organic practice is viewed as culturally
deviant because neighboring farms may be less amenable
to working with small farmers to adjust their practices.
Although voluntary programs such as DriftWatch are
beneficial, additional enforcement and legal implications
for chemical drift may be necessary to alleviate barriers
for small farmers.
Farmers’views that area resources disproportionately
favor conventional agriculture were somewhat expected
given the pervasiveness of commodity crop production
in the region and the focus of previous research on
larger scale farms. The finding that farmers often found
local resources to be ‘overly academic’and that many pre-
ferred learning from those with first-hand experience was
also consistent with previous work (Franz et al., 2010).
Convincing research extolls the benefits of farmer-to-
farmer networks in strengthening local food markets,
building community, facilitating the transfer of informa-
tion and innovation, and building impetus needed to
make change (Fisk et al., 2000;Kroma,2006). Still,
farmers in ECI may have reservations about engaging in
a collaborative network. Aside from their general feelings
of isolation or disconnection from other farmers, some
viewed the market as being small and were wary of devel-
oping relationships with other farmers for fear of
increased competition. It is possible that such protective
attitudes may inhibit some small farmers from collaborat-
ing with one another to expand the market. The skepti-
cism some expressed about the expertise of other
farmers may also be significant. It is difficult to say
whether the apprehension to collaborate is unique to
ECI without further study, but the relative absence of
cooperatives and farmer networks in the area compared
to some other regions may offer some indication. Future
research exploring the conditions that promote cooper-
ation among small farmers may help agricultural profes-
sionals and farmers better understand how to promote
collaboration in areas where cooperative attitudes may
be lacking. Moving forward, ECI farmers may need to
be encouraged to form more trusting relationships with
other farmers. In a practical sense, educational efforts
could focus on on-farm field days specifically geared
toward small-scale, diversified farmers. By engaging in
common, honest experiences that are locally relevant,
farmers gain shared knowledge that helps to form a col-
lective identity, which is more likely to lead to trusting
relationships (Carolan, 2006; Franz et al., 2010). An
example of this was highlighted in Blesh and Wolf’s
(2014) work in Iowa where farmers were encouraged to
participate in in-field testing and trials on their farms.
The practice became a key piece of change in the region
because it promoted socialization among farmers and
helped to develop a cultural norm of experimentation.
As farmers gain and develop commonalities, they may
be more amenable to trusting one another and forming
a more cohesive and formalized social network. From
an educational perspective, it is important to note that
since trust develops in part from common interest,
topics for outreach must encapsulate the unique needs
of the growers/farmers.
10 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Summary and Recommendations
This analysis provides evidence that regional contextual
factors, and the physical and social realities that develop
as a result, play a substantial role in the success of small-
holder operations. While ECI farmers share barriers
common to those found in previous research on small-
holders (e.g., markets, time, labor and ecological
factors), regionally specific contextual factors show an
added layer of complexity to farmers’decision-making
process. Confirming the assertions of social psychology
theory, this research suggests that external factors (e.g.,
economy, demographic change, land-use context and sub-
jective norms) have bearing on smallholder’s attitudes
and further, on their behavioral intentions regarding on-
farm decision-making and sustainable agricultural prac-
tices. In ECI, demographic changes have introduced
new market conditions and significant changes in rela-
tionships between farmers. Farmers and local profes-
sionals believe that ECI’s agricultural history and social
norms have encouraged the continuing domination of
conventional larger-scale agriculture and the underdevel-
opment of small-scale diversified agriculture relative to
other areas of the state and/or country. Accordingly,
support and resources for small farms is also perceived
to have lagged behind, making it more challenging for
farmers in the area to expand and improve their opera-
tions. At the same time, macroeconomic declines have dis-
proportionately affected the ECI region. Low income and
educational attainment and high unemployment in the
area have potentially contributed to lower consumer will-
ingness-to-pay for local products. Farmers have experi-
enced weaker and more uncertain markets, likely
detracting in part from farmers’willingness to form colla-
borations, further stifling the growth of small-scale farms
and the local food movement. All of these factors com-
pound to underwrite the more simply put notion
expressed by many KIs and farmers that ECI is just
‘slow to change.’
Understanding farmers’attitudes is vital—in this study,
like many others, smallholders’attitudes were highly
varied, and their motivations toward sustainable agricul-
tural practices were as well. More importantly, farmers’
attitudes are an indicator of the external factors that act
as delimiters to change. That is, solely attempting to
change farmers’attitudes will not likely result in a large
shift to the adoption of more sustainable practices; exter-
nal factors act as thresholds that can dictate whether or
not they act on an attitude. Instead of trying to change
the attitudes themselves solely through education, this
research suggests attempts be made to modify these
thresholds so that existent attitudes are allowed to move
in the way that befits them.
If ECI is to progress toward a future including a more
sustainable food system, the approach moving forward
must be multi-faceted. Structural and social solutions at
a regional, state, or even national level noted in this
paper’s discussion could reduce barriers smallholders
face. At a high level, more attention from educational
agencies could be directed toward issues specific to small-
holders; bureaucratic processes could be reduced to allow
farmers to more easily sell at through multiple direct
market outlets; aggregation, distribution and marketing
hubs could be established to create economies of scale
for small producers. Social norming, though tougher to
implement and involving more time, can lead to signifi-
cant behavior change and can address issues at regional
and local levels. For instance, efforts to create spaces
where common practice and socialization arise among
smallholder communities can help build trust and collab-
orative spirit. Integrating local produce and agricultural
education into schools and institutions can normalize
the consumption of local foods and eventually help to
drive consumer demand. In these ways, local agriculture
should be approached as an integrative part of economic
development so that a strong economy will not be neces-
sary to support local agriculture, but rather, that local
agriculture will be avital component of a strong economy.
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank the partici-
pants of this study for their willingness to share their time and
their stories as well as the Renewable Agriculture and Food
Systems journal reviewers for providing feedback to create a
stronger manuscript. This research was made possible by grant
funding from the Ball State University ASPiRE Program.
References
Ahearn, M.C., Yee, J., and Korb, P. 2005. Effects of differing
farm policies on farm structure and dynamics. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics 87(5):1182–1189.
Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergeå, H.L., Francis, C.A.,
Skelton, P., and Hallgren, L. 2009. Farmers and nature con-
servation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and
actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and
Food Systems 24(1):38–47.
Alonge, A.J. and Martin, R.A. 1995. Assessment of the adoption of
sustainable agriculture practices: Implications for agricultural
education. Journal of Agricultural Education 36(3):34–42.
Aubrey, S. 2012. Indiana Farms, Indiana Foods, Indiana Success:
Central Indiana Food Hub Feasibility Study. Prosperity Ag &
Energy Resources, Hancock County, Indiana.
Barham, J., Tropp, D., Enterline, K., Farbman, J., Fisk, J., and
Kiraly, S. 2012. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide (No.
145227). Available at Web site https://doi.org/10.9752/
MS046.04-2012 (verified 15 September 2014).
Biernacki, P. and Waldorf, D. 1981. Snowball sampling:
Problems and techniques of chain referral sampling.
Sociological Methods and Research 10(2):141–163.
Blesh, J. and Wolf, S.A. 2014. Transitions to agroecological
farming systems in the Mississippi River Basin: Toward an
integrated socioecological analysis. Agriculture and Human
Values 31(4):621–635.
Bowman, M.S. and Zilberman, D. 2013. Economic factors
affecting diversified farming systems. Ecology and Society
18(1):33.
11Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. U.S. Department of Labor.
Unemployment, Employment, Inflation and Prices. Available
at Web site http://www.bls.gov/ (verified March 2016).
Cantor, A. and Strohlic, R.S. 2009. Breaking Down Market
Barriers for Small and Mid-sized Organic Growers.
California Institute for Rural Studies, Davis, CA.
Carolan, M.S. 2006. Social change and the adoption and adap-
tation of knowledge claims: Whose truth do you trust in
regard to sustainable agriculture? Agriculture and Human
Values 23(3):325–339.
Chouinard, H.H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P.R., and
Ohler, A.M. 2008. Will farmers trade profits for stewardship?
Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land
Economics 84(1):66–82.
Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., and Warshaw, P.R. 1989. User accept-
ance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoret-
ical models. Management Science 35(8):982–1003.
Délier, S.C., Gould, B.W., and Jones, B. 2003. Agriculture and
rural economic growth. Journal of Agricultural and
Applied Economics 35:517–527.
D’souza, G. and Ikerd, J. 1996. Small farms and sustainable
development: is small more sustainable? Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(1):73–83.
Duram, L.A. 2000. Agents’perceptions of structure: How Illinois
organic farmers view political, economic, social, and eco-
logical factors. Agriculture and Human Values 17(1):35–48.
Eastwood, D.B., Brooker, J.R., Hall, C.R., and Rhea, A. 2004.
Small produce Growers’marketing behaviors: A case study of
Tennessee. Journal of Food Distribution Research 35(1):57–64.
Elmendorf, W.F. and Luloff, A.E. 2001. Using qualitative data
collection methods when planning for community forests.
Journal of Arboriculture 27(3):139–151.
Farmer, J.R. and Betz, M.E. 2016. Rebuilding local foods in
Appalachia: Variables affecting distribution methods of
West Virginia farms. Journal of Rural Studies 45:34–42.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and
Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fisk, J.W., Hesterman, O.B., and Thorburn, T.L. 2000. 12
Integrated Farming Systems: A Sustainable Agriculture
Learning Community in the USA. Facilitating Sustainable
Agriculture: Participatory Learning and Adaptive
Management in Times of Environmental Uncertainty,
p. 217. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Franz, N., Piercy, F., Donaldson, J., Richard, R., and
Westbrook, J. 2010. How farmers learn: Implications for
agricultural educators. Journal of Rural Social Sciences 25
(1):37–59.
Gebremedhin, T.G. and Christy, R.D. 1996. Structural changes in
US agriculture: Implications for small farms. Journal of
Agricultural and Applied Economics 28(1):57–66.
Gliessman, S.R. 2010. The Conversion to Sustainable
Agriculture Principles, Processes, and Practices. CRC Press,
Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Gould, B.W., Saupe, W.E. and Klemme, R.M. 1989. Conservation
tillage: the role of farm and operator characteristics and the
perception of soil erosion. Land economics 65(2):167–182.
Grammich, C., Hadaway, K., Houseal, R., Jones, D.,
Krindatch, A., Stanley, R., and Taylor, R. 2012. 2010 U.S.
Religion Census: Religious Congregations & Membership
Study. Association of Statisticians of American Religious
Bodies. Available at Web site http://www.thearda.com/
(verified March 2016).
Grover, S., 2013. Exploring motivations and perceptions of
small-scale farmers: Considerations for sustainable agricul-
ture in east central Indiana. Doctoral dissertation, Ball
State University.
Hall, C., Brooker, J., Eastwood, D., Epperson, J., Estes, E., and
Woods, T., 2006. A marketing systems approach to removing
distribution barriers confronting small-volume fruit and
vegetable growers. Choices 21(4):259–263.
Hanson, J., Dismukes, R., Chambers, W., Greene, C., and
Kremen, A. 2004. Risk and risk management in organic agri-
culture: Views of organic farmers. Renewable Agriculture
and Food Systems 19(4):218–227.
Hardy, C.L., Holz-Clause, M., and Chase, C., 2006. Analysis
and Comparison of the Technical and Business Planning
Needs of Iowa Farmers Marketing Directly to Consumers
and Iowa Farmers Marketing Through Supply Chains.
Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Heberlein, T.A. 2012. Navigating environmental attitudes.
Conservation Biology 26(4):583–585.
Hoag, D., Luloff, A., and Osmond, D. 2012. Socioeconomic ana-
lysis: National Institute of Food and Agriculture–
Conservation Effects Assessment Project. How to Build
Better Agricultural Conservation Programs to Protect
Water Quality: The National Institute of Food and
Agriculture-Conservation Effects Assessment Project experi-
ence. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA.
p. 120–137.
Inwood, S.M. and Sharp, J.S. 2012. Farm persistence and adap-
tation at the rural–urban interface: Succession and farm
adjustment. Journal of Rural Studies 28(1):107–117.
Karami, E. and Keshavarz, M. 2010. Sociology of sustainable
agriculture. In Sociology, Organic Farming, Climate
Change and Soil Science. Springer, Netherlands. p. 19–40.
Knowler, D. and Bradshaw, B. 2007. Farmers’adoption of con-
servation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent
research. Food Policy 32(1):25–48.
Koontz, T.M. and Johnson, E.M. 2004. One size does not fit all:
Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed
group accomplishments. Policy Sciences 37(2):185–204.
Kroma, M.M. 2006. Organic farmer networks: Facilitating
learning and innovation for sustainable agriculture. Journal
of Sustainable Agriculture 28(4):5–28.
Lawless, G.M. 1999. The Farmer-Food Buyer Dialogue Project
(No. 13). University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives,
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Available at Web site
http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/info/ffbuyer/toc.html (verified 30
April 2013).
Lemon, M. and Park, J. 1993. Elicitation of farming agendas
in a complex environment. Journal of Rural Studies 9(4):
405–410.
Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiler, J.S., and Rola, L.R. 1988. Attitudes
and farmer conservation behavior. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 70(1):12–19.
Martinez, S., Hand, M., Da Pra, M., Pollack, S., Ralston, K.,
Smith, T., Vogel, S., Clark, S., Lohr, L., Low, S., and
Newman, C. 2010. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts,
and Issues. USDA ERS. Economic Research Report
Number 97. Available at Web site http://www.ers.usda.
gov/media/122868/err97_1_.pdf (verified March 2016).
12 S. Grover and J. Gruver
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
Meter, K. 2012. Hoosier Farmer? Emergent Food Systems in
Indiana. Crossroads Resource Center, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. Available at Web site http://www.crcworks.org/
infood.pdf (verified March 2013).
Mishra, A.K., El-Osta, H.S., Morehart, M.J., Johnson, J.D., and
Hopkins, J.W. 2002. Income, wealth, and the economic well-
being of farm households. Agricultural Economic Report,
812.
National Commission on Small Farms (NCSF). 1998. A time to
act: A report of the USDA National Commission on Small
Farms. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Available at Web site http://www.iatp.org/files/258_2_
106175.pdf (verified May 2012).
Pannell, D.J. 1999. Social and economic challenges in the devel-
opment of complex farming systems. Agroforestry Systems
45:393–409.
Petrzelka, P., Korsching, P.F., and Malia, J.E. 1996. Farmers’
attitudes and behavior toward sustainable agriculture.
Journal of Environmental Education 28(1):38–44.
Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., and Seidel, R.
2005. Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons
of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience
55(7):573–582.
Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., Klotthor-Weinkauf, D., and
Baumgart-Getz, A. 2008. Determinants of agricultural best
management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 63(5):300–311.
Reimer, A.P., Thompson, A.W., and Prokopy, L.S. 2012. The
multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among
farmers in Indiana: Implications for conservation adoption.
Agriculture and Human Values 29(1):29–40.
Riedl, B.M. 2007. How Farm Subsidies Harm Taxpayers,
Consumers, and Farmers, Too. Available at Web site http://
www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/how-farm-sub
sidies-harm-taxpayers-consumers-and-farmers-too (verified
March 2016).
Ryan, R.L., Erickson, D.L., and De Young, R. 2003. Farmers’
motivations for adopting conservation practices along ripar-
ian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 46(1):19–37.
Salamon, S., Farnsworth, R.L., Bullock, D.G., and Yusuf, R.
1997. Family factors affecting adoption of sustainable
farming systems. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
52(4):265–271.
Sassenrath, G.F., Halloran, J.M., Archer, D., Raper, R.L.,
Hendrickson, J., Vadas, P., and Hanson, J. 2010. Drivers
impacting the adoption of sustainable agricultural
management practices and production systems of the
Northeast and Southeast United States. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture 34(6):680–702.
Soule, M.J., Tegene, A., and Wiebe, K.D. 2000. Land tenure and
the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of
Agricultural Economics 82(4):993–1005.
Sullivan, S., McCann, E., De Young, R., and Erickson, D. 1996.
Farmers’attitudes about farming and the environment: A
survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of
Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(2):123–143.
Tavernier, E.M. and Tolomeo, V. 2004. Farm typology and sus-
tainable agriculture: Does size matter? Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture 24(2):33–46.
Thilmany, D., Bond, C.A., and Bond, J.K. 2008. Going local:
Exploring consumer behavior and motivations for
direct food purchases. American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 90(5):1303–1309.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and
Polasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive
production practices. Nature 418(6898):671–677.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. Small Area Income and Poverty
Estimates (SAIPE) Program. 2013 Poverty and Median
Household Income Estimates - Counties, States, and
National. Available at Web site https://www.census.gov/did/
www/saipe/data/statecounty/data/2013.html.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. 2010–2014 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates on Educational Attainment.
Available at Web site http://factfinder.census.gov.
United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research
Service. 2012. County-level Data Sets. Available at Web site
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/county-level-data-sets/
poverty.aspx?reportPath=/State_Fact_Sheets/PovertyReport
&fips_st=18 (verified March 2016).
USDA NASS. 2012. 2012 Census of Agriculture. Available at
Web site https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ (verified March
2016).
Westra, J.V. and Olson, K.D. 1997. Farmers’Decision Processes
and Adoption of Conservation Tillage (No. 13380).
University of Minnesota, Department of Applied
Economics, St. Paul, MN.
Zwickle, S., Wilson, R., Lillard, P., and Doohan, D. 2012.
Organic Weed Management in Ohio and Indiana: A
Report on the Knowledge, Perceptions, and Experiences of
Farmers and Experts. Environmental Social Sciences Lab.
College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.
School of Environment and Natural Resources. Ohio State
University, Columbus, OH.
13Slow to change
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170516000442
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 99.71.123.8, on 14 Feb 2017 at 17:52:17, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms.
