| Titre : | Risk sharing or market shares? Mapping the organisational governance spectrum of community supported agriculture globally (2026) |
| Auteurs : | J. Parot ; S. Wahlen ; A. Gattinger ; P. Weckenbrock |
| Type de document : | Article |
| Dans : | Journal of rural studies (vol. 124, May 2026) |
| Article en page(s) : | p. 104090 |
| Langues : | Anglais |
| Langues du résumé : | Anglais |
| Catégories : |
Catégories principales 06 - AGRICULTURE. FORÊTS. PÊCHES ; 6.4 - Production Agricole. Système de ProductionThésaurus IAMM AGRICULTURE ALTERNATIVE ; PARTICIPATION COMMUNAUTAIRE ; SYSTEME DE PRODUCTION ; GOUVERNANCE ; ORGANISATION DE L'ENTREPRISE |
| Résumé : | The industrialised agricultural production system is associated with economic, social and environmental challenges. One alternative model is community supported agriculture (CSA), which involves a direct, long-term partnership between producers and consumers. Existing scientific literature identifies three main issues that the CSA movement seeks to address: the social recognition of food producers, their economic situation, and the environmental transition challenge. Based on the first global survey of CSA partnerships, this article maps and compares the organisational governance of CSAs across countries and regions. Rather than treating CSA as a homogeneous form of alternative food networks, we demonstrate that, as previously identified in national studies, governance-based differentiation also structures CSA diversity on a global scale. We critically assess this international spectrum, identifying three main types of CSA governance: community-governed farms, core group-governed partnerships, and producer-governed partnerships. We demonstrate that the role and level of commitment of consumers varies between the three types. We also develop and apply a parsimonious decision-tree approach that enables the consistent classification of CSAs in an international survey that was not originally designed for typological purposes. This allows us to describe the prevalence of governance types within and across national CSA movements. Finally, we discuss why recognising governance diversity is important for research and practice. It helps to avoid misleading generalisations about CSA outcomes and provides a basis for more governance-sensitive evaluations, advisory work, and future comparative research into how different CSA configurations address risks and responsibilities in farming. |
| Cote : | En ligne |
| URL / DOI : | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2026.104090 |
Accueil
Sélection de la langue
Adresse
ÉQUIPE
Nous contacter
Informations pratiques
contact
