MOTIVATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF FARMERS IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN

A Thesis

Presented to the Faculty of

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Landscape Architecture

By

Khrysaundt C. Koenig

Fall 2019 SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS: MOTIVATIONS AND CHALLENGES OF FARMERS IN SOUTTHEAST MICHIGAN

AUTHOR: Khrysaundt C. Koenig

DATE SUBMITTED: Fall 2019

Department of Landscape Architecture

Susan J. Mulley, MA, MLA, Ph.D. ______Thesis Committee Chair Associate Professor Landscape Architecture

Gerald Taylor, MLA ______Associate Professor Landscape Architecture

Scott Kleinrock B.A., M.L.A. ______Conservation Programs Manager Chino Basin Water Conservation District

ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I would like to thank my commitee: Susan Mulley, (in particular)

Gerald Taylor and Scott Kleinrock. Without their patience (extreme in some cases) and dedication, this thesis wold not have happened.

Secondly, my family and friends. Profreading, encouragement and general support go a long way when tackling a project that will take up so much of ones time.

I would like to specifically like to thank my sister. Without her and the long discussions that got me to this place, I would have given up a long time ago.

iii ABSTRACT

This thesis investigates the motivations and challenges faced by peri-urban farmers in the Detroit Metro area. Michigan is the second most agriculturally diverse state in the United

States, and farming is the third largest contributor to Michigan’s economy. From ribbon farms at the time of founding to the Farm-A-Lot plots of the 1970s, agriculture has played a part in

Detroit’s survival by providing food and employment for the city’s residents. More recently urban agriculture has been in the spotlight not only for food and employment but as a means to green the landscape. As consumers increasingly look for locally sourced foods, farmers face unique challenges and opportunities in meeting that demand. Using semi-structured interviews, data was collected by interviewing ten peri-urban produce farmers within 100 miles of Detroit.

Questions focused on motivations to enter into and remain in farming, to describe challenges and the meaning farming had to their lives.

Inductive analysis of qualitative data resulted in the emergence of several themes.

Overwhelmingly, farmers were motivated by the lifestyle that farming afforded them. Farming is not simply a job for them: being their own boss, interacting with their customers and their community, and a concern for the environment were the strongest motivators to enter farming and to persevere. Yet even in the face of such strong motivations, these farmers confront some very real and persistent challenges. Financial viability, and access to land are the two most important difficulties peri-urban farmers face. Lack of support from the government, as well as a lack of understanding of farmers’ challenges by fellow farmers, consumers, and government officials are also strong barriers to farmers’ ability to continue farming. Understanding the challenges and motivations of peri-urban farmers allows landscape planners to better support efforts to grow a robust local food production economy.

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... iii

ABSTRACT ...... iv

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vii

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 4 What is a System? 4 Food Systems 4 History of Agriculture 6 Agricultural Models 9 Industrial Agriculture 9 Organic Agriculture - Beginnings 18 What is peri-urban agriculture? 27 Who Farms and why? 27 Benefits of peri-urban farms 28 Production and Available Markets 30 Effect on Food security 31 Shifting food philosophy 31 What is meant by a local Food system/model? 33 Who buys local and where? 33 Direct to Consumer (DTC) versus intermediate 35 Producer meets consumer for local food security and other benifits 36

CHAPTER THREE : BACKGROUND ...... 37 Biophysical context of lower Michigan 38 Soils of study area 39 Climate and terrain 40 Michigan Wetlands 41 History of Farming in Michigan 41 Farming in Michigan today 42 Southeast Michigan 44 History of southeast Michigan 44 Farming in southeast Michigan Today 50 Right to Farm Act (RTFA) 50 Characteristics of southeast Michigan farms 51 Detroit’s part in the current farming trend 55 Detroit’s Urban Agricultural Ordinance (UAO) 58

v CHAPTER FOUR : RESEARCH METHODS ...... 61 Semi-structured Interviews 61 History of semi-structured interviews in social research 61 The process of the qualitative interview 62 Strengths of semi-structured interviews 64 Weaknesses of semi-structured interviews 65 Semi-structured interviews in ecological/farming research 66 Data collection 69 Content analysis/Analytic Induction 70 Content analysis using analytic induction 71 Strengths in analytic induction 72 Weaknesses in content analysis/ analytic induction 73 Inductive analysis/content analysis in farm research 73 Content Analysis: Data Analysis 75

CHAPTER FIVE : RESULTS AND ANALYSIS ...... 77 Location 77 Demographics 78 Farm profiles 80 Farmer profiles 83 Motivations and challenges in farming 85 Motivations 85 Challenges 91

CHAPTER SIX : DISCUSSION ...... 101 What motivates these farmers? 101

CHAPTER SEVEN : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 106 Recommendations 107 Education 107 Farm Viability 108 Health Insurance 108 Grant Support 108 Farm Support 108 Land transfer and Farmland Protection 109

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 111

APPENDICIES ...... 131

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1. Impact of farming in terms of GDP 7

Figure 3.1. Distribution of Agricultural Land in Michigan by Class 39

Figure 3.2. Top 20 commodity crops for Michigan in 2016 43

Figure 3.3. Context map of study area 44

Figure 3.4. French Ribbon Farms along the Detroit River 45

Figure 4.1. Initial categorization of codes from interview questions. 75

Figure 4.2. Final categorization of codes from interview questions. 76

Figure 5.1. Map of the farmers interviewed 77

Figure 5.2. Distribution of farmer age 78

Figure 5.3. Farmer race 78

Figure 5.4. Farmer gender 79

Figure 5.5. Farmer income 79

Figure 5.6. Farmer level of education 80

Figure 5.7. What farmers produce 80

Figure 5.8. Is any of your property for habitat? 81

Figure 5.9. Acres in cultivation 82

Figure 5.10. Do you own, rent or both? 82

Figure 5.11. How did you come to farming? 83

Figure 5.12. How many years have you been farming? 84

Figure 5.13. Do you or your spouse have off-farm work? 84

Figure 5.14. A sense of community as a motivator for farming 85

Figure 5.15. Environmental factors that influence farmers 88

Figure 5.16. Way of life factors that influence farmers 89

Figure 5.17. How connections with customers is a motivator for farmers 91

Figure 5.18. What land issues are challenges for farmers 92

Figure 5.19. What mechanisms farmers employ to secure their farms viability 93

vii Figure 5.20. Areas that farmers feel a lack of government support 96

Figure 5.21. Groups that farmers feel need farmer education 97

Figure 22. The personal challenges farmers face 100

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Southeast Michigan farms by size 52

Table 3.2. Southeast Michigan farms by value of sales 53

Table 3.3. Southeast Michigan farms by selected commodity crops harvested 53

Table 3.4. Southeast Michigan number of livestock and poultry farms 54

Table 3.5. Southeast Michigan farms by land used for vegetable production 54

Table 3.7. Southeast Michigan value of organic sales 55

Table 3.6. Southeast Michigan farms with young producers 55

Table 3.7. Southeast Michigan farms with new producers 56

Table 3.8. Southeast Michigan farms by with female producers 56

ix CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

We are at a cross-roads with food.

The advancements that allow us to produce the amount of food that we do have been around for just over a hundred years. Despite this, these practices have had deleterious effects on the environment and our health and welfare. The mechanisms used in modern day agriculture (or “big ag”) have led to the loss of cropland at an alarming rate. These methods also pollute waters and contribute to global climate change because they are dependent on materials that are environmentally costly to produce. Our food system, although highly efficient, focuses on and promotes meat, dairy and sugar, versus fruits, vegetables and grains. Additionally, it is highly unequal and has made bad food cheap, leaving those more financially strained with few choices. As a consequence, obesity and diet related diseases have soared, particularly in the

United States.

The food that is produced by this system is more and more dependent on inputs specifically fertilizers, water and pesticies.

The over application and leaching of fertilizers has led to algal blooms in nearby bodies of water subsequently choking these waters of necessary oxygen. In the United States, agriculture is one of the largest consumers of water. Not only are there inefficiencies in its application, soils are so depleted of their water-holding capacity, it is often necessary to over water crops simply to get enough water.

As pests become immune to regular application of pesticides, more and more are needed to prevent crop decimation. Recently, the WHO declared glyphosate, the most widely used pesticide, a probable carcinogenic to humans. Lastly, the over-use of anti-biotic use in animal agriculture has led to antibiotic resistance in humans.

As early as the 1970’s and largely in response to the ill effects of this agricultural system,

1 alternative food movements such as organic and “local food” have emerged. With a lower dependence on chemical inputs and a focus on soil building, these food movements show promise in supporting a more healthful food system with the potential to reverse the damage done by modern agricultural practices.

The demand for organic food is growing as consumers learn the benefits of this mode of agriculture. From 2011 to 2016, the number of organic producers increased by 56% and sales more than doubled during that same time period. Despite these numbers, organic agriculture still has less than 1% of acreage in agriculture as a whole. With producers being able to charge a premium for their products, organic agriculture is an industry with the potential for tremendous growth in both acres and sales receipts. Unfortunately, in order to capitalize on this fact, many producers of organic agriculture adopt only the minimum requirements in order to be certified organic,AA) thus leading to the industrialization of organic food production.

In another trend in response to the industrial food system, many consumers are turning to the local food movement. Local food production is typically dominated by small farms located in the per-urban area just outside urban centers. As such they must be less dependent on large machinery (due to space constraints) and employ practices more akin to organic agricultures original vision. For example, although this is not a requirement per se, because these farms are located in more densely populated areas (albeit far less than their neighboring urban core), industrial agricultural practices such as the spraying of pesticides is frowned upon. Because of this, farmers in the peri-urban environment often say they are organic just short of certification.

And, aside from having to certify for marketing purposes, have no interest or need to be certified organic. Despite the growing enthusiasm for the local food movement, farmers in the peri-urban face many challenges particularly around land acquisition and financial stability.

This thesis aims to identify the motivations and challenges that farmers face in the peri-urban environment, specifically in southeast Michigan, just outside of Detroit. Using 2 semi-structured interviews, ten farmers were asked questions that pertained to what they like about farming and why they farm but also, what do they find the most challenging about their profession.

Michigan is the second most agriculturally diverse state in the country with vast amounts of open space near urban centers such as Detroit, it’s largest city. Therefore, southeast Michigan is particularly well-suited to promote farming in its peri-urban spaces.

3 CHAPTER TWO : LITERATURE REVIEW

Current agricultural practices produce a lot of food. In fact, farms across the world produce enough food to feed approximately 7.3 billion people (Denning & Fanzo, 2016). Despite this, modern industrial farming practices come with a cost. Plagued by loss of farmland due to overuse of fertilizers and pesticides, in addition using immense amounts of water, modern industrial farms are proving a challenge to the environment, the people who work on them and those that eat their food.

What is a System?

A system is, “depending on the researcher’s goal, a collection of elements that is discernible within the total reality. These discernible elements have mutual relationships and (eventually) relationships with other elements from the total reality” (Veeke, Ottjes,

& Lodewijks, 2008, p10). Additionally, a system “is a set of interconnected elements that is coherently organized in a way that achieves something” (Meadows, 2008, p.11). While a system is a collection of things that are connected to work together, systems thinking allows us to try and understand the underlying structure of connections that focuses on interactions and flows rather than simply the characteristics of the separate pieces. In systems thinking, leverage points are revealed and lead to desired outcomes versus unintended consequences (Chase &

Grubinger, 2014).

Food Systems

The above definitions illustrate the point that how one defines the system in question depends on the researchers goal and therefore, will be described based on that goal. For

4 example, one way in which the food system can be defined is based purely from an economic point of view: how much is produced, how much is sold, and to which markets (Chase &

Grubinger, 2014)? However, this view of the food system tends to focus on a narrow range of variables that speak only to efficiency and economies of scale while ignoring (negative) externalities such as runoff from agricultural production (Thu, 2009).

The opposite end of the food system spectrum is a more holistic model that incorporates these externalities. When this view of the food system is taken, the negative and positive externalities of the food system can be addressed. Such positive externalities include ecosystem services, improved nutrition and community building (Chase & Grubinger, 2014; Gullino, 2018).

Additionally, the goal of the research determines the systems boundaries. Although food systems research may incorporate physical boundaries, such as city, country, state or region, these physical boundaries should not be confused with system boundaries, which refer to what parts of the system are left out and which are left in (Veeke et al., 2008). Freedgood et al. (2011) rightly point out that “how researchers define the boundaries of a given system and investigate its relationship to other systems can markedly affect results” (Freedgood, Pierce-Quiñonez, &

Meter, 2011, p 91).

Choosing system boundaries is often an iterative process: confusion can occur if we choose a boundary that is too broad but defining a boundary that is too narrow can result in overlooking aspects that are important (Veeke et al., 2008).

Another important aspect of using a systems approach when analyzing the food system is the concept of scale. As with boundaries, choosing the appropriate scale depends on the goal of the research. Scale in food systems research can refer to the size of the farming operation(s) but more often refers to the size of the lens the research looks through. For example, research may focus on how small-scale farmers fit into the global food system (Mulcahy, 2017).

5 Describing a food system is complex and can be a tedious. As such, and considering the above information, a comprehensive food system definition can be stated as such:

[A food system is ]“an interconnected web of activities, resources and people that extends across all domains involved in providing human nourishment and sustain- ing health, including production, processing, packaging, distribution, marketing, consumption and disposal of food. The organization of food systems reflects and responds to social, cultural, political, economic, health and environmental conditions and can be identified at multiple scales, from a household kitchen to a city, county, state or nation.”(Grubinger et al., 2010, p.2)

This understanding of what a food systems is and how it is researched allows for flexibility across disciplines, scales and motivations. Grubinger’s definition supports food system research in the area of landscape [policy and] planning. Loss of farmland on the urban fringe, water and air pollution related to agricultural land use, food distribution centers etc, are typically under the auspices of rural studies, geography, anthropology and economics (Born &

Purcell, 2006) but Pothukutchi and Kaufman (2000) argue that landscape and city planners are uniquely qualified to integrate these topics into these disciplines (Campbell, 2004; Pothukuchi &

Kaufman, 2000).

History of Agriculture

Since the beginning of the 20th century, agriculture in the United States has undergone tremendous change. Early 20th century agriculture was labor intensive and took place on many small, diversified farms (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005a) and was for subsistence(IOM & NRC,

2015). As such, in 1900, almost half of the workforce in the U.S. was employed by agriculture, and agriculture in general played a large part in the national economy (Dimitri et al., 2005a).

Technological advancements, shifting market forces and migration, have changed agriculture since the early 20th century (IAASTD, 2009).

6 Today’s agriculture is concentrated on a few large farms that practice monoculture farming using large amounts of inputs (Fess & Benedito, 2018). Following World War II, technological advancements involving mechanization, increased availability of chemical inputs including fertilizers and pesticides, in addition to advancements in plant breeding led to ever- increasing economies of scale and unprecedented growth in agricultural activity (Thu, 2009).

These technological advancements allowed for out-migration from farms to urban centers. As heavy machinery replaced human capital, farm labor simply wasn’t needed. Although higher wages in urban centers awaited this new workforce, very often, these wages went to cover the costs of inputs for remaining farms (IOM & NRC, 2015; Thu, 2009). As a consequence, by 1970, agricultural workforce was down to 4% of the U.S labor force (Dimitri et al., 2005a).

Figure 1.1. Impact of farming in terms of GDP. Koenig 2019

7 In addition to on-farm technological advancements and out-migration, 20th century agriculture and the changing food system took advantage of off-farm advancements. Improved infrastructure for communication, electrification, transportation and logistics meant that farming for subsistence was no longer necessary since perishable foods could be moved over much greater distances. It was these new spatial patterns of production and consumption that had one of the greatest impacts on modern agriculture and facilitated the growth of global agribusiness

(Alston, Anderson, James, & Pardey, 2010; IOM & NRC, 2015).

These “infrastructure changes have led to a centralization of food production and distribution by multinational corporations not bound by traditional nation-states” (Thu, 2009 p.14) leaving local communities at a loss to control land resources (Thu, 2009). Examples of this are “land grabs” by corporations, national governments and private equity firms (Borras, Hall,

Scoones, White, & Wolford, 2011). Although lands grabs typically do not occur within the United

States, recent examples of corporate control over U.S. resources exist such as Nestlé’s continued

water grab in California or the purchase of Smithfield Farms by the Shineway Group of China in

2013 (Baertlein, Huffstutter, & Shrivastava, 2013; Weinman, 2018).

Very often, the structural changes described above are inevitable in any one country’s

economic development. According to Hammond et al (2012):

“The structure and dynamics of agribusiness (food production, distribution, and mar- keting) are strongly shaped by the trajectory of a country’s economic growth. Devel- opment is generally characterized by a falling share of agriculture in economic output, rising share of urban population compared with rural population, and rising economic activity in industry along with restructuring of the modes of agricultural production and the labor force” (Hammond et al., 2012 p.3)

Additionally, economic historians have documented the critical and necessary link

between agriculture and rich countries in the world and that the global decline of farmers

parallels the inverse growth of multinational agribusiness (Barrett, Carter, & Timmer, 2009;

Thu, 2009). 8 Consequently, anthropologists and rural sociologist have highlighted that with the onset of globalized agriculture, the resulting disassociation from surrounding communities inevitably leads to social inequalities, poverty, and environmental pathologies (Thu, 2009).

Because if these changes in addition to emerging models and technologies, agriculture of the 21st century may look very different than what has developed thus far. As such, it is crucial that a more in-depth look be taken at the existing and emerging models of agriculture so as to learn from what works and what doesn’t so that a responsible and thoughful approach to food production be taken.

Agricultural Models

Industrial Agriculture

Today’s industrial agricultural practices are based largely on the advancements of the

Green Revolution, particularly in the United States (Pfeiffer, 2006). Historically, most increases in crop production were driven by an increase in cultivated acreage (Pfeiffer, 2006). The Green

Revolution of the mid-twentieth century changed this. Characterized by enormous increases in grain yields due to the development of new varieties of cereal crops, methods of irrigation and the increased use of fertilizers and pesticides, the Green Revolution more than doubled grain yields between the years of 1950-1988 in the United States (Tilman, Cassman, Matson,

Naylor, & Polasky, 2002). Globally, between the years of 1985 and 2005, there was a 28% gain in production while cropland area only increased by 2.4% (Ray & Foley, 2013). This technological shift set the stage for agricultural production that would exceed population growth of the period.

Despite these gains in productivity, modern agricultural practices have had major effects on the environment, including high inputs and energy costs, increased global greenhouse

1 Total water applied (all sources) (in acre-feet equivalent units, and percent distributions), by farm- size class by State, for all non-horticulture and horticulture acres in the open, and horticulture under protection (square-feet area), for all 2013 irrigated farms.

9 gases, natural resource loss and degradation and loss of biodiversity (Díaz, Fargione, Chapin, &

Tilman, 2006). Extensive use of pesticides and hormones have had significant negative impacts on public health (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). Finally, because of market consolidation and verticalization (i.e. one company handling all stages of farmig, processing delivery etc), today’s agricultural system is one that is characterized as ‘go big or get out’, leading to loss of jobs, market diversity and a diminishing farmer-share of the consumer food dollar (B. L. Gardner,

2002). Consequently, these environmental and market impacts have potential negative effects on the overall resiliency of the food system (Ackerman-Leist, 2013).

Environmental Costs

Energy Cost and high Input.

Today’s industrial agriculture is one of high inputs of both energy and water. Farms consume energy both directly, in the form of gasoline and diesel for the operation of heavy machinery and electricity for such things as irrigation systems, and indirectly for such things as fertilizer and pesticide production (Hitaj & Suttles, 2016). Additionally, agriculture is also one of the largest consumers of water, with 88,511,0621 acre feet of water being used for irrigation as

of 2017(USDA-ERS, 2017). These needs make industrial agriculture dependant on increasingly

finite resources.

Although there is much literature that tries to quantify exact amounts of energy used

in today’s agriculture, due to the complex nature of the food system as a whole, disaggregating

energy use at the farm level, particularly for non-commodity crops versus vegetable or specialty

crops, proves a challenge as most research rarely overlaps in source material, and system

boundary conditions are typically defined differently between studies (Canning, Rehkamp, &

Waters, 2017).

However, in 2016, the USDAs Economic Research Service (ERS) report The Role of Fossil

10 Fuels in the American Diet, in an attempt to understand [quantify] energy inputs, reported that total energy consumption, both direct and indirect, hit an all-time high in 2009 with a use of 1700 trillion Btu. Although it fell in 2012 it has steadily increased since. Diesel, gasoline and liquefied petroleum use decreased between the years of 2009-2012 and has also steadily increased since then. Electricity and natural gas peaked in 2002 and has steadily been increasing since 2005 (its use is intimately linked to energy prices). Calculating energy-based expenses as a age of total cash expenses, crops such as vegetables, fruits, nuts and legumes used a combined amount of 6%, 14%, 22%, 15% on electricity, fuel, fertilizer and pesticides respectively (Hitaj &

Suttles, 2016). It is important to note that these numbers are for agricultural activity and not the food system as a whole. This is potentially significant as a major contributor to food system energy use is consumed in transportation, storage/refrigeration and preparation, with high

-income countries being the worst offenders. For example, 2.4% of the United Kingdom’s GHG emissions are due to food refrigeration and refrigeration of imported foods could increase this figure to 3%-5% of national emissions (Vermeulen, Campbell, & Ingram, 2012). Additionally,

Coulomb (2008) estimates that 15% of world-wide energy use is for refrigeration (Coulomb,

2008).

In sum, food-related energy use is a substantial share of the total U.S. national energy budget (Canning, Charles, Huang, Polenske, & Waters, 2010) and consequently, on-farm activities use 3 kcal of fossil energy produce only 1 kcal of energy (Horrigan et al., 2002). It should be noted that the freight service industry (transportation) accounts for a small share of the overall food related energy use (Canning, Charles, Huang, Polenske, & Waters, 2010).

With world population growth expected to add 2.5 billion people by 2050 (United

Nations, 2014) the Food and Agricultural Organization of the Unied Nations (FAO) estimates that global food production will need to increase by 70% (FAO, 2009) in order to meet those food

11 demands. Currently almost half of the worlds land is under cultivation and feeds approximately

7 billion people (Foley et al., 2011). In order to meet this demand, large amounts of fertilizers and pesticides are used for crop production and pest management (Gregory et al., 2002).

Between 1960 and 1995 the global use of nitrogen fertilizer increased seven fold and the global use of phosphorus increased by 3.5 fold (Tilman, Farigone & Wolff et al., 2001). Unfortunately, only about one third of applied Nitrogen is taken up by cereal crops (Raun & Johnson, 1999) and therefore, in order to meet the demand of 9 billion people by 2050, it is estimated that an additional three fold increase in Nitrogen will be necessary unless there is an increase in fertilizer efficiency (Tilman, Fargione, & Wolff et al., 2001).

(i)Green House Gas (GHG) emissions Food systems contribute almost one-third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Vermeulen et al., 2012). Agricultural emissions from crop and livestock production grew from 4.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents

(CO2e) in 2001 to over 5.3 billion tonnes in 2011, an increase of 14 % with most of this increase coming from developing countries such as China (Tubiello et al., 2014). Additionally, in 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported that food waste, or food that is discarded either due to spoilage or simply kept beyond its expiry date, contributes an

estimated 3.3 Gigatons of CO2 equivalents and as such is the third largest emitter of CO2 behind the USA and China (FAO FW, 2013).

In the U.S., activities related to agriculture accounted for 9.3% of emissions. Unlike

other economic sectors, agricultural sector emissions were dominated by N2O emissions from

agricultural soil management and CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation (EPA, 2018).

Due to the methods used, industrial agriculture is seen as a key contributor to anthropogenic GHG emissions (Kulak, Graves, & Chatterton, 2013) and can account for as much as 12 to 25% of global GHG emissions (Gomiero, Pimentel, & Paoletti, 2011; Tilman, Balzer,

12 Hill, & Befort, 2011). The three most dominant greenhouses gases associated with agriculture

are carbon dioxide (CO2), from methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). As much as one quarter

of GHG emissions globally result from crop production, land clearing and the use of synthetic

fertilizers (Tilman et al., 2011).

Both high application rates of nitrogen and phosphorus in addition to GHG emissions

have led to what are known as “dead zones” in oceans and coastal waters. Because of rising

CO2 levels, the ocean is undergoing deoxygenation, since it absorbs carbon. Additionally, coastal

areas that are strongly influenced by their watershed are increasingly loaded with agricultural

runoff. These two situations have the led the oceans to be deprived of oxygen and therefore

marine life. As world population continues to increase, this deoxygination of oceans is only

expected to worsen. Although the effect of agricultural activities on the helath of oceans has

been known since the mid-twentieth century, the number of deadzones has quadrupeled since

1950. (Breitburg et al., 2018)

(II) Natural resource loss and soil degradation. More than half of the global grassland

has been converted to agriculture with the savanna and temperate and deciduous forests not

far behind (Foley, Ramankutty, & Brauman et al., 2011). Practices such as deforestation (for new

crop and pasture land), poor water and fertilizer management and shortened fallow periods

are the major causes of soil erosion (Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor, & Polasky, 2002). In the

United States, soil is being lost 10 times faster than the natural replenishment rate, and over

the last 40 years 30% of the world’s arable land has become unproductive (Pimentel, 2006).

Additionally, these practices can reduce soil fertility and cause soil organic matter levels to

decline to half or less of the original levels (Matson, Naylor, & Ortiz-Monasterio, 1998; Tilman et

al., 2002).

(III) Water. Sometimes referred to as ‘the new oil’, water is one of the key hurdles to

13 agricultural productivity. Due to overdraft and climate change, the certainty of access to water no longer exists (Hanak, Lund, Dinar, Gray, Howitt, Mount, Moyle, & Thompson, 2011). Globally, irrigated cropland accounts for 70% of water withdrawals (United Nations World Development

Report, 2012) and produces approximately 40% of all harvests (Tilman et al., 2002). In many cases, due to the inefficiencies of application, crops often only use up to half of the applied water (United States Geological Survey, 2015) and the remaining is lost through runoff and/ or leaching (Tilman et al., 2002). In many areas, water is being extracted faster than it can be replenished (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2014) as is the case in California, leading some to classify it as a non-renewable resource. Despite this fact, it is estimated that irrigating crop lands in developing countries can increase yields by as much as 400% and as such, will most likely increase in frequency (FAO, 1996).

(iv) Monocultures and Loss of Bio-diversity. Industrial agriculture relies heavily on mono-cropping or mono cultures. Monocultures, or the planting of the same crop over vast areas, leads to the loss of genetic diversity and has been identified as a potentially significant contributor to food insecurity (Pimentel, 2006). In 2010, the FAO estimated that there has been a 75% loss of plant biodiversity since 1900 and that a third of today’s diversity could disappear by 2050 (FAO, 2010). Additionally, on any single farm, farmers are growing fewer types of crops.

In 1900, an average of five commodities were grown per farmer versus an average of one commodity per farm in 2000 (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005b). Despite the fact that farmers have a choice of over 5000 thousand domesticated plants to choose from, industrial agriculture uses only 3% of them (Cockrall-King, 2012).

As more and more agriculture is focused on fewer and less diverse crops, the threat of failure due to drought, insects and pests puts the global food system in a very precarious and vulnerable position (Khoury, Bjorkman, Dempewolf et al., 2014). Large-scale agriculture results in

14 ecosystem simplification, thus reducing the potential to provide ecosystem services-the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems other than food production (Robertson, Gross, Hamilton,

Landis, Schmidt, Snapp, & Swinton, 2014). Additionally, the number of farms has fallen by

63 % since 1900, while the average farm size has risen 67 % thus putting more and more power in fewer and fewer hands (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005).

Effects on public health

(i)Pesticide and antibiotic use. Industrial food production also has a tremendous effect on human health and well-being. Long term exposure to pesticides have been linked to higher rates of cancer, suppression of immune systems and in some cases (as reported by The United

Nations) toxicity poisoning, particularly in developing countries and amongst farm workers

(Horrigan, Lawrence & Walker, 2014). In the United States, farm workers have the highest rate of chemical related poisonings of any labor sector (Ackerman-Leist, 2013). Additionally, the

Center for Disease Control has labeled the overuse of antibiotics in livestock production a key contributor to the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in food-producing animals (CDC,

2013; Tilman et al., 2002).

In March of 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) one of the research arms of the World Health Organization, “concluded that there was “strong” evidence for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate “formulations”(Cressey, 2015).

The IARC report stated that in case-control studies of occupational exposure in the U.S., Canada and Sweden, there was increased risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Guyton et al., 2015).

The study also concluded that glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro (Guyton et al., 2015).

(ii) Diet. Not only is meat production inefficient in terms of the ratio of energy input/

output at 3 to 1 (Halden & Schwab, 2008), much of the health related problems in today’s

15 menus, particularly in the West, are related to an increase in meat consumption (Horrigan et al., 2002). Diets that are high in animal fats have been linked to diabetes, cancer and high rates of cardiovascular disease (Halden & Schwab, 2008). Although poor dietary choices cannot be assigned to a particular agriculture model, it is important to note that the focus on meats and commodity crops in the U.S. Food System clearly has an impact on the foods people chose. In

2016, a report by Siegel et al. (2016) in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA)

Internal Medicine found that more than half of US adults’ calories come from five commodity crops (corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and sorghum), as well as dairy and livestock (animals that eat commodity crops). The study also found that people who eat more commodity-rich foods are more likely to be overweight and at risk for cardiovascular disease and diabetes

(Siegel et al., 2016).

Market Effects

Concentration

Not only is more food being produced with fewer farmers, but there has also been a significant increase of market concentration and verticalization (Sexton, 2014). The most notable examples in the U.S. is that of the poultry industry (Bhuyan, 2005). One of the most vertically integrated food industries, in 1950, there were 250 poultry firms operating in the broiler

(chickens raised for meat) industry. Today, there are fewer than fifty (H. L. Goodwin, 2005). This type of market consolidation is not limited to the poultry industry and has rapidly gained favor since the beginning of the 1980s (Bhuyan, 2005). For example, today four companies - Tyson,

ConAgra, Cargil and Farmland Nation own 81% of the beef packing industry (Rossett, 2006).

Although some would argue that these practices allow for efficiencies and economies of scale that small farms cannot offer by reducing the transaction costs associated with market change, others argue consolidation harms market inputs and outputs and creates entry barriers

16 for smaller farmers (Bhuyan, 2005). Not only can consolidation and virtualization erect entry barriers, it may also dictate prices (Rossett, 2006).

Centralization.

Today’s agricultural market is also one that is highly centralized (Sexton, 2014). For example, in the United States, California is the main producer of almonds, artichokes and grapes

(Sumner, Bervejillo, & Kuminoff, 2003). It is also the fifth largest agricultural producer in the world with sales totaling roughly 50.13 billion dollars in 2017 (CDFA, 2018) . At the same time, the Midwest is one of the key grain-producing regions in the world (Carlson, 2012). According the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Midwest accounted for 85 % of the more than 14.2 billion bushels of corn binned and 81% of more than 3 billion bushels of soybeans produced

(Carlson, 2012). Although these numbers are good for California and those states of the

Midwest, it makes the rest of the country and large parts of the world highly dependent on two very specific areas of the United States and thus susceptible to food insecurity should something happen in those areas.

Resiliency

Resiliency, in its broadest definition, is the ability of a system to absorb, and adapt to, shocks and disturbances to that system (Adger et al., 2011). Assuming that the primary reason for agriculture is to provide food, the measure of resiliency would be how well that agricultural system can provide food in the face of disturbances, such as climate change or natural disasters

(Maleksaeidi & Karami, 2013; Tendall et al., 2015). Although many authors would agree that current agricultural practices, and by extension the food system as a whole, have the ability to provide enormous amounts of food, many would argue that the aforementioned characteristics of industrial agriculture make our overall food system less resilient (Rotz & Fraser, 2015). With a high dependency on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, agricultural output is limited by the

17 availability of these resources (Gonzalez, 2012). A reduced diversity in plant material or mono- cropping has the potential of entire crops being lost to opportunistic pests or climate change

(Rotz & Fraser, 2015). Although consolidation and centralization make modern agriculture highly efficient due to such things as standardization and efficiency of closely knit networks, they can also constrain farmers in making decisions that are beneficial from an ecological standpoint

(i.e. fending off climate change) because they are often at the mercy of the entrenched food system (Chase & Grubinger, 2014). Additionally, a concentrated food system makes it difficult for smaller farms and businesses to provide redundancy within the system (Hendrickson, 2015). This entrenchment can make a shift away from these practices to more flexible alternatives, such as natural fertilizers and smaller, more localized supply chains, too costly.

No studies currently exist that have asked farmers in southeast Michigan what the challenges and opportunities are that they face in producing local foods in the peri-urban environment. This thesis study attemps redress the lack by interviewing farmers and asking them what their experiences are.

Organic Agriculture - Beginnings

Although many would say that organic agriculture has always been practiced, others contend that today’s version of organic agriculture has its origins with European thinkers such as Rudolf Steiner’s course in biodynamic agriculture in 1924 Germany or Sir Albert Howard’s research station in India that perfected a composting method known as the Indore Process

(Hess, 2004; Shi-mingl & Sauerborn, 2006) From the beginning, what would become known as organic agriculture, has had at its core the practice of responsible crop soil management.

Pioneering research in the 1920’s and 30’s by Selman Waksman and William Albrecht pointed to the importance of soil organic matter and soil fertility and their connection to food quality and human health (Albrecht, 1958; Hess, 2004). At around the same time, and continuing into

18 the 1940s, organic agriculture as a movement was developing in industrialized countries as an alternative to the intensification of agriculture, particularly the use of synthetic nitrogen

(N) fertilizers (Morrison, 1937). Although the practice of synthetic Nitrogen fixation allowed for a reduction in the weight of fertilizers (i.e. manures) a “consequence of this process was that organic carbon (C) was decoupled from N and, along with the soil microbe community dependent on its energy, was essentially left out of the science of crop and soil fertility management for the next 50 years” (Lotter, 2003 p.61). The theory of plant nutrition, one based on N,P and K being the most important elements necessary for plant growth, dominated soil science and agriculture well into the 1980’s (Porceddu & Rabbinge, 1997).

In 1940 Oxford University lecturer in agriculture Lord Walter Northbourne first used the term “organic farming” in his book Look to the Land (Gomiero et al., 2011). Seen as a manifesto of organic agriculture, Lord Northbourne outlined the concept of designing and managing the farm as an organic or whole system, one that integrated soil, crops, animals and society, an approach that has formed the basis of how organic agriculture is practiced today (Paull, 2014).

In the United States, support for organic agriculture came from the Secretary of

Agriculture Henry Wallace in his promotion of ‘humus’ farming. J.I. Rodale, in an effort to demonstrate practical methods to naturally rebuild soil fertility, launched the magazine Organic

Gardening in 1942 (Lotter, 2003; Shi-mingl & Sauerborn, 2006). Rodale’s original vision of

“organic” was quite technical and relatively free of the concerns with justice, sustainability, and localism issues that have become part of what is assumed organic farming encompasses (Hess,

2004). Unfortunately Rodale’s attempt to interest scientists in testing and developing organic agricultural research went largely unheard, and in some cases scientists attacked his calls for organic agricultural research (Peters, 1979).

19 Organic Agriculture as a social movement

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. Although not a manifesto for organic agriculture per se, Carson’s book highlighted the degradation of the environment and the threat to human health due to the prolific spraying of pesticides in agriculture and the environment, specifically DDT(Carson, 1962; Paull, 2013). Silent Spring caused a major uproar and was accused of being unfounded and biased despite more than fifty pages of documented scientific sources (Beyl, C., 1991). In the wake of its publication, in 1970, the United States created the

Environmental Protection Agency and by 1972, the use of DDT was banned (Paull, 2013). In reaction to the public backlash against pesticides, U.S. Congressman Jamie Whitten issued a warning that “an aroused public opinion might stop the use of materials that he deemed were absolutely necessary for health and prosperity” (Whitten, 1966, p. vi). It was clear that Silent

Spring proved to be a galvanizing publication that pitted environmentalists and advocates of organic agriculture against proponents of industrial agriculture and pesticide use (Paull, 2013).

The book’s success worldwide foreshadowed the coming of a much larger environmental movement. By the early 1970s states across the county began to develop their own organic standards, ushering in a new generation of foodies, social activists and entrepreneurs (Sligh &

Cierpka, 2007).

What does Organic mean?

The demand for organic foods began in earnest around the 1970s. Despite this, it was not until the 1990 Farm Bill that organic standards made it into national legislation. The Organic

Foods Production Act was drafted in large part so that the United States could deal with the exportation of organic foods to the global market (Reganold & Watcher, 2016). Even though organic agriculture was officially recognized in the 1990 Farm Bill, because of disagreements

20 between the organic industry and the USDA over provisions of the Bill, it wasn’t until 2002 that consumers would see the USDAs organic label on products (Youngberg & Demuth, 2013).

The 1990 Bill, interprets organic agriculture thusly:

“the term sustainable agriculture means an integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site-specific application that will, over the long term:

• satisfy human food and fiber needs • enhance environmental quality and the natural resource base upon which the agri cultural economy depends • make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls • sustain the economic viability of farm operations • enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” (USDA, 1990 p27)

Although one of the strongest arguments in favor of organic agriculture is the disallowance of synthetic pesticides and conventional fertilizers, the above definition allows for a much broader interpretation of what constitutes organic agriculture. Over the years, definitions of organic agriculture have increasingly included social and ethical issues, such as fair labor practices (including fair trade), family farm viability and animal ethics (Lotter, 2003). Today’s organic standards address everything from organic production and handling, land requirements, crop rotation practice standards to livestock healthcare practice standard and wild-crop harvesting standard (CFR, 2018).

Benefits of organic agriculture

Soil organic matter (SOM)

Many of the benefits of organic agriculture stem from the creation of healthy soil.

A large part of building healthy soil is increasing soil organic matter or SOM (Hudson, 1994;

Libohova et al., 2018). SOM consists of three primary parts including (1) small (fresh) plant residues and small living soil organisms such as roots, micorrhizae and bacteria, (2) decomposing

(active) organic matter such as crop residues, dead roots and microbial biomass and (3) stable

21 organic matter or humus. This SOM is held in the top 5-9” of the top most layer of soil (“top soil”) and healthy top soils typically contain 100 tons of organic matter per hectare (4% to 5% of total topsoil weight) (Pimentel & Burgess, 2013). Because organic agriculture uses many practices that lead to increased SOM, and therefore healthy soil, the adaption of organic agriculture can be seen as a backbone of many ecosystem services beyond producing food.

SOM is highly dependent on site conditions, such as temperatures, site management

(use of cropping systems such as cover crops) and climate mineralization (reduced nitrogen mineralization) in Spring (Mäder & Berner, 2011). Loss of SOM is affected by high rates of soil tillage, temperature and moisture (Ontl & Schulte, 2012; Smith et al., 2008). Soils that have increased SOM are less prone to soil erosion and have a higher water holding capacity.

Organic soils have a better sustained nutrient supply for growing plants and better a capacity to sequester carbon (Edmondson, Davies, Gaston, & Leake, 2014; Powlson et al., 2011).

Holding and filtering water

In the face of climate change, crop yield stability is essential to global food security necessitating better management strategies to buffer crop failure against weather variability

(Williams et al., 2016). Several studies suggest that an increased SOM can help with water availability during drought and increase infiltration during heavy rainfall (UCSUSA, 2017; Seufert,

Ramankutty, & Foley, 2012; Rockström et al., 2010; Allison, 1973). Soil organic matter enhances soil water retention because of its hydrophilic nature and its positive influence on soil structure

(Stevenson, 1982). Increasing SOM increases soil aggregate formation and aggregate stability

(Lotter, 2003), “thereby increasing porosity in the range of pore sizes that retain plant-available water thus enhancing infiltration and water retention throughout the rooting zone” (Huntington,

2007 p.139). The majority of the research data suggests that SOM can hold water between one and five times its weight (Libohova et al., 2018) while other studies suggest that organically

22 managed crops can out-perform conventional crops by 70-90% under severe drought conditions

(Pimentel, Hepperly, Hanson, Douds, & Seidel, 2010; Lotter, 2003). It should be noted that not all soils have improved infiltration with increased SOM as “certain soils are either non-wettable, or at least difficultly wettable, because of the presence of hydrophobic organic substances” (Allison,

1973 p.358) Generally speaking, the relationship between SOM and available water is complex and involves interactions between many soil factors not just amounts of SOM in addition to particle size, clay mineralogy, bulk density, and other factors (Libohova et al., 2018)

Organic food healthier?

There is some evidence that organically produced crops have a higher nutrient density, lower pesticide residues and lower concentrations of toxic chemicals than conventionally grown fruits and vegetables (Fess & Benedito, 2018). Several studies highlight that organically grown produce can be higher in anti-oxidents (Barański et al., 2014; Brandt, Leifert, Sanderson, & Seal,

2011; Ren et al., 2017) and higher levels of Vitamin C, iron and magnesium (Brandt et al., 2011;

Worthington, 2001). Despite these results, research in this area of organic versus conventional agriculture is still sparse and conflicting. Beyond management practices, differences in location, climate, time of year can make direct comparisons difficult (Brandt et al., 2011; Mie et al., 2017).

Finally, current research on the consumption of organic food on human health is scarce mostly due to cost (Mie et al., 2017) and, in the absence of a specific nutrient deficiency, focusing on a specific nutrient may be of limited value in determining the health benefits of a specific diet or food (Jacobs & Tapsell, 2013).

Carbon sequestration

Lastly, and potentially one of the most important aspects of SOM, is its potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. As stated earlier, SOM is a heterogeneous material comprised of plant and animal tissue, bacteria and fungi (Ontl & Schulte, 2012). Through

23 photosynthesis, a plant draws carbon out of the air to form carbon compounds (G. Chen, Zhu,

& Zhang, 2003). These carbon compounds feed microbes in the soil that aid in the process of the breakdown of organic matter in the soil. A product of this process is humus, a stable form of carbon (Ontl & Schulte, 2012). The process of exchanging carbon compounds through the plants’ roots is aided by root fungi known as mycorrhizal fungi (Khursheed, Simmons, & Jaber, 2016).

These fungal networks regulate the exchange of carbon compounds with the soil and extend the root network through the soil. Plants with mycorrhizal connections can transfer up to 15 % more carbon than those without (Killham, 1994). Additionally, mycorrhizal fungus are covered with hyphae and it is these hyphae that can extend the reach of a plants root system (M. F. Allen,

2007).

In 1996, Sara Wright, a soil scientist at the USDA Agricultural Research Service discovered the Glomalin, a protein contained within the walls of mycorrhizal hyphae (Treseder

& Turner, 2007; Wright & Upadhyaya, 1996). “As a plant grows, the fungi move down the root and form new hyphae to colonize the growing roots. When hyphae higher up on the roots stop transporting nutrients, their protective Glomalin sloughs off into the soil” (Comis, 2002 p.5). These sloughed off Glomalin combine with humus and soil particles acting like a super glue (Comis, 2002). The results are healthy soils with their characteristic rich color and texture

(Treseder & Turner, 2007). Research suggests that Glomalin is responsible for what humus has long been credited for in healthy soil (Comis, 2002). Not only does sequestered carbon feed soils’ microbes, it also influences hypae and Glomalin production. In a multi-year study of shrub

land and grasslands, Wright found that in outdoor chambers with controlled CO2 levels that

when CO2 levels reached 670 ppm, hyphae grew three times as long and produced five times as

much Glomalin (Khursheed et al., 2016).

Organic agriculture land management is crucial to the sequestration of carbon.

24 Cover crops provide a continuous source of CO2 through photosynthesis; no-till agriculture, a common practice in organic farming, leaves mycorrhizal networks intact in addition to providing decomposing plant matter; and the absence of commercial fertilizers and pesticides allow for the formation of fungal networks and microbial activity all of which aid in the sequester and storage of carbon (Kalia & Gosal, 2011).

Feeding the World

Despite of these benefits, the idea that organic agricultural practices should be adopted globally draws criticism. Often citing a “yield gap,” critics of organic agriculture are concerned that organic agriculture simply cannot meet the production demand to feed 9 billion by 2050 (Badgley, Moghtader, Quintero, Zakem, & Chappell, 2007). One argument often cited by proponents of industrial agriculture is that to close this yield gap, more land is necessary, therefore offsetting any benefits from organic agriculture land management practices (Badgley et al., 2007). Most studies comparing yield gaps conclude that in fact they do exist but also point to how this yield gap can be minimized. Several studies have found that although yield gaps do exist, the effect is highly contextual and that when best management practices are used, the yield gap shrinks considerably (Ponti, Rijk, & Ittersum, 2012; Reganold & Watcher, 2016;

Seufert et al., 2012). Some research suggests that crops grown in organic agriculture are actually optimized for modern industrial agriculture and that if plant species are bred for conditions found in organic agriculture i.e. lower synthetic inputs, the yield gap may also shrink (Fess &

Benedito, 2018; Murphy, Campbell, Lyon, & Jones, 2007). Lastly, most comparisons between organic and conventional agriculture are focused on a short time duration and those of longer duration, ten years or more, are few and not well documented (Schrama, Haan, Kroonen,

Verstegen, & Putten, 2018).

25 Future of agriculture

The challenge of feeding 9 billion people without causing future harm to the environment is what drives much of research in agriculture today (Mueller et al., 2012). The urgency is heightened as populations increase their standards of living (Hampwaye, 2013), and, it is this yield gap that has prompted research around the idea of sustainable of agriculture

(Mueller et al., 2012). Precision agriculture, i.e. the efficient and targeted use of water and chemical inputs, synthetic or not, is essential (Janker, Mann, & Rist, 2018; Rockström et al.,

2017; Mueller et al., 2012). Diversification in crop varieties, especially ones that thrive in local conditions, will also support world populations and livelihoods (Antle, Jones, & Rosenzweig,

2017; Altieri, 2009). In short, there is no one solution to sustainable intensification in agriculture and some even suggests that it isn’t possible.

In 2015, the United Nations ratified Sustainable Development Goals, which focused on the importance of sustainable agriculture for global development. Unfortunately, the discourse around intensification versus environmental impact still remains, highlighting potential global political challenges (Janker et al., 2018).

Challenges aside, the demand for organic products continues to grow at an almost alarming rate. The organic food market grew by 6.4% in the U.S. in 2017. Although this was down from the previous year at 9%. it was still well above average growth for the food industry in general. As for total sales, 2017 was also a record year at $45.2 billion(Gelski, 2018). The growth in organic food is so strong in the U.S. that in order to meet the demand, the U.S. imports foods from countries that meet U.S.D.A. organic regulations (Constance & Choi, 2010).

This demand, coupled with substantial price premiums for organic foods, has drawn large organic agribusinesses into the organic food market (Guthman, 2004) which many believe is possible due to the adoption of national standards for organic food. Although convenient and necessary, large agribusiness have been able to take advantage of the standards in such a way

26 that some contend organic agriculture today has been “conventionalized” and has not stayed true to its roots (Campbell & Rosin, 2011). “In other words, industrial organic farming isn’t organic; organic is more about fairness and respect than it is about part- per-billion of pesticide residues” (Adams & Salois, 2010)

What is peri-urban agriculture?

In the past, planners have focused on urbanization over rural landscapes as the industrial revolution pushed populations to cities and distanced these urban inhabitants from the potential of diseases, noises and waste management typically associated with farms (Brinkley, 2012).

“Recently, planners have come to see a need to support peri-urban farming specifically, as it is under the most intense development pressure” (Brinkley, 2012 p.2). Lastly, because of the variety of actors and drivers that interact to create heterogeneous landscapes, the dynamics in peri-urban areas are especially complex (Busck & Kristensen, 2014)

Agriculture in this space, commonly referred to as peri-urban agriculture, “ is a residual form of agriculture at the fringes of growing cities .... they are described as the transition zone between urban and rural areas” (Opitz, Berges, Piorr, & Krikser, 2016, p.2).

Compared to urban centers, peri-urban spaces have lower population densities, have a lack of infrastructure and conflicts are increasingly seen between these spaces. As urban infrastructure seeks to expand, competition for space and natural resources between urban and peri-urban continues to grow (A. Allen, 2003). Additionally, the fact that peri-urban agriculture typically happens on some of the most fertile soils and are in close proximity to urban centers only exacerbates these pressures (Bryant and Johnston 1992).

Who Farms and why?

Peri-urban farmers are mainly agricultural professionals who produce food for market

27 at a profit (Andersson, Eklund, & Lehtola, 2009). However, there is a rise in so called hobby and lifestyle farmers - urban dwellers who have left urban centers to live in green space but want to be close to the urban core (Antrop, 2000; Fertner, 2012). They farm as a hobby or leisure activity while still generating income off-farm (Orsini, 2013; Primdahl & Kristensen, 2011; Zasada,

Fertner, Piorr, & Nielsen, 2011). Additionally, in high-cost cities, land prices may be driving some farmers to secure land outside of the city, where land might still be expensive, but less costly than in the urban core (Rogus & Dimitri, 2015).

Benefits of peri-urban farms

Despite farm productivity and profitability, farmland has lower market value than other land uses, such as residential and commercial. Therefore, in order to guarantee its existence, the services it provides must be valued not just economically but also culturally (Brinkley, 2014).

In addition to agricultural crops, the benefits of actively farmed peri-urban spaces can range from the intangible, such as the cultural value of farming as a way of life, to the tangible i.e. food production and ecosystem services such as carbon fixation (Bryant & Chahine, 2015; B. D.

Gardner, 1977; McConnell & Walls, 2005).

In an effort to reconnect local farms with urban markets and create sustainable green infrastructure, planners have engendered a variety of programs that reconnect farms with cities (Brinkley, 2012). Brinkley (2012) describes the possibility to use “the mission and vision statements from [130] land trust programs in the United States to ascertain values for retaining peri-urban farmland. These locally based programs reflect the values of their communities but also indicate motivators for state and federal support” (Brinkley, 2012 p.3). In the multiple state guidelines reviewed, Brinkley’s analysis showed that items such as protecting ecological systems and native species, maintaining heritage including local history, environmental services and the

28 protection of rural amenities, were most important to the local community (Brinkley, 2012).

Ecosystem services can take a regional view of farmland benefits when a cost- replacement or willingness to pay for services is considered for something that can affect the entire planet in aggregate (NRC, 2005). For example, when New York City chose to invest $1–

$1.5 billion in natural restoration of the Catskills Mountains watershed rather than constructing a $6–8 billion water treatment plant, they did so by soliciting the purchase of conservation easements for 355,000 (farmland) acres (NRC, 2005). Considering agricultural land comprises about half of global productive land, it would seem that farmers are the chief managers of ecosystems (Tillman et al. 2002).

Other ways that farmland value can be measured are from those activities that possess directly measureable economic potential. Other than agriculture, such activities as hunting and access fees, the sale of renewable energy from waste management projects and wind machines are also options (Irwin, Nickerson, & Libby, 2003; Nickerson & Barnard, 2006; Nickerson &

Hellerstein, 2003). One of the more successful ways that farmers capitalize their farms is through agritourism. The objective of agritourism may be to help farms stay economically viable or, more broadly, to revitalize rural economies, to better educate the public about agriculture, and/ or preserve agricultural heritage (van Sandt, Low, & Thilmany, 2018). Because agritourism can provide labor opportunities for both the farm family and surrounding community, in addition to better networks into the local service economy (Barbieri, Mahoney, & Butler, 2008), it is no surprise that agritourism in the United States has grown steadily since it was first tracked in

2002 (Brinkley, 2014). Between 2002 and 2007, national receipts grew 142% in real terms and between 2007 and 2012, continued to grow by 13% (NASS, 2012)

The reluctance of the market to capture the value of these services threatens agricultural land to alternative development (B. D. Gardner, 1977). Very often, maintaining urban

29 resilience is best done through a regional lens, and an approach that connects urban and peri- urban systems is necessary (Buxton, Carey, & Phelan, 2016).

Production and Available Markets

Peri-urban farms are typically smaller than those found in rural areas. They are more suited for vegetable production, small animal rearing such as goats and chickens, and eggs in addition to high value horticulture crops (Opitz et al., 2016; Rogus & Dimitri, 2015) versus large, commodity driven farms.

In recent years different food supply schemes have emerged based on a different rationale than the high-input, resource-intensive farming that has dominated world food systems. These schemes are characterized by a process of food re-localization both in terms of valuing the origin and identity of food, but also in reconnecting farmers and consumers (Fonte,

2008) because “from a social perspective, capital-intensive and vertically integrated food systems have marginalized actors at both ends of the food supply chain. Small farmers have experienced increased levels of marginalization and vulnerability due to low remuneration and unequal bargaining power, making it harder to access markets” (Preiss & Wiskerke, 2017 p.1).

Additionally, peri-urban farms typically lack infrastructure for marketing (Dimitri,

Oberholtzer, & Pressman, 2016; Rogus & Dimitri, 2015) so distribution paths of agriculture products by and large are through direct contact (Opitz et al., 2016). Direct marketing, such as farmers’ markets, Farm-to-School, CSAs and direct to restaurant make up the bulk of the distribution paths. Pick-your-own and food cooperatives are also options though less realized

(Jarosz, 2008; Kieninger, Yamaji, & Penker, 2011; Vogl, Axmann, & Vogl-Lukasser, 2004). These alternative food chains have established new producer–consumer links between the peri-urban and urban (Allen et al. 2003) in ways that benefit participants at each end of the chain (Guiomar,

2010). In sum, trust in the producer and the product are important issues affected by the

30 relationship between the farmer and the consumer through direct marketing (Opitz et al., 2016).

Effect on Food security

Despite the pressures from urban centers, maintaining peri-urban spaces is vital as peri- agriculture provides many benefits to these urban centers. Because of their fertility, peri-urban spaces produce not only a wide variety of highly valued goods, they statistically have more total prime agricultural soils than do rural areas. In fact, peri-urban agriculture accounts for 55% of all farm sales (Jackson-Smith and Sharp 2008) both locally and to the global market (Heimlich, 1989;

Heimlich & Anderson, 2001; Vidal & Fleury, 2008). With this in mind, peri-urban agriculture should be seen as indispensible if a broad range of locally produced, nutritionally adequate food is to be available thereby reducing dependence on the global food trade (Opitz et al., 2016)

Shifting food philosophy

Around the time California was formalizing its definition of organic food, food activist and restaurateur Alice Waters was traveling around Northern California looking for and talking about the benefits of local, organically raised food. In 1971, she opened Chez Panisse in response to the global food industry she saw taking hold (NAS, 2010). Since its opening, Chez Panisse has become a mecca for food conscious pilgrims looking for principles to guide their daily diets; an alternative to that offered by the global food industry. In writings, both in cookbooks and other outlets, she spoke passionately about eating simply, organically, seasonally and locally (Pudup,

2008). In the mid ‘90s, Waters teamed up with the former principle of King Middle School in

Berkeley California to form the Edible School Yard (ESY) (Pudup, 2008). The program’s mission statement reads

“Edible education connects the experience of school to the real, lived experience of our students. It prioritizes access to the healthy food that underpins all other efforts to give children a strong start at school and in life.” (Edible School Yard, n.d.)

31 Because ESY operates within the Middle School’s overall commitment to practicing the principles of ecology, a systems thinking approach links the garden to the kitchen to the school curricula “through key concepts of community, sustainability, diversity, responsibility, networks, systems, cycles, and flows” (Pudup, 2008 p.10).

Italy’s Slow Food (SF) Movement, created in 1986 by Carlo Petrini, had its origins as a reaction to the first fast food chains opening in Italy. In 1989, SF became an international association with around 90,000 members spread out over 130 countries (Simonetti, 2012) with its main goals being:

• placing the right emphasis on the pleasure of food, and learning how to appreciate different recipes and tastes, in order to recognize the various places and skills of production, and to respect the rhythms of the seasons and of the convivium; • sustaining the education of taste as a defense against poor quality, food fraud and the standardization of our meals; • safeguarding local cuisines, traditional production systems, and vegetable and animal species at risk of extinction; • sustaining a new model of agriculture that is less intensive and cleaner; • defending biodiversity and the right of the people to food sovereignty. (Simonetti, 2012 p.2)

In 1975, Frances Moore Lappé, the author of “Diet for a small Planet”, and Joe

Collins, author and project coordinator at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C. founded Food First. Working to end the injustices that cause hunger, Food First has worked since its inception to highlight these injustices and amplify the voices of the communities and movements that advance real solutions. In 2010, Food First launched its first Food Sovereignty

Tour which brings scholars, activists and farmers to the global food movement (Food First, n.d.).

Despite its social movement beginnings, the push for local foods has hit the general public with gusto. In 2007 the term “locavore” was added to the New Oxford English Dictionary

(Thilmany, Bond, & Bond, 2008) and in 2009, the USDA launched the “Know your farmer, know

32 your food” initiative intended to coordinate USDA resources and expertise on local and regional food systems (Hinrichs, 2013).

What is meant by a local Food system/model?

Although the beginnings of these movements differ, their motivations are clear.

Established primarily as a reaction to the entrenched global food system, these organizations highlight, among other things, the social injustices, environmental degradation and loss of control over the growing and procurement of food at the hands of transnational corporations.

In addition to the establishment of these organizations, there has been a strong resurgence of local food systems as a direct response to outcomes realized by that global food system (Adams & Salois, 2010). On the one hand, the global food system has shown to be incredibly productive, on the other hand, it is highly political and controls who has access to food and who does not (Lyon & Ehrenreich, 2011).

Although an exact definition of what is meant by local food is missing, most definitions conceed that local food [systems] includes complex networks of relationships between actors including producers, distributors, retailers and consumers grounded in a particular place (Dunne,

Chambers, Giombolini, & Schlegel, 2010). Some define local to be within a certain geographical distance, or political or state boundary, while others subscribe to the concept of a “food shed”(Adams & Salois, 2010; Dunne et al., 2010; Potteiger, Systems, & Potteiger, 2013).

Regardless of the definition, the push for more local foods is growing. Although over-all sales of locally produced foods is still a small part of the food system as a whole, trends show that its share is increasing steadily. In 2008 local food sales totaled about $4.8 billion dollars 1.6% of total food sales (Adams & Salois, 2010). Additionally, the USDAs directory of Farmers Markets, one market outlet for local food, has grown from, 1,755 in 1994 to 8,687 in 2017 (USDA-AMS,

2017).

33 Who buys local and where?

Understanding who buys local foods and why is valuable information for marketing efforts by producers as well as those who sell their foods (grocery stores, restaurants, and other food sellers). This information can also be useful in shaping public policies and programs that aim to support local and regional food systems (Low et al., 2015).

Historically, the most vocal support for local agriculture came from those concerned about the environmental impact of industrial agriculture, specifically the the distance food travels from farm to plate or “food miles.” Recently however, local food systems have come to embody so much more, with some research suggesting that locally produced food assumes the role that used to be held by the organic market. It is this view of local food production that explains the growth in the local food market (Adams & Salois, 2010). Studies by Wolf (1997) and

Gallons et al. (1997) found that customers gave higher ratings of importance to locally grown foods than organically grown foods and that shoppers perceived local foods as being fresher, better quality and more affordable (Gallons, Toensmeyer, Bacon, & German, 1997; McGarry-

Wolf, 1997). Additionally, recent studies suggest respondents associate local food as being better for the environment and positive social outcomes, such as community and health benefits

(Chamberlain, Kelley, & Hyde, 2013; Zepeda & Leviten-Reid, 2004). Shopper trend surveys and regional studies find that consumers are also concerned about supporting the local economy

(Bean & Sharp, 2011; Rainey et al., 2011). Additionally, several studies report that consumer’s shopping habits are influenced by those around them, giving them a feeling of empowerment, feeling that actions make a difference (Bingen, Sage, & Sirieix, 2011; Thilmany-McFadden &

Onozaka, 2010).

The most recent study to track consumer spending habits, the Food Marketing Institute

(FMI) commissioned a study tracking U.S. grocery shopper trends in 2018. Their report found

34 that on a regular basis when shopping, across all age groups and genders, on average, 67% of shoppers buy locally-grown products. Additionally, income level tended not to have a significant effect of whether this behavior affected consumer’s shopping habits, except for those earning over $100k (~64.5 and 72% respectively) (Hartman Group, 2018).

However, when asked how important locally grown food is to consumers when choosing a primary grocery store (that is, where they spend most money on groceries), an average of 36% across all ages and genders listed locally grown food as very important. Additionally, the study found that aside from those earning above 100k, income level did not affect the importance of locally grown products when choosing a primary grocery store, 41% versus ~34.5% respectively

(Hartman Group, 2018). It should be noted that the lowest income bracket in the study is classified as “Under $44K” and that considering the national poverty guidelines list a poverty level income of $12,490 for a single family household (ASPE, 2019), a finer study should be considered for those nearer the poverty line.

Potentially one of the most interesting points made by the study is when asked what was the most important to the shoppers notion of “eating well”, across all age groups, roughly

1% considered having eaten foods that are produced in an environmentally sustainable way as important. The same results were found across income levels (Hartman, 2018).

Lastly, as the sampling for these studies was on the smaller scale, it is difficult to generalize and therefore results may only apply to the studies’ perspective area (i.e. grocery stores) or set of circumstances.

Direct to Consumer (DTC) versus intermediate

There are generally two ways that consumers purchase locally grown food, Direct to

Consumer in the form of Farmers Markets, CSAs and Food Hubs or through Intermediate chains, grocery stores and institutions such as schools and restaurants. Using data from the Agricultural

35 Resource Management Survey (ARMS), Low and Vogal (2011) found that the majority of local food sales are through intermediary markets, even though there are far more small farms marketing through direct to consumer markets. Larger farms tend to use intermediaries in order to avoid transactions costs and because they can supply the volume needed. Smaller farms tend to favor DTC markets in order to shorten the supply chain and because DTC markets also allow the farmers to keep more money from sales (Low & Vogel, 2011). A later Congressional

Report by Low et al. (2015) found that even though farmers continued to join DTC markets, unfortunately overall sales leveled off between 2007 and 2012. (Low et al., 2015).

Producer meets consumer for local food security and other benifits

The previous sections have described two very different views of the same concept: a food system. The predominate industrial agricultural system, although efficient and highly productive, is showing to be unsustainable. Its dependence on dwindling resources and contribution to environmental degradation cannot be overstated. Although the original intent of the green revolution was to eliminate hunger and food scarcity, it has fallen far short of this as food production and accessibility is, by and large, controlled by large industrial agriculture leaving food insecurity in its wake. Conversely, studies abound on how local food production supports a regions food security (Clancy & Ruhf, 2010; Altieri, 2009). This chapter highlights there is much overlap between what peri-urban agriculture can provide and what local consumers want. Perceived constraints on farmers for such things as direct to consumer marketing is a plus for consumers wanting to spend their money buying local food, supporting more sustainable food production in addition to supporting local business.

Changing societal attitudes towards quality food, local and seasonal eating and farm to table consumption may provide motivation and opportunities for small, local producers. This study interviews farmers to determine their motivations for entering and continuing to farm on a small, local scale. 36 CHAPTER THREE : BACKGROUND

Michigan is the second most agriculturally diverse state in the United States. Most of this diversity can be found in the lower third of the lower peninsula. Blessed with rich soils, relatively stable temperatures and an abundance of water, this area of Michigan (particularly the southeast) has been the site of dramatic cycles of economic growth and development throughout its history. Detroit’s strategic location near the Great Lakes made it a trading hub for regional and international trade, nearly all settlement in Southeast Michigan has its origin in Detroit and has been affected by the waxing and waning of its fortunes. In its early days of settlement in the 1700s by the French, Michigan was known primarily for its fur trade. As forests were rich in beaver, large-scale agriculture production for export was slow to start as the first settlers were stymied by a heavily wooded interior and expansive wetlands in the southeast and therefore did not venture much beyond the original entry point of Detroit. By the early 1800’s, as national policies spurred the clearing and draining of wetlands throughout the nation, foreign immigrants began to pour in, venturing west and finding rich soils like Michigan’s perfect for agriculture.

Although populations spread throughout lower Michigan in the 19th century, Detroit remained the central hub and its capital until 1847. Even after the capital was relocated to

Lansing, Detroit was still Michigan’s largest city with a population of 80,000 citizens in 1870.

Like most large cites--particularly ones that are dependent on manufacturing--Detroit has witnessed numerous economic upturns and downturns throughout its history. The financial crises of 1893 caused widespread unemployment in Michigan. Michigan was able to bounce back more quickly than most other cities because of the industry that it would define it for much of the 20th century: the automobile.

Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and scores of other manufacturers turned the

37 “Motor City” into an economic and cultural powerhouse, attracting population growth and development, but the city’s dependence on one single industry also contributed mightily to its ultimate downfall with the largest bankruptcy claim in U.S. history in 2013.

While Detroit has recently gained a reputation as a darling of the urban agriculture movement, as intrepid city farmers turn abandoned lots into community gardens, in truth agriculture has consistently been a part of the city’s recoveries throughout various downturns.

More than once city government has encouraged agriculture to help its employees and feed its residents. As social change and even unrest led many residents to relocate to surrounding suburbs throughout the 20th century, Detroit has grappled with what to do with the vast

quantities of vacant land resulting from demographic change. While city residents informally

incorporated urban agriculture into city plans with Mayor Coleman Young’s Farm-A-Lot program

in the 1970s, the current influence of Detroit’s urban agricultural efforts didn’t take shape until

late 1990s/early 2000. The financial crisis of 2008 hit the auto industry, and thus The Motor City,

particularly hard, and again Detroit found itself filling needs with agriculture in the city.

These activities have drawn the attention of not only advocates of urban agriculture

but people who are interested in more local food systems in general. An unintended benefit is

that southeast Michigan again draws people to its rich soils, stable temperatures and copious

amounts of water so that agriculture can continue

Biophysical context of lower Michigan

In large part, Michigan’s agricultural potential developed from the glacial sediments deposited during the Ice Age as huge sheets of ice moved southward depositing rocks, sand, gravel and silt (Lewis, 2002; MSU, n.d.). Michigan’s physiography is a result of geological forces

38 in addition to the melting of these ice sheets that divided the lower peninsula into two broad regions (Leverette, 1917). It is this division that has had the largest impact on agriculture throughout the state.

Soils of study area

Although six types of soils are found throughout Michigan, the lower peninsula is divided into two major regions. Differences in topography, climate, geology all contribute to

Michigan’s potential as an agricultural state. The northern part of lower peninsula is dominated

by Spodosols. Characterized by well-draining sandy soil with low moisture holding capacity,

Spodosols are also prone to wind erosion. Additionally, because the northern half of the

lower peninsula is predominantly covered with coniferous forest, the lack of organic material

contributes to low fertility. The southern half of the lower peninsula is comprised of mainly

Alfisols (Lewis, 2002). These fertile, well drained soils are the product of a longer growing

season and the predominance of deciduous vegetation including hardwood forests of walnut,

Figure 3.1. Distribution of Agricultural Land in Michigan by Class. Source: Veatch, Soils and Land, 63-65

39 white oaks, red ash, and ivy. (Sommers, 1984). This area of the lower peninsula has the state’s most productive 1st and second class soils as classified by Poremba (2001) and Sommers (1984)

(Poremba 2001; Sommers 1984).

Climate and terrain

Because of its position between the equator and the poles, Michigan’s temperatures are moderate with strongly differentiated seasons. The changeability of these seasons are accentuated by the region’s location along the westerly airflows in the upper atmosphere.

Deviations in the direction of these airflows allow Pacific tropical or polar air masses to influence seasonal fluctuations in the configuration and intensity of the Jetstream, producing spells of abnormal normally cold or warm weather (Eichenlaub, 1979; Lewis, 2002). Temperatures across the lower peninsula range from an average of 40 degrees C from November through April to

74 degrees C from May through October with an average annual precipitation of 30 inches.

Although temperature and precipitation rates are consistent throughout lower Michigan, snowfall can increase dramatically from the southeastern part of the state to the north western tip of lower Michigan, sometimes by as much as 20 inches (“U.S. Climate Data,” 2010).

In a study by Andresen (2007) that tracked climate trends in Michigan from 1895-2006, precipitation rates generally decreased from 1895-1930 followed by an increase between 1930 into the 1990’s, with another decrease from 2000-2005. Overall, the 1930’s were calculated to be the driest on record, whereas the 1980s were the wettest (Andresen, 2007). Additionally,

Anderson’s study found that temperature change during the study period was about +0.6ºC which were similar to overall global trends of +0.8ºC since 1850 (IPCC, 2007; Andresen, 2007).

The northern part of lower Michigan is dominated by higher elevations that descend sharply toward the lake shores. As such, these areas commonly experience an earlier fall and

40 later spring frost than areas in the southern area of the lower peninsula where that terrain is more uniform and less uneven (Lewis, 2002).

Michigan Wetlands

Prior to European settlement, Michigan contained roughly 10.7 million acres of wetlands covering more than 17 % of the state’s total land area (Hintzen, 2015). As of 2005, roughly 6.5 million acres of those wetlands remain with most of that loss being in southeastern Michigan where 66% of wetlands have been lost (Fizzell, 2014). It was these wetlands that early settlers encountered, leading them to believe that Michigan was unsuitable for agriculture (Fizzell,

2014).

History of Farming in Michigan

Agriculture on a large scale developed slowly in Michigan since obtaining legal title to land outside of the principle settlements of Detroit in the south and Mackinac in the north were impossible until 1818 (Dunbar & May, 1995). By 1837 when Michigan was admitted into the union as a state, 38 counties had been established. The largest number of inhabitants, 23,400, living in Wayne County (which includes Detroit), accounted for 13% of the state’s total. 9,000 of this figure lived in Detroit alone but as Michigan’s economy changed, Detroit’s importance dropped as settlers ventured West in search of agricultural lands (Lewis, 2002). In 1810, about one third of the counties non-Indian residents lived in Detroit, but by 1840 only one of every twenty-three non-Indians lived in Wayne County (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Settlement patterns, and therefore agriculture, in lower Michigan were also directly impacted by the topography, climate and soils. For example, in the areas nearer the Ohio state border, the lowlands were largely wetlands and oak plantings making, farming almost impossible. With the passage of the U.S. Swamp Lands Acts of 1849 many miles of streams were deepened and channelized to create drainage outlets (Ghane, 2018) allowing for large scale

41 settlements. Once drained, these areas were cleared of deciduous vegetation and inter-planted with wheat2. Slightly northern counties Oakland, Washtenaw and Lenawee favored much better for settlement as they were predominantly prairie and oak openings, making the preparation of agricultural lands less back-breaking (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Regardless of settlement patterns, the growth of agriculture in southeast Michigan was highly dependent on the farm’s distance from Detroit since it was still the major trading destination to points East for farm commodities (Legislature, 2012). As such, settlement densitiy became less and less the farther west one traveled from Detroit. This effect of transportation costs to eastern markets meant that for the first half of the nineteenth century, small, diversified farms for subsistence dominated the landscape (Dunbar & May, 1995). As transportation pathways grew, farmers were able to ship their crops eastward and the growth of Michigan as an agricultural state had begun (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Farming in Michigan today

Agriculture still makes up a significant proportion of jobs in the state, employing 22%

of the state’s workforce and contributes more than 100 billion dollars to the state’s economy

(MDOARD, 2015).

As of 2015, agriculture ranks third in Michigan for its economic base (Hitchcock, 2015)

with corn and soybeans having the largest sales of 1.1 million, and 983 million respectively in

2016 (NASS, 2017). Michigan is first in the U.S. for eighteen commodity crops including twelve

different floriculture crops, three varieties of dry beans, pickling cucumbers, tart cherries and

blueberries. Because of the moderating effect,or “lake effect”, the western side of Michigan’s

Lower Peninsula accounts for twenty different varieties of blueberries and 77% of the nation’s

tart cherries (MDOARD, 2017).iiiiiiiii

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 2 Personal communication with farmer reciting family history 42 The most striking change to Michigan agriculture in the beginning of the 20th century was the size of the industry and how many people it affected. In mid 19th century, agriculture employed 85% of Michigan’s population but by the mid-twentieth, less than 5% depended on farming for their living (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Figure 3.2. Top 20 commodity crops for Michigan in 2016. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from Michigan Agricultural Statistics, 2016-2017

Today, 95% of Michigan farms are single-family operated and/or family partnerships, and the few farms that are structured as corporations are, by and large, operated by multi- generational farming families (MDOARD, 2015). Additionally, Michigan ranks third in the nation for number of farmer’s markets, hosting one of the nation’s oldest, Eastern Market, established in 1891 in Detroit’s Cadillac Square (DHS, 2019).

43 Southeast Michigan

Today southeast Michigan covers roughly 5,075 square miles which encompasses the urban center of Metro Detroit, including Macomb, Wayne and Oakland counties, and its surrounding suburban and rural communities of Livingston, Monroe, St. Claire and Washtenaw counties (SEMCOG.org). Detroit, being the largest city in Michigan, has had the largest impact not only on the development of Michigan as a whole, but specifically on southeast Michigan. The growth of Detroit, both economically and socio-culturally, have determined the development and stability of its surrounding areas. You cannot talk about southeast Michigan without linking it to Detroit.

Figure 3.3. Context map of study area. Koenig 2019

History of southeast Michigan

Bounded by lakes St. Claire, Huron and Erie to the east and the state of Ohio to the south, Detroit was founded in 1701 by Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac as a territory of King Louis

XIV of France after he set out from Montreal, Canada (Poremba, 2001). Cadillac proposed that a French colony be established somewhere along Le Detroit, a French term refering to the

44 waterway linking Lake Erie to Lake Huron. Cadillac surmised that this was a strategic point from which to control access to the upper lakes and warned that if they did not act at once, the British would take advantage of the strategic position (Roberts, 1884). Cadillac noted a narrowing of the river on both sides with a bluff that ended abruptly to the west (making the site easy to fortify) and described the land as follows:

The banks are so many vast meadows where the freshness of these beautiful streams keep the grass always green. These same meadows are fringed with long and broad avenues of fruit trees, young and old [which] droop down under the weight and multitude of their fruit. In this soil so fertile, the ambitious vines a thick roof with its broad leaves and its heavy clusters over the head of whatever it twines around...... It is there that the turkey hen calls back her numerous brood and leads them to gather the grapes. The golden pheasant, the quail, the partridge, the woodcock, the teeming turtle-dove swarm in the woods and cover the open country intersected and broken by full-grown forest trees.The woods are of six kinds - walnut, white oaks, red ash, ivy, white wood trees and cottonwood trees. They are straight as arrows, without knots and almost without branches except near the top. It is from these branches that the fearless eagle looks steadily at the sun (Poremba, 2001, p.11)

In the years that followed the establishment of Fort Ponchartrain, as Detroit was originally called, Cadillac sought to encourage permanent settlement by granting small plots of land within the fort walls and large, narrow farmland plots outside of the fort walls. These plots

Figure 3.4. French Ribbon Farms along the Detroit River. Illustration by George Henry Victor Collot

45 abutted the Detroit river, and although they were narrow, they could reach three miles inland thus affording them the name “ribbon gardens” (Dunbar & May, 1995).

With its wild life and thick forests, southeast Michigan’s early history was dominated by the fur and lumber industries with one notable exception being the cultivation of fruit trees

(Dunbar & May, 1995). Despite Cadillac’s efforts to establish Detroit as an agricultural center, success in establishing a population at Detroit were based primarily on its location as a fur trading center (Johnson, 1971). Beaver pelts were in high demand in Europe and the French of

Fort Ponchartrain found the Native Americans of the area more than willing to trade their pelts for French supplies of guns and blankets. Reluctant to give up the lucrative fur trade, the French discouraged large-scale agriculture as it would have meant clearing the land of its dense forests which were necessary for the fur trade (Johnson, 1971).

Detroit remained under French control until the conclusion of the French and Indian

War. With the defeat of France, possession of Fort Ponchitrain was transferred to the British in

1760 (Dunbar & May, 1995). Despite its independence as guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris of

1783, the Northwest Territory (of which Michigan was a part of) remained under British control until 1796 when it was officially incorporated into the United States of America (Roberts, 1884).

Despite this, the area of Detroit was continuously under threat of war with the British due in part because of its support of hostile Indian tribes along the Great Lakes frontier. With the signing of the Treaty of Ghent in 1814, the Northwestern Territory was returned to United States. By

1815, Detroit had achieved the status of a city and became the territory’s capital in 1837 when

Michigan was officially admitted into the Union (Dunbar & May, 1995).

The first decades of the 19th century brought mixed reviews as to Michigan’s hospitableness for new settlers. Large scale settlement in the new territory was hampered by its location. Despite Detroit’s prime entry location on lake Erie, travel was dangerous and fraught

46 with discomfort. Navigation on lake Erie was seen as more dangerous than on the Atlantic.

Additionally, any attempts to enter southeast Michigan through Ohio meant crossing what was known as “The Black Swamp” that was Ohio’s northern border (Dunbar & May, 1995). Although the completion of the Erie Canal in 1825 facilitated the transportation of passengers and freight from the eastern seaboard, the interior of lower Michigan did not flourish until the improvement of transportation via railroad in early to mid 1830’s (Poremba, 2001). With these improvements,

Michigan became one of the most popular destinations for westward moving pioneers (Michigan

Legislature, 2012). The rest of the 19th century saw Detroit grow as commercial center and an immigrant destination, and by 1870 Detroit had a population of 80,000 with almost half of those being foreign born (Poremba, 2001).

Preceded by the collapse of two of the country’s largest employers, the Philadelphia and

Reading Railroad and the National Cordage Company, the economic crisis of 1893 was the worst economic crisis known until that time. Unemployment in Michigan soared to 43% (Kopytek,

2015). In response to this, Mayor Hazen S. Pingree, in an effort to find jobs for the unemployed laborers who were mostly Polish and German immigrants, became a major proponent of vacant land cultivation. Deemed “Pingree’s Potato Patches,” acres of vacant and idle land were turned into subsistence gardens on the outskirts of the city. Although predominantly planted with potatoes, the gardens also raised beans, squash, pumpkins, string beans, cabbage, cucumbers, corn and beets. By 1894, 975 families raised $14,000 worth of crops on 430 acres of land. At its peak in 1897, Pingree’s Potato Patches involved 1,563 families before tapering off in 1901 as economic conditions improved (Cialdella, 2014).

In Detroit, people depended on trade, small manufacturing or processing for their incomes from 1900 to the 1940’s. This was more so the case as auto-manufacturing blossomed in Detroit and neighboring cities (Poremba, 2001). Additionally, Detroit became one of the

47 most ethnically diverse cities in the country. Although historically, most immigrants to Michigan came from Europe, by 1916 Detroit actively sought migrants from the south to fill jobs resulting from the United States’ involvement WWI industries (Baime, 2014). By 1930 Michigan’s black population was 169,453, ten times the amount of two decades earlier (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Historically blacks could not compete with whites for jobs, but growth and industrialization in Michigan, particularly that of the auto-industry, changed this, with whites and blacks now competing for the same jobs (Dunbar & May, 1995).

Southeast Michigan, like the rest of the US, suffered great unemployment during the

Depression, but unlike many parts of the country, bounced back more quickly than other areas due to the auto industry and its subsequent involvement in WWII manufacturing (Baime, 2014).

Additionally, like the rest of the country, Detroit took park in “Victory Gardens” in an effort to support troops abroad. During that time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that nearly nine to eleven million tons of fruits and vegetables were produced in Amercans’ backyards accounting for 46% of the crops grown (Mogk, Kwiatkowski, Weindorf, 2010; Cialdella,

2014; Paddeu & Flaminia, 2017). Although the production of automobiles ceased in 1942 to concentrate on weapons manufacturing, it picked up quickly again post war (Baime, 2014).

By 1950, Detroit’s production of automobiles topped over 8 million vehicles (Poremba, 2001).

Unfortunately, it became clear that the state was highly dependent on one single industry. As production for more sophisticated military equipment drew manufacturing out of the state to other locations, jobs went with it (Dunbar & May, 1995). The state would see a slight upturn in its employment of the early 1960s but the economic challenges southeast Michigan would face started as early as 1953 when Detroit alone lost approximately 150,000 jobs (Poremba, 2001).

Many credit the riot of 1967 to the great white flight from Detroit, but its origins began well before the ill-fated day in July. Racial tensions were heightened around the country but

48 in Detroit, they were especially charged (White, 2011). As the auto industry grew, the city of Detroit lost its ability to accommodate that growth. Consequently, manufacturing and the workforce that supported it relocated to the suburbs (Hand & Gregory, 2017; Kameshwari

Pothukuchi, 2015b).This migration was facilitated by public policy that supported the construction of freeways out of the city at the expense of two very large African American communities, Black Bottom and Paradise Valley (Poremba, 2001). The freeways, coupled with no support for mass transit inside the city (Pothukuchi, 2017), meant that by the mid to late 1970s it was the suburbs of Detroit that enjoyed tremendous growth, both in population and economic wealth (Norris et al., 2011). One case in particular, Oakland County just north of Detroit, became one of the wealthiest counties in the United States(Geldis, 2012).

The effect of the riots and the persistent out-migration of Detroit’s more affluent residents has had lasting and long term effects. Detroit’s population peaked at around 2 million people in 1950 but has been declining ever since (Hand & Gregory, 2017). Faced with high unemployment, Mayor Coleman Young instituted the Farm-A-Lot program in 1974 (Mogk et al., 2010; Kameshwari Pothukuchi, 2015a). Young’s program encouraged Detroit residents to farm open and vacant lots left behind by an exciting populous (Paddeu & Flaminia, 2017). The

Farm-A-Lot program was part of Young’s “narrative of survival and self-reliance for the city’s increasingly African American population”(Pothukuchi, 2015b, p 283). By 1975, the number of vacant lots tilled was 525, with plans that by the next year the number would grow to 1,000.

(Hand & Gregory, 2017). Due to budget cuts and a lack of legal recognition by the city, the program ended in 2002 despite the fact that it was immensely popular with residents (Flaminia,

2017; Pothukuchi, 2015b). Although Coleman Young’s Farm-A-Lot program was ultimately unsuccessful, it paved the way for future generations of farmers and farming trends in Detroit and beyond.

49 Farming in southeast Michigan Today

Right to Farm Act (RTFA)

As people moved out of Detroit into the suburbs, land which had been used for agriculture in southeast Michigan quickly developed into housing for this migration. Despite the fact that people wanted to move away from the blight of the city, these new residents found themselves interspersed with productive farms (Hand & Gregory, 2017). The resulting conflicts between farmers and the new residents led to threats or outright nuisance lawsuits against farmers (Norris et al., 2011). In response to these conflicts and others, the State of

Michigan passed its Right to Farm Act In 1981 (Hand & Gregory, 2017; Norris et al., 2011). This act was intended to protect existing farmers from nuisance suits due to urban sprawl (Mogk et al., 2010). The Right to Farm Act protected farmers who could prove their farm had been in existence prior to change of land use (for example from agricultural to residential) if they complied with the “generally accepted agricultural and management practices” or “GAAMPs”

(Hand & Gregory, 2017). Although its original application was somewhat loose, as more people moved to the suburbs over the next two decades this mechanism for protecting operating farms went from being a “shield to a sword and gave almost complete protection to any farm activity to which the neighbors might object” (Hand & Gregory, 2017 p.507). The Right to Farm Act originally gave power to local governments for protections afforded farmland but amendments to the statute in 1999 put control of nuisance suits solely in the hands of the state government department whose mandate was to explicitly promote agriculture - the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDOA) (Walker, 2002). Due to several cases which supported and a definition of farming operations (Hand & Gregory, 2017), Michigan’s Right to Farm policy over time came to wield such might that it no longer applied to existing farms alone but also covered farmers that might set operations up in existing neighborhoods. This directly contradicted the original intent

50 of the legislation (Norris et al., 2011). RTFA expressly pre-empted “any jurisdiction lower than the State from enacting ordinances, regulations, or resolutions that conflict with the provisions of the Act or with GAAMPS” (Pothukuchi, 2010, p.1). Michigan’s Right to Farm Act would come under scrutiny again in 2013 as Detroit was becoming a model for urban agriculture enacting its own ordinances for farming (Pothukuchi, 2010).

Characteristics of southeast Michigan farms

According the latest Census of Agriculture, farms in the peri-urban areas of southeast

Michigan cover 77,2941 acres spread over 5297 farms. Generally, Washtenaw and Monroe counties are the most diverse i.e. in products sold, farm size, value of farms sales. For example,

Monroe county has the most land in farms and the most number of small and large farms, but

Washtenaw county has the most number of farms over all.

The most common size farm amongst all farms is 10-49 acres except in Wayne County, where Detroit is located, where the most common is 1-9 acres. I

Table 3.1. Southeastern Michigan farms by size. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

51 In terms of sales, Washtenaw has the most farms with sales under $2.5k while Monroe has the most number of sale over $100,000k. As for production in commodity crops, corn is the

Table 3.2. Southeastern Michigan farms by value of sales. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

(D)Information witheld to avoid disclosing data for individual operations. Table 3.3. Southeastern Michigan farms by selected commodity crops harvested. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

52 highest produced followed by wheat with Monroe county being the largest producer for both.

Washtenaw county has the most livestock and poultry production. Although Monroe county has the highest number of acres in production of vegetables harvested for sale,

Washtenaw county has the highest number of farms dedicated to vegetable production.

Washtenaw County also has the highest number of certified organic farms at 24 accounting for

1,072 acres in production (USDA, 2017). iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

When it comes to the farmers themselves, Washtenaw County dominates southeast

Michigan farms in terms of younger farmers (35 and under), new farmers (10 years and under in production) and female producers (USDA, 2017).K

Table 3.4. Southeastern Michigan number of livestock and poultry farms. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

Table 3.5. Southeast Michigan farms by land used for vegetable production. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

53 Table 3.6. Southeast Michigan farms with young producers. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data kkkvv

Table 3.7. Southeast Michigan value of organic sales. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

* Producer. The term producer designates a person who is involved in making decisions for the farm operation. A principal producer is a producer who indicated they were a principal operator. There may be multiple principal producers on a farm. Each farm has at least one principal producer. 54 Table 3.8. Southeast Michigan farms with new producers. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

Table 3.9. Southeastern Michigan farms by with female producers. Koenig 2019. Data adapted from 2017 Census of Agriculture for Michigan, County Level Data

Detroit’s part in the current farming trend

In 2017, Detroit’s estimated population was 673,104 (Census, 2017), with a poverty rate of 39.7% (ACS, 2017). Along with continuing depopulation, Detroit also has one of the largest stocks of vacant land. As of 2015, Detroit had about 100,000 vacant lots and 80,000 vacant housing units (Lewinski, Settlemyer, Heins, Toering, & Shapiro, 2015). Due to years of financial mismanagement, Detroit was the largest city in American history to file for bankruptcy in 2013 (Desan, 2014). Although these events are recent, these trends have been on the rise for

55 six decades. For example, as Detroit emptied of both population and business, its mostly African

American residents were left with few options for both employment and food. By 2007, there was not a single chain grocery store left in the city and the small grocers that remained were too few and too spread out (Hand & Gregory, 2017). It has been these trends that have made Detroit a hotbed and model for the urban agriculture movement within the U.S. (Pothukuchi, 2015b).

One key difference in the current trend with those of earlier efforts, such as Pingree’s Potato

Patches, Victory Gardens of WWII and Young’s Farm-A-Lot program, is that today’s trend is from the bottom up versus top down. As such, the look and support of urban agriculture in Detroit is very different than in years past (Pothukuchi, 2017).

Early urban agriculture efforts in Detroit were often done “under the radar” and with no legal standing due to the fact that, from a planning perspective, these efforts had no formal designation (Hodgson, Campbell, & Bailkey, 2011). Despite this, with the help of federal programs like the Community Food Projects Competitive Grant Program implemented in the

1996 Farm Bill, several Detroit initiatives received funds for educational assistance, economic development, health and environmental sustainability (Pothukuchi, 2015b).

While there is much enthusiasm and interest by both residents and outsiders about the resurgence of urban agriculture in the city, Detroit has struggled with how to deal with this growing industry (Vitiello & Wolf-Powers, 2014). Not only has urban agriculture affected how people view the city of Detroit, but many question who should be driving these efforts and why

(Hand & Gregory, 2017).

Often residents of Detroit have seen the growth of urban agriculture “as a strategy for community self-determination, social justice, and food sovereignty for the city’s mostly

African American community, as well as a transformational agenda for a postindustrial city”

(Pothukuchi, 2017, p.11) . Two such examples are D-Town Farms and Recovery Park.

56 Founded in 2006 as a garden on a vacant east-side lot, D-Town Farm is the effort of Detroit

Black Community Food Security Network (DBCFSN). Founded by Malik Yakini, a long time black liberation activist, DBCFSN works to raise awareness about food policy to ensure that Detroit’s community members get the healthiest food possible. Discouraged by the absence of the black community in the resurgence of urban agriculture in Detroit (White, 2011), Yakini started

D-Town Farms in 2006 with only 1/4 acre but now operates with a long-term lease on 7 acres in Rouge Park, a city park on the west side (Pothukuchi, 2017). Since its inception, D-Town

Farms has played a vital role in community building through education, social engagement and employment opportunities. D-Town sells its produce at several markets but all are within the boundary of Detroit (White, 2011).

In 2013 Gary Wozniak founded Recovery Park. Recovery Parks mission is to “create jobs for people with barriers to employment”. Recovery Park intends to work toward this goal by “leveraging underused resources available in Detroit to create innovative business models that focus on local food systems” (Chen et al., 2014 p.12). With the establishment of

Recovery Park Farm, Wozniak works with SHAR (Self-Help Addiction Rehabilitation Inc.), to get people recovering from drug and alcohol abuse back to work by employing them on the farm

(Techtown, 2017). Established in 2016, Recovery Park Farms is a 60 acre amalgamation of city owned property and other land purchased for the project (Golden, 2015). Currently, Recovery

Park has fourteen employees but hopes to create 170 additional jobs with the development of hydroponic operations (Welch, 2018).

While most of these efforts have been grassroots or ‘coming from the inside’, it is the larger, corporate sponsored, or ‘coming from the outside’ projects that have drawn criticism from the local communities (Pothukuchi, 2012). One of the most divisive was Hantz Woodlands

(originally, Hantz Farms). In 2009, Hantz, a business financial services conglomerate in Michigan

57 and Ohio, approached the city of Detroit with an offer to buy thousands of vacant lots in the

East Side neighborhood of Detroit with a proposal to build the largest urban farm in the world

(Colasanti, Hamm, & Litjens, 2012). In 2012, the city of approved the sale and Hantz bought 144 acres at a deeply discounted cost of 8 cents per foot (Horst, Mcclintock, & Hoey, 2017). The sale was highly controversial amongst city residents, particularly those who had a long history of farming in the city and reported nothing but road blocks in their own efforts to build local farms

(Paddeu & Flaminia, 2017). It was seen by many as a land grab by an outsider (despite the fact that John Hantz is from Detroit) and sparked resentment and fears of things to come (Vitiello &

Wolf-Powers, 2014).

Detroit’s Urban Agricultural Ordinance (UAO)

The controversy resulting from the Heinz proposal forced Detroit to finally address the legitimacy of urban agriculture in the city (Pothukuchi, 2017). In 2012, Detroit passed the Urban

Agriculture Ordinance (Underwood, 2013). The “UAO was conceived at first to help secure existing illegal agricultural operations and avoid potential destruction of gardens and farms”

(Flaminia, 2017, p.215). Its development and passing received a tremendous amount of support from local residents and urban agriculture advocates by legitimizing existing operations and providing guidelines for future developments in the city of Detroit (Pothukuchi, 2017). It defines different type of urban agriculture and related infrastructure such as aquaculture and aquaponic facilities to greenhouses and farmers markets (Cohen, 2014). The ordinance specifies land use categories of where agriculture is allowed by right, conditionally or not at all and does not put limits on the size of operation (Hand & Gregory, 2017). The ordinance does prohibit farm animals such as bees, chickens, and goats, although an ordinance for keeping of certain small animals is being drafted (Hand & Gregory, 2017) . Additionally, certain species of trees and plants that have

58 been deemed injurious or invasive by the Forestry Division of the General Services Department are disallowed ( Pothukuchi, 2015b).

In the lead-up to the development and passing of Detroit’s Urban Agriculture Ordinance, many wondered if there would be a clash with Michigan’s RTFA and suggested that Detroit be given an exemption from the Act. Although Michigan’s RTFA protected existing farming operations against nuisance lawsuits, it had also been used for newly established farms, as discussed earlier. Although this may seem to be in favor of urban agriculture in the city of

Detroit, the ability of RTFA to pre-empt city ordinances was cause for concern amongst urban agricultural activists. Not only could Michigan’s Right to Farm Act protect urban agriculture, it could also be used to protect other farming operations that would clearly conflict with the current land uses in an urban setting, such as CAFOs (concentrated animal feed operations) or large scale slaughtering houses (Pothukuchi, 2010). In an effort to address these concerns, in 2012, the Michigan Agricultural Commission added a “preface to existing GAAMPs which exempted cities with populations exceeding 100,000 from the operation of the Right to Farm statute.” (Hand & Gregory, 2017, p510). In 2014, the state legislature further amended the RTFA by addressing the keeping of small farm animals, specifically chickens. Reversing its long stand on pre-empting local government zoning ordinances, the RTFA was amending to return power to those local governments, regardless of size, as it pertains to chickens. As of 2018, Detroit still has not approved any type of farm animals in its urban agriculture ordinance.

In 2017, Detroits City Planning Commission approved an amendment to its Master

Plan of Policies by including urban agriculture as a permitted land use in its zoning codes.

The goal of this amendment was to establish clear guidelines for alleviating land-use conflicts by accommodating diverse land uses. Even though the agriculture ordinance is now fully incorporated into the zoning ordinance, there is still a lack of land-use planning as

59 redevelopment takes priority and drives decisions related to land disposition (Pothukuchi, 2017).

To some city officials, urban agriculture is still seen as a land-use of last resort and can be seen as a planning solution for “shrinking cities” which Flamina (2017) believes is a view that should be contested. Additionally, there are fears that agricultural efforts will not last. For advocates and practitioners (i.e. farmers), costs can still be prohibitive, in addition to the logistical hurdles that must be cleared (Pothukuchi, 2017).

It is clear that Detroit has a long history with agriculture in the city and its most recent efforts have been accompanied with many struggles and setbacks. It is also clear, that the push for urban agriculture in Detroit has influenced agriculture in general across the state and at all levels as farmers are forging relationships with purveyors and customers across Southeast

Michigan in an effort to fulfill customers desire for local food (Koenig, 2019)3.

This background section suggests that there are many reasons for people to enter farming. Not only does Michigan have a long history of agriculture, in recent past, Southeast

Michigan has become known for its extensive efforts in urban agriculture due, in large part, to the large inventory of open space.

3 Based on personal interview with Southeast Michigan farmers

60 CHAPTER FOUR : RESEARCH METHODS

This thesis employs a qualitative inductive study to address the question, “What are local produce farmers’ motivations and challenges in southeastern Michigan”. Southeast

Michigan is a unique location for this study for two reasons: First, because agriculture is the third largest economic base in Michigan, farmers in the area are directly related to the state’s economic success. Secondly, because southeast Michigan includes Detroit, one the most visible examples of urban agricultural efforts at a city level, it is potentially a magnet for change and innovation in the field of agriculture in general, having influence well beyond its city borders.

Qualitative research is “good at providing an overview of an issue or situation, disentangling its complexities, and provides an in-depth understanding of different perspectives”

(Newing, Eagle, Puri, & Watson, 2011, p.9). Because of these advantages and the intimate nature of the research question, the two methods of qualitative research deemed most appropriate for this research study were semi-structured interviews coupled with content/inductive analysis.

Semi-structured Interviews

History of semi-structured interviews in social research

Semi-structured interviews are a method of qualitative research. Qualitative research is non-numeric and typically involves the use of words and pictures (Newing et al., 2011). Unlike quantitative research, qualitative research has the advantage of answering the question “why.”

According to Newing et al,

Qualitative research is good at providing an overview of an issue or situation, disen- tangling its complexities, and providing an in-depth understanding of different per- spectives (Newing et al., 2011, p.9).

61 People’s motivations for doing anything, let alone their choice of livelihood, or hobbies, can be intensely personal. Semi-structured interviews allow for cooperation between researcher and subject to accurately answer the question being investigated (Young et al., 2018).

According to Maccoby & Maccoby (1954), semi-structured interviews are an

“interchange in which one person ...attempts to elicit information or expressions of opinion or belief from another person or persons”(Maccoby & Maccoby, 1954, p.449). They are a method of qualitative data collection where a predefined set of initial questions is posed to the interviewee (Newing et al., 2011).

The process of the qualitative interview

The easiest way to gather information about the subject under study is to ask someone who knows what you want to know (Jones, 1996). In social research, this is done by sampling.

Newing et al. (2011) states that the most important distinction between the different types of sampling strategies is between probability and non-probability sampling (Newing, Eagle, Puri,

& Watson, 2011). Probability sampling is used when every member of the study population has a “has a known probability of being included in the sample, and therefore statistically valid inferences can be made from the sample to the overall population” (Newing et. al, 2011, p.67).

She further goes on to define that in non-probabilistic sampling, the probability of any one case will be in the study is not known and therefore statistically valid inferences to the population as a whole are not attempted (Newing et. al, 2011). The sampling method for this research was a non-probabilistic, cluster-sampling. Within cluster sampling, Babbie (2013) suggests that non- probablistic sampling can be further broken down into four subcategories (Babbie, 2013). Two of these sampling techniques, purposive or judgmental sampling in addition to snowball sampling, are employed in this thesis. According to Babbie, purposive sampling is appropriate because of the “knowledge of the population, it’s elements and the purpose of the study”(Babbie, 2013,

62 p.128). Additionally, purposeful cluster sampling is appropriate when the researcher wants to study a small subset of a larger population that are easily identifiable but to identify them all would be nearly impossible (Babbie, 2013). Snowball sampling is a technique whereby the existing interviewees are asked if they can recommend additional potential subjects relevant to the study (Flick, 2010).

According to Young et al. (2018), “data gathering begins with the identification of interviewees. A robust sampling strategy should be developed to ensure informed coverage of the population of interest” (Young et al., 2018, p.12). This group is largely determined by the nature of the study and the population characteristics (Frankfort-Nachmias, C. Nachmias, 1996).

Using a non-probalistic sampling method generally leads to a higher rate of response as the members of the chosen group are more likely to be interested and familiar with the topic under investigation and therefore be more motivated to participate in the study under investigation

(Frankfort-Nachmias, C. Nachmias, 1996)

Appropriate wording of questions is critically important for a successful interview. In order to acquire the necessary information while interviewing, researchers must word and ask questions in such a way as to motivate respondents to answer as completely and as honestly as possible (Berg, 2001). If the wrong questions are asked or in a manner that inhibits the respondent from answering fully, the interview is wasted (Berg, 2001). According to Denzin

(1970):

Questions should accurately convey meaning to the respondent; they should motivate him to become involved and to communicate clearly his attitudes and opinions; they should be clear enough so that the interviewer can easily convey meaning to the respondent; they should be precise enough to exactly convey what is expected of the respondent....(Denzin, 1970, p.129)

There is a delicate balance that the interviewer must maintain during the interview.

It is important to guide the interviewee so that the interview stays on track but not be so

63 overzealous so as to fill in blanks or unknowingly drive the conversation in a certain direction

(Mcgrath, Palmgren, & Liljedahl, 2018). It is important the interviewer actively listen to the interviewee while respecting silence and identify such silent moments as an opportunity for ongoing reflection (Giger, 2017).

After it is recorded, the interview should be transcribed immediately so that subtle and non-verbal information/cues can be captured along with the transcription. As a rough guide, it can take an experienced researcher/transcriber eight hours to transcribe one 45-minute audio- recorded interview and can generate 20 to 30 pages of written dialogue (Sutton & Austin, 2015).

Despite this drawback, the practice of recording the interview allows the interviewer to be fully present in the process of the interview.

Strengths of semi-structured interviews

Semi-structured interviews are extremely well suited when the researcher wishes to gain specific knowledge from a very specific study group (Newing et al., 2011). They allow for a more nuanced, intimate data collection opportunity that allows researchers to focus on the interviewee’s perspective with the potential of highlighting issues the researcher may not have considered (Babbie, 2011; Fontana & Frey, 2005). Because questions in semi-structured interviews are open ended, they encourage a type of dialogue that can very often lead to insights that may not happen with other types of qualitative research methods like surveys or questionnaires (Babbie, 2011). For example, Reimer et al. (2012) found that attempts to understand farmer’s motivations toward conservation efforts based on quantitative, socio- demographic data - such as farm characteristics -proved lacking in knowledge of attitudes and awareness. The study found that although farmers were highly influenced by the economics of conservation, the study also concluded that farmers are also influenced by more complex factors

64 that need to be included in the development of behavior models (Reimer, Thompson, & Prokopy,

2012).

Weaknesses of semi-structured interviews

Despite its advantages, the use of the semi-structured interviews also have disadvantages. The first challenge is the response rate from the group under study (Babbie,

2011). Because interviews are a type of social engagement between one or more persons, there is the inherent potential bias by any one of the participants. The mere presence of the interviewer will have an impact on what those being interviewed say or do. Conversely, the interviewer has his or her own experience and likely will color the interpretation of what is going on. There is no one single objective truth (Newing et al., 2011).

Additionally, potential problems may arise from sampling. Here too, bias can enter the choice of study subjects. There is also the potential that the number of samples may be too small so as to not reach saturation (the duplication of information) or too large, leading too much data (Young et al., 2018).

The process of actually documenting the interview poses its own challenges. Taking detailed notes during an interview can take away from the interviewers ability to ask follow- up questions and prevent the level of intimacy that is necessary for an effective interview

(Flick, 2010). It is recommended that interviews be recorded and then transcribed after the interview ends (Keeffe, Buytaert, Mijic, & Brozovi, 2016). Audio recording the interviews allows the researcher to fully engage in the interview with the ability to take sparse notes on the side.

These notes may lead to additional questions or bring attention to topics that may need to be discussed during analysis.

The biggest weaknesses of semi-structured interviews is transcribing the recorded interview (assuming this method is employed). Although the process of transcription can

65 be done by a third party, this option can be expensive (Sutton & Austin, 2015). Additionally, transcribing the interviews first hand allows for a deeper understanding of the material at hand, very often triggering insights not available during the initial interview (Berg, 2001).

Semi-structured interviews in ecological/farming research

“In studies of land use...... participant observation, interviews or workshops can fill in the details at the local level” (Newing et al., 2011 p.61).

Semi-structured interviews have been used extensively in ecological research including research on agricultural issues and its many facets and scales. They are particularly well suited in research that aims to bring together differing views on the research topic at hand (Carlsson,

Lidestav, Bjärstig, Svensson, & Nordström, 2017). In 2017, researchers from Sweden, with the goal of integrating landscape planning for the Vilhelmina Model Forest in northwest Sweden interviewed 32 forest stakeholders in an effort to bring together interested parties from different fields, all of whom all had decision making rights over the forest in question but whose vision of what should be done with the forest varied widely. The researcher’s goal was to use an “approach of integrated landscape planning (ILP) that could provide an inter-framework by functioning as an ‘umbrella’ connecting demands and planning tools from different sectors using semi-structured interviews” (Carlsson et al., 2017, p.2). Using this method of inquiry, the researchers goal was to capture each stakeholders understanding of his/her role of forest “values in the landscape, ownership rights, forest policy and management premises, actor networks and collaboration, focusing on governance challenges”(Carlsson et al., 2017, p.5). The knowledge gained from interviews allowed the researchers to propose solutions that corresponded to obstacles of integrated landscape planning highlighted by earlier research. Their interviews revealed constraints imposed by sectorial planning, the inability of local forest stakeholders to

66 consider the larger forest landscape and highlighted the potential for a “Model Forest4” initiative

to act as a directive for stakeholder engagement.

There has been a growing interest in the ecosystems services provided by agriculture.

Research suggests that agroecosystems’ capacity to provide ecosystem services depends on the

diversity of the crops produced and the mechanisms to grow those crops (Holt, Alix, Thompson,

& Maltby, 2016; Landis, 2017). Classifications of ecosystems services were set forth by The

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity which

divide ecosystem services into four main categories: regulating, habitat, production and cultural

services (MA, 2003; Kumar, 2010) . In yet another study using using a triangulated research

approach of literature review, observation and semi-structured interviews, Calvet-Mir et al.

(2012) were able to identify the ecosystems services provided by home gardens in Vall Fosca.

The researchers then classified knowledge of each ecosystem services by its source, literature

review, observation or semi-structured interviews. Although knowledge of different ecosystem

services had many sources (i.e. literature review and semi-structured interviews) for the four

categories defined earlier, the ecosystem services most identified by semi-structured interviews

production of food and cultural (i.e. recreational hobby, spiritual experience and maintenance of

traditional ecological knowledge). From these results two groups of participants, stakeholders

and a scientific panel, were administered a valuation questionnaire asking them to rate which

ecosystem services they felt were most valuable on a scale of 1-5. It is worth noting that of all

the ecosystem services provided by home gardens, those classified as cultural rated the highest

by both stakeholders and the scientific panel (Calvet-Mir, Gómez-baggethun, & Reyes-garcía,

2012).

4 Model Forests are voluntary initiatives linking forestry, research, agriculture, recreation, and many other land base-generated activities within a given spatial entity (landscape) through an inclusive, collaborative and transparent stakeholder-driven organizational body. It focuses on communicative and collaborative approaches, mixing local, traditional, and scientific knowledge in a transdisciplinary, multi-stakeholder and multifuntional manner (Bonnell at al. 2012)

67 Lastly, in research conducted by Sinclair et al. (2014), a systems-thinking approach for analysis was used to identify the impacts of deregulation of the dairy industry in NSW Australia.

In the 1970s, state statutory authorities were established to regulate the dairy industry in such areas of production and quality, and restricting interstate trade. They also set the price paid to farmers, the margins for processing and distribution as well as retail prices for milk. In an effort to encourage the dairy industry to reduce its costs and prices therefore encouraging innovation and the use resources efficiently, in 1995, the Australian government adopted a “National

Competition Policy” which promoted market liberalization. and reformed anti-competition legislation subject to a public interest/benefit test. When this test was applied to the dairy industry it failed, therefore forcing deregulation of the dairy market and establishing a free and open market for milk. Prior to deregulation of the dairy industry, the average dairy farm in

NSW produced 20% less milk than the Australian average. Additionally, prior to deregulation, the average price paid for milk was 40 cents per liter versus 35-60 cents per liter. Despite these benefits of deregulation, since the dairy industry is a high-cost single enterprise industry, it was particularly vulnerable to the unpredictability of an open market brought on by deregulation.

Believing that resilience theory offered a framework to understand Social Ecological Systems, the authors used a case study approach employing semi-structured interviews administered to 23 participants. The participants, from producers to government agents, were actors in all stages of the dairy industry in NSW. By including participants from all sectors, the authors wished to analyze an event within a real-life context. According to Yin 2009 quoted in Sinclair 2014:

By adopting a qualitative, interpretive approach to our study we were able to capture in detail the personal experience, perspective, and understanding of stakeholders, the complexities of the deregulation process, and how time has shaped the subtropical dairy industry (Sinclair, Curtis, Mendham, & Mitchell, 2014, p.375).

The basis of resiliency in deregulation were based on the five phases of deregulation

68 and the adaptive cycle set forth by Gunderson and Holling (2002). Those stages are as follows:

(1) Conservation phase: the industry prior to deregulation; (2) Preparing for the collapse phase: preparations for deregulation; (3) Collapse phase: the industry early post-deregulation; (4)

Reorganization phase: the industry 10 years after deregulation

Data collection

The semi-structured questions were developed so as to prompt responses from the

participants around the subjects of their motivations and challenges of farming in southeast

Michigan. The questions focused on the farmers experience including such topics as why did

they farm? What are their influences and how has farming affected their lives? Demographic

data was also collected.

Once the semi-structured questions had been developed and approved by Cal Poly’s

Institutional Review Board (IRB) (Appendix A), interviewees were identified through appropriate

farming websites (i.e. farmers markets). This was considered the most appropriate method of

gathering farmer information, as Michigan ranks third in the nation for farmers markets (DHS,

2019). Additionally, as the lists are based on farmers participating in the farmers markets (i.e.

self-registration) this avoided bias on the part of the researcher in sampling. According to the

Census of Michigan farmers, Washtenaw county has the highest number of produce farmers,

and therefore efforts were focused in that area when making the final selection of interviewees.

The subjects for this research were chosen using a targeted sample. Targeted sampling

involves selecting the cases that are most relevant to the study (Newing et al., 2011). In this

research, those cases included local farms around in the suburbs of Detroit or southeastern

Michigan. The initial list of farmers generated 74 farms as potential subjects. An extensive

spreadsheet with contact information, location of farm, website information etc was compiled

69 so as to determine the most appropriate farms to contact. The list was further distilled based on whether or not the farm met the USDA criteria of local farm (a prescribed distance from a known point, in this case Detroit). The target number of farms was 10-15 farmers so as to reach saturation but not generate too much data.

After initial contact through email was made, the final interview list was determined based on responses from this initial contact. The final count being ten (10) farmers, eight (8) farmers were from the initial list and two(2) were from snowball sampling. All interviewees were given and asked to sign an Informed Consent Form (Appendix C).

Interviews were conducted with the ten (10) farmers at the location chosen by the farmer but most often on-site at their farm. The interviews ranged from forty-five to ninety minutes long and were audio recorded upon written consent.

Following taped interviews, the interviews were transcribed removing any identifiable information and analyzed using content/inductive analysis. From these interview transcripts, a content/inductive analysis was performed. Additionally, initial notes were made immediately following the interview regarding any key statements that could be referred to during analysis for clarification.

Content analysis/Analytic Induction

Content analysis is a method of analyzing written, verbal or visual communication messages (Cole 1988). It focuses on the characteristics of language as communication with attention to the content or contextual meaning of the text (McTavish & Pirro, 1990; Tesch, 1990;

Lindkvist, 1981; Budd, Thorp, & Donohew, 1967;) with the goal of proving deeper understanding of the phenomenon under study (Wambolt, 1992).

Content analysis has a long history as a method of analysis in journalism, sociology, psychology and business (Neuendorf, 2002) but has recently gained popularity as a method

70 used in Nursing (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) and Environmental Design (Neuendorf, 2002). According to Weber (1990), content analysis is “a method that uses a set of procedures to make valid inferences from text” (Weber 1990, p.9). Text data might be in verbal, print, or electronic form and might have been obtained from narrative responses, open-ended survey questions, interviews, focus groups, observations, or print media such as articles, books, or manuals

(Kondracki & Wellman, 2002). Weber (1990) goes on to state that the “central idea of content analysis is that the many words of text are classified into much fewer content categories...[and that] each category may consist of one, several, or many words” (Weber, 1990 p.10).

Hsieh & Shannon (2005) identify three distinct content analysis approaches: directed, summative and conventional (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). All types of qualitative content analysis are used to interpret text data, with differences in the approach taken based on the theoretical and substantive interests of the researcher and the problem being studied (Webber, 1990).

For example, in a directed approach, the goal of content analysis is to validate or extend conceptually a theoretical framework or theory and is guided by a more structured process than in a conventional approach (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

Content analysis using analytic induction

In their article, Hsieh and Shannon (2005) define the conventional approach as one where “the categories and names of categories to flow from the data” (Hsieh & Shannon,

2005, p.1279). This type of immersive analysis is more often referred to as inductive analysis

(Punch, 1998) and as such, is the term that will be used in this thesis. The primary purpose of an inductive approach is to allow the research findings to emerge from “the frequent, dominant, or significant themes inherent in raw data, without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies” (Thomas, 2006, p.238). Thomas further goes on to state that the “inductive approach is a systematic procedure for analyzing qualitative data in which the analysis is likely

71 to be guided by specific evaluation objectives” (Thomas, 2006, p.238). These themes are then coded into explicit categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).

The process of coding involves the identification of topics, issues, similarities and differences that are revealed through the interviewee’s narratives that are then interpreted by the researcher (Sutton & Austin, 2015). Coding can be done by hand on the hard copy of the transcript by highlighting and naming sections of the text (Sutton & Austin, 2015). Flick (2010) summarizes the process as such:

• Coding means to develop categories, properties, and relations among them. • Coding is a process which includes at least three steps (or ways of coding) with different aims where the starting point is always open coding • Later, some form of more structured coding is included. The ways of how to struc ture this coding can vary between the approaches. This can be theoretical coding, axial coding , or focused coding. • Selective coding is the last step, which means that data are scanned for more evi dence for core categories. • Coding aims at identifying structures in the material—like core categories, basic social processes, story lines (Strauss and Corbin). (Flick, 2010, p.435-436)

The end point of coding is theoretical saturation, i.e. continuing coding does not lead to new theoretical insights (Flick, 2010) and the magnitude of a concept can be determined by the reporting the frequency with which that concept appears in text where a higher frequency demonstrates a more convincing argument (Berg, 2001). From here, this coded data may be described using statistics (Morgan, 1993).

Strengths in analytic induction

One of the primary strengths of using content analysis/analytic induction is the flexible

nature of the method (Miles & Huberman, 1994). It allows for the streamlining of (potentially)

mass amounts of data into manageable chunks (Newing et al., 2011). The initial and focused

coding involved in inductive content analysis does not require specialized training to conduct

(Babbie, 2011), and generally the materials necessary for conducting content analysis are easily

72 and inexpensively accessible (Berg, 2001). Additionally, content analysis allows for study of processes that occur over long periods of time and may reflect trends in society (Babbie, 2013)

Weaknesses in content analysis/ analytic induction

One of the biggest challenges with analytic induction is what Lincoln & Guba (1985) refer to as trustworthiness of the process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). They suggest that the analysis process be described in such detail that there is a clear understanding of how the analysis was carried out (Schreier, 2012; Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) and that the categories are created from the

raw data without a theory based categorization matrix (Elo, Kääriäinen, Kanste, & Pölkki, 2014).

According to Moretti et al.(2011), such data needs to be interpreted and coded in such a way

that it is valid and reliable (Moretti et al., 2011) and that the researcher has minimized the degree of interpretation when analyzing the content (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004).

Lastly, one of the most daunting parts of analysis is the sheer amount of data to

be analyzed. It is important that the researcher not feel pressured to move forward quickly

(Sandelowski, 1995).

Inductive analysis/content analysis in farm research

Inductive analysis is particularly well-suited when trying to determine farmers

motivations in their decision making process. One such study by Leiper and Clarke-Sather,

Co-creating an alternative: the moral economy of participating in farmers’ markets, used a

mixed-method approach (including semi-structured interviews) to determine producers’ (and

purchasers’) motivations for participating in AFNs (Alternative Food Networks) by selling (and

purchasing) through farmers markets (FM) in the Delware area5. “Producer interview transcripts were coded using an inductive coding strategy and analyzed using Dedoose mixed-methods

5 Although producers were interviewed, purchasers were given a consumer survey to fill out. The reason behind the difference in data gathering techniques was due to the difference in response rate where N=17 farmers and N=377 consumers) 73 research software to perform code counts” (Leiper & Clarke-sather, 2017, p.844). The research team was particularly interested to see how much, if any, overlap occurred between producers and consumers as to their motivations to participate in AFNs. The researchers were interested in whether those motivations were based on a desire to participate in amoral economy

(just, equitable and transparent) versus the predominant political economy (abstract market

mechanisms opaque to the public). Their results showed that for consumers, the top reasons for

participating in AFNs were “supporting local farmers and keeping money in the local economy”.

Producers on the otherhand overwhelmingly participated in farmers markets for economic

reasons. However, they were very aware that consumers motivations were more morally

motivated (Leiper & Clarke-sather, 2017).

In a study performed by Olson and Devenport (2017), in-depth interviews of 30 farmers

used “an inductive research approach to investigate farmer conservation decision making and

practice in two Minnesota River Basin subwatersheds where local and state concern about

nitrogen loads has been mounting” (Olson, Davenport, Olson, & Davenport, 2017, p.60).

Specifically, the research team asked “What drives and constrains farmer conservation decision

making and practice adoption in an impaired watershed?” Through analysis of their interviews,

Olsen and Davenport conceptualized a model anchored in three areas of decision making when

faced with conservation issues: farming ethics, conservation practice appraisal, and conservation

action (Olson et al., 2017)

Lastly, Mulley (2007) examined perceptions of the countryside among farm and non-

farm rural land owners in Ontario Canada and Mississippi USA. Data was collected through focus

groups, interviews and surveys and analized using analytic induction. The study showed that

both aethestic and experiential aspects of the rural landscape were supported by affective or

emotive attachments to the pastoral countryside. The study concluded that deeply held cultural

74 views associated with iconographic identity, and emotional attachments spanning both locale and individual identity, were powerful factors in the reactions of stakeholder groups to change in the rural landscape.

Content Analysis: Data Analysis

Following the transcription of all interviews, each interview was read through several times in their entirety which resulted in a particularly keen awareness of the details of the interview. Using the process of content/inductive analysis, key themes and terms were identified that helped answer the questions of what are farmers’ motivations and challenges in southeast

Michigan.

This process involved rereading the interviews first to identify key, over-arching ideas, for example, community, healthy food or environmental stewardship. Each of these key theme ideas was written on a post it note. On subsequent passes, a second set of post-it notes was used to identify the question number the respondent was answering (eg. Q1) written in the upper left hand corner and the respondent number (e.g. f001) in the upper right hand corner. Each of these post-it notes contained a specific idea or detail that spoke to the question being answered.

Figure 4.1. Initial categorization of codes from interview questions. Koenig 2019. Original photograph. 75 At this step, the detailed post-it notes were then grouped under the big ideas. For example, building soil would be connected to environmental stewardship. This process is iterative and labor intensive but it highlighted (visually) the strong commonalities among farmers as to their motivations and challenges. It also became clear, although rare, that an item one farmer found as a motivator, another found to be a challenge.

This process also highlighted that some over-arching themes were actually more complicated than originally assumed and often needed be sub-divided resulting in a tree-like structure.

Figure 4.2. Final categorization of codes from interview questions. Koenig 2019. Original photograph.

Once the groupings were finalized, counts of how many respondents said each idea were calculated and presented in table form discussed in the following section.

76 CHAPTER FIVE : RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

Based on the data collected over the course of the ten interviews eight main themes emerged during analysis: community, environment, way of life, connections with customers, land issues, education, survival and government support. These eight themes had supporting “sub- themes” that explained in more detail what motivated farmers in southeastern Michigan to farm but also what their challenges are and how they experienced both of these factors.

Location

Two of the ten farms were located outside Washtenaw County and one bordered three counties. Although one farmer was technically outside of the study area, he sells exclusively within the study and was therefore included in the results

Figure 5.1. Map of the farmers interviewed. Koenig, 2019

77 Demographics

Most of the farmers interviewed are between the ages of 30 and 40 with one being over sixty and showed no signs of slowing down. In fact he recently purchaced an additional 100 acres. All farmers are caucasian and over half are male.

Age

Figure 5.2. Distribution of farmer age. Koenig, 2019

Race

Figure 5.3. Farmer race. Koenig, 2019

78 Gender

Figure 5.4. Farmer gender. Koenig, 2019

The majority of the farmers made less than $100,000 with the majority of those farmers making less than 60,000. Only one farmer made more than $500,000.

All but two of the farmers have higher formal education. Two of the ten have a highshool education or less with one stopping in the eith grade. Only one of the ten farmers has a graduate degree. Income

Figure 5.5. Farmer income. Koenig, 2019

79 Level of education

Figure 5.6. Farmer level of education. Koenig, 2019

Farm profiles

All farms produce Vegetable/fruits/starts. Three farms produce some sort of horticulture crops such as flowers or Christmas trees. Two farms also have eggs for sale and three of the ten produce specialty crops such as honey from bees, organic seeds or perennial crops. All but

What do you produce

Figure 5.7. What farmers produce, Koenig 2019

80 one farmer practices organic, near organic or highly environmentally sensitive farming. Two of the ten are M.E.A.P. (Michigan Agricultural Environmental Assurance Program) certified.

This program certifies farmers who practice sound environmental practices that helps farms of all sizes and commodities prevent or minimize agricultural pollution risk. To that end, two of the ten farms are set aside to allow for habitat (although not specifically set aside for such a purpose) and one produces bees.

More than half of the farms are ten acres or less and only one is more than 200 acres.

Although the bulk of the farmers own their land and only one rents land he cultivates, almost half of the farmers who own their land also rent some portion.

Habitat

Figure 5.8. Is any of your property for habitat?, Koenig 2019

81 Acres in cultivation

Figure 5.9. Acres in cultivation, Koenig 2019

Rent versus own

Figure 5.10. Do you own, rent or both?, Koenig 2019

82 Farmer profiles

Out of the ten farmers interviewed, three would be considered generational farmers.

One of the three farmed in the same or similar way as past generations (crop farming). One is an Amish farmer whose family dairies and the third comes from a family that raises Christmas trees. One farmer came to farming through marriage and the final seven were new farmers or had been exposed to gardening while growing up but describe their path to farming as one of a meandering nature.

How did you come to farming

Figure 5.11. How did you come to farming?, Koenig 2019

More than half (7) of the farmers had less than 20 years experience in farming with two of the remaining three having between 20 and 30 years experience. Only one farmer of the ten hade more than 40 years of farming. Five out of the ten farmers had off-farm work either the entire year or at least during the off-season with two of those deciding this current growing season were they going to try and not continue with that practice or were retiring

83 from the off-farm occupation. Four of the ten farmers had spouses/partners that had off-farm employment with one specifically stating that the only reason they could farm was because of their spouse’s job elsewhere.

How many years farming

Figure 5.12. How many years have you been farming?, Koenig 2019

Off-farm imployment

Figure 5.13. Do you or your spouse have off-farm work?, Koenig 2019

84 Motivations and challenges in farming

Overwhelmingly, the farmers interviewed loved what they did and could not imagine doing anything else. Through analysis, nine themes emerged. with several subcategories in each. Farmers were motivated by community, environment, a way of life and connections with customers. Despite these motivations, the challenges farmers face are persistent. Those challenges include land issues, education (at all levels), survival, government support and personal issues.

Motivations

Sense of community

A sense of community and themes surrounding community was one of the factors that farmers mentioned consistently about what they enjoyed about farming. Being supported by

Community

Figure 5.14. A sense of community as a motivator for farming, Koenig 2019

85 and being able to give back to their community were strong motivators to continue with farming:

And actually if there is a need like the one lady she worked for me, she was an ex- cellent worker she came in crying one morning. I said well what’s the matter. She said well, my sister’s son came home from the service and he went swimming and drowned and they don’t have money for a funeral so I said we’ll take care of it. I don’t know who they were. From down in Carolina or Virginia somewhere, so we paid for the funeral. But it wasn’t her family, it was her sister’s kid (f001).

One farmer spoke of the need to find work so that he could keep his employees employed but was also motivated so that the farm would have the necessary labor for the following growing season:

There are some times of the year when we’re looking for that kind of work and so that would be like you know February/March there’s a window there where again we try to keep people over because we do three seasons here, so we try to keep a skeleton crew over in the winter and that’s sort of our warm up work because the trouble is, that once the fire of the season has been extinguished and you lose your labor, who knows whether they’ll come back right and pass the torch to the next crew to relight the fire again. And so it’s important for me to develop this deepening levels of conti- nuity and to finding the work. Sometimes the work it’s necessary to have the workers and sometimes it’s necessary to create work for the workers. Sometimes there’s too much work for the workers and sometimes there’s not enough work for the workers [and we have] have to create the work (f003).

Although most farmers defined community as their customers, several talked about fellow farmers and the support they gained from those farmers is what has given them a sense of community:

I guess yeah, I would, it would be much less fulfilling work and not knowing that we’re all in it together. Sometimes I feel like all my friends are farmers which is great, I think we understand each other really well (f010).

Yeah, and the people. Both the foodies and their community but also the farmers are really wonderful. Some of the best people I’ve ever met .....(f005)

86 Environment

Several of the farmers mentioned that part of the motivation to farm was so that they could not only contribute to a more local food system but that that contribution could be done in such a way that was better for the environment. All but one farmer mentioned that farming afforded them an opportunity to practice some sort of environmental stewardship. Four specifically said the environment was a main concern when it came to farming and that it was highly influential in choosing their farming practices:

I consider myself to be an environmentalist and I think you and I share some of the concerns with the state of our food system. And so I wanted to get involved in the local food movement. And then I found that really enjoyed it. That’s sort of the short version (f005).

...... it was partly just because I was very interested in sustainability. So the short an- swer is to say sustainability in Agriculture and Food Systems was an easier way, I mean I can easily envision sustainable systems in the areas of Ag and food systems more so than I could envision in other areas in our society like that. So to me, nature is very productive in a lot of ways so even just mimicking nature felt like it had a lot more potential. So I was working here while and worked on a lot of great questions and stuff like that. In terms of like really like getting your hands dirty and seeing like direct impact. Farming seemed like a good thing to try. I stuck with it (f008).

I really want to make models that actually make a difference in the food system so that it’s not like the 1, 2%. Organics only like 5% or something like that, and then local? There’s a teeny little grain of sand (f004).

A few of the farmers spoke to better quality food, one in particular spoke of how growing food in a colder climate impacts the taste of his produce

...... is just that there are really special things that we can have here too such as the winter spinach, frosted carrots winter carrots. Like once you get into that and just whatever Greens that have been in the cold. They develop a completely different character. Flavors change all those starches and convert to sugar, it’s like they’re natural antifreeze. And so carrots, they become unbelievably sweet (f004).

87 I have a few farmers that I work with that are, they like to have a natural, or you know they like to say they’re natural organic. They want to say organic but not technically be certified. So we have you know, we do, we deal in garden supplies and we deal in some fertilizers. And compost and that type of thing amendments so they buy those kind of things from us. So I do know there’s a couple that they like to have everything good but they just don’t go to the certification part of it (f006).

Environment

Figure 5.15. Environmental factors that influence farmers, Koenig 2019

Also the amount of nutrients, and let’s say the commercial ag grown tomato is down 90%. Broccoli or something. It’s down 92% or some crazy number from the 70s just because of the soil is just, you’re not feeding the soil you’re feeding the plant, you’re putting a band-aid on it, and it’s not doing it right (f009).

Nutrition...... quality. The minute you cut a plant or harvest something, for most things, this isn’t true for every fruit and vegetable, the nutritional content begins diminishing (f004).

Way of life

Nearly all of the farmers mentioned that the farming way of life was what they found most appealing. All farmers, in some way, alluded to what a great lifestyle farming was.

For those that had families, being able to spend more time with their families was one of the main motivators for why they appreciated farming. Generally having the family involved in the process of the farm was something that farmers felt was enriching but also contributed to

88 the success of the farm:

My biggest factor is my kids. I grew up in a rural community. My husband grew up in a rural community and we wanted them to have the same experience. You know we lived in the city together for a short time because that’s where my house was and he came down and lived with me there. But hearing the neighbors telephone ringing, it’s not what we wanted you know for our kids (F002).

Way of life

Figure 5.16. Way of life factors that influence farmers, Koenig 2019

A sense of autonomy and being their own boss was also incredibly important to all of the farmers. The fact that they didn’t have to “punch a clock” and the fact that they could focus on what was really important to them within their chosen profession was liberating:

I like being in my own office and that’s a huge trade off ....I mean, I really love it. And so I like being inefficient at something and just like huddling over seedlings because I like taking that extra time and it really adds to my day (f010).

Personally I love working alone and I like being able to choose [how] my social interac- tions happen (f010)

I’m doing what I want. I don’t have to punch a clock. I eat really good food because we grow it. I really like that aspect of it, that I can grow whatever I want. And some days we go out and we just can make a whole dinner out of what we find in the gar- den. we just think that’s so freaking cool! (f007)

89 I don’t know what I could do that I would be passionate about...... I’m passionate about this I’m passionate about these rows. This is what I put my pride into and what motivates me. I would have to find something that would motivate me to the same extent as this does. For me to be able to thrive (f009).

Well there’s probably a number of different reasons. You know just selfish desire being one of them. What was that selfish...... ? Well, just growing things and building something here or building a project here. That you know, it has a lot of selfishness to it I suppose you know the idea of you know a small business, if you invest in a small business you know eventually it’ll get going and it’ll keep it’ll start to perpetuate some level of income and lifestyle, and so that’s what I tried to do (f003).

It was definitely, the expectation was just that the grass is greener and that I was go- ing to do something that gave me, that satisfied me and gave me real purpose (f004).

A farmer to be home with the family and to watch things grow out the field from you know as plants as life as God gives it life. It becomes a plant, and then you harvest the fruit, it’s intriguing. And as the children grow into it or grow up they learn all this (f006).

All of the farmers mentioned that being outdoors, moving their bodies and watching things grow were some of the most important reasons for farming while several of the farmers mentioned that farming gave their life a sense of purpose. A few mentioned that it was a method of therapy for them:

And it’s the lifestyle, goodness, chopping wood and sitting by the wood stove in the wintertime. Why don’t we just, seeing it and grow and just being engaged with nature in that way. Using my body to move through the world instead of like, sitting at a desk (f004)

I’m just going to be straight honest with you, ...... I don’t not believe in prescription medicine. So what I do is I use farming as a way to, as a therapy. Therapy and a way to motivate myself. Because if I have it to where I’m having a bad day but I still have to go out and prep, pick, wash and go to market, that’s going to motivate me to get out of bed (f009).

90 Connections with customers

Many of the farmers took the opportunity of the connections with customers and other farmers, to inform their farming practices both in methods of farming and products they offered with some farmers actively seeking out what customers wanted to see as options to purchase.

So it’s having a conversation with them. And just simply asking them “Are you looking for something? You know what. What are you shopping for when you’re not shopping at the farmer’s market?” You know how are you going to a box store for something that you’re not finding here? And even with our vegetable start here at the green- house. I would say probably a good 70% of what I have, is because somebody men- tioned something to me, a wish list (f002).

I really want to build a core. And I kind of I think we have a core group of members that do just keep returning and so and involve them in shaping what the CSA looks like. What do you actually use. Like have there been enough tomatoes? (f010)

Connections with customers

Figure 5.17. How connections with customers is a motivator for farmers, Koenig 2019

Challenges

Despite the overwhelming love of farming, the lifestyle itself presented some very real and persistent challenges.

91 Land Issues

One of the biggest struggles is access to land. Not only is good farm land expensive but finding contiguous plots proved a challenge for many of the farmers. Three of the farmers mentioned growing pains but in the larger context of access to land which was a challenge. For five farmers, contiguous land was a challenge, and they found they needed to farm on someone

Land issues

Figure 5.18. What land issues are challenges for farmers, Koenig 2019

else’s land or if they could purchase land, the areas could be miles apart. Additionally, some farmers found themselves farming on substandard plots and planting using intensive methods such as compact rows and not fallowing land:

We actually lease four acres off site, located about four miles down the road. Which can be difficult at times because we don’t have a well on site. So we have to haul 250 IBC totes, 250 gallon IBC totes every day out there for the water. We all also have to haul equipment back and forth too (f009)

I couldn’t find affordable farmland close to town at the time so I started on this family land and then in 2012 we added sort of 80 acres around the corner about a mile in between the sites (f008)

Well about one hundred and fifty, but it’s spread out and we beg borrow and steal from our neighbors. We started with 40, we added another 10, we added another 35,

92 we added another 70, we borrowed another 26, we had like 15 from another guy. Wow. Are they contiguous? Not completely. There’s some that’s two miles away that we use for hayfield and it’s a flatter soil and so we bought that in partnership with another guy (f003)

Survival

By and large, farmers felt that they needed to diversify their operations not only in where they sold their products but what products they had to offer. For example, nine out of the ten farmers sold through more than one venue such as CSA and farmers markets with three selling to direct markets such as restaurants and larger institutions.

Farmers markets, we got three of them, Chelsea, Farmington and Ann Arbor. Then we got restaurants from Farmington all the way to Chelsea, there’s restaurants that want your produce. So it’s not just one or two, there’s a whole string of them ‘cause we’ll run a route (f001).

We’re a mixed vegetables and fruit farm and we sell to the Dexter farmer’s market, to the Argus locations and then to 20 members CSA (f010)

Survival

Figure 5.19. What mechanisms farmers employ to secure their farms viability, Koenig 2019

93 Not only was market diversity seen as necessary but the types of products sold were highly diverse. Very often, this diversity allowed the farmer to have year round employment:

This is the old greenhouse which we will fill with flowers after we’re done shop working I call it...... Usually the month of January and February usually this one don’t have anything in it but in December it does, ‘cause we do 7000 Christmas wreaths in here..... We’re drilling pinecones right now ... we drill out pinecones for Christmas, we had to drill 30,000 (f001).

Only one farmer mentioned that he actually streamlined his operation (i.e. cut down the number of variety grown and focused on wholesale only) so that he could focus his efforts on growing the best product available. He also stated that he made more profit selling wholesale then he did by selling at farmers markets:

Do we do more farmers markets? But then how are you going to farm right if you’re just doing farmer’s markets all the time. You know obviously you just go to four differ- ent, bigger farmer’s markets things like that, ultimately we just decided to just narrow down our crop list and focus on just going after wholesale accounts, restaurants. Tak- ing the stuff we’re doing with our stores to kind of the next level, just pushing it...... We added micro greens in at that point too and we just dropped the farmer’s markets completely and just totally changed directions and went after, went after that scene (f004).

As mentioned earlier, half of the farmers worked off-farm either seasonally, as an additional part-time job (or even nearly full-time). All farmers who had off-farm employment did so so that they could continue to farm. One farmer even admitted that if his wife did not have her job, he could not farm:

... but you know, my day job is right now paying rent here because I don’t have income for another three weeks on the farm (f009).

It’s totally dependent on my wife’s income at the university (f005).

94 Nine of the farmers mentioned feeling like that they had to be savvy when it came to the survival of their farm, whether it was finding markets, engaging customers, over-coming a steep learning curve (this was particularly true for the new farmers) or dealing with technical or weather related challenges:

There’s no Internet out here, we can’t get cable TV out here. Those people don’t realize this, so now you want me to fill out this online application. That now I have to go to the library or go to a friend’s house with a computer and not all of us are tech savvy. Not all of us run a computer or, if it wasn’t for my day job, I wouldn’t have that phone (f009).

No we are our own marketer, our own salesmen, we’re, we basically do it all. I mean we grow it, we have meetings with the stores ..... we do all that (f006).

Only one farm was considering the generational succession of his farm. This was the generational farmer still farming as his ancestors did. In this instance, the main challenge he faced was common goals amongst his family as he believes it affects every other effort on the farm:

Success.... following of the next generation... By who my sons marry plays a big part..... Because when they marry a lady that has different feelings for the operation and the rest of the family, it puts a wedge in there. Now if she goes with the flow and says “My husband’s got this going and she’ll come in and work alongside him”, great. If they say, “No, I don’t think we should do this. Why don’t we take that one down? I’d like to see maybe something a little different in there like...... ”. What in the world? I already got it established, it’s working, why tear it apart? (F001)

Government Support

Half of the farmers mentioned that one of the things that they felt would help the viability of their farm was more support from the government, both locally and federally. All who mentioned this pointed out the fact that although there was money and programs for smaller farmers offered by the federal government through grants, the process of applying was onerous and time consuming. Many mentioned that they were so busy that they didn’t have

95 time to apply for grants and even if they did, they were turned down and never told why, or their paperwork wasn’t filed in a timely manner because the USDA was so understaffed:

...... USDA is real difficult to work with, so we filed paperwork for grass barriers you know so that way when we’re farming that if my husband’s putting down pot ash or if he’s spraying something, that it doesn’t have runoff. And they’re so understaffed that the paperwork doesn’t get filed in time for us to get funding. I thought for the grass barrier because the USDA will reimburse us for the costs of the seed for the barrier for something like that. Because you want to protect the water systems and things like that. So, and we don’t mind doing it but if they’re giving that money out we want to be able to use it. So there’s been many times when our paper work hasn’t been filed in a timely fashion. I have heaters that are 14 years old that heat my greenhouse. What would I like to see done. You know there’s money in order to get more energy efficient heaters but they won’t help, they’re like “here it’s on you” (f002).

...... you know I was applying for a grant for the honey room..... I wanted it to have a honey room that any beekeeper in Washtenaw County could come and extract honey because there’s not a local resource like that. You know it costs thousands of dollars to be able to safely process and extract honey. And most beekeepers who run one or two collonies, don’t want to spend a thousand dollars on an extractor. And two hundred dollars on a decapper and a bottler or so on and so forth. And so they just do a little hodgepodge thing in their kitchen. o Jay got ahold of me, it was a value added program, “I think this would benefit you” because I’d actually brought that up to someone else earlier in the year. I didn’t get it and I can’t tell you why I didn’t get it (f009)

Government support

Figure 5.20. Areas that farmers feel a lack of government support, Koenig 2019

96 Lastly, one of the more pressing issues that goes beyond direct government support specific to farmers, was health insurance and support for a thriving middle class. One farmer was acutely aware that the success of his business was dependent on this. Two farmers specifically mentioned that having health insurance was a major concern of theirs, one of which kept his

(nearly fulltime side) job specifically to have health insurance.

Education

Some farmers mentioned that education, in many areas and at all levels, was needed.

Not only did they need to educate themselves but also, consumers, including chefs, and politicians:

Yes it was a very steep learning curve. It’s been good the learning curve has been good. I think I’ve grown a lot. As a person my patience too has you know, gotten stron- ger I guess. I have more patience now than I did, my understanding and empathy has grown. Because when you’re in a corporate world it’s just kind of like you’re in the box. You don’t see outside(F002)

Education

Figure 5.21. Groups that farmers feel need farmer education, Koenig 2019

97 This same farmer was frustrated that her customers at the farmers markets did not understand that paying by credit card was a no-win situation for the farmers:

So I have a lot of them [millennials] who have my product in front of them at the farmers market and give me a card and it’s a credit card. It’s not a debit card, it’s a credit card and they kind of look at me and go “I don’t accept credit card”. It’s too expensive for us to accept credit card on such a low volume product. And they don’t, I don’t want to say it like that but there’s no awareness of credit cards costing mer- chants money and farmers can keep more of the money in their pockets if it’s paid by cash, you’re not, we’re not having to pay a third party to handle the transaction for us (f002).

And one farmer was completely surprised that a chef had no idea how long a pepper took to grow:

I had a chef, and this was a chef I respect and I know, that I feel like he gets it but he’s telling me this story about this pepper that he’s getting and how long it’s going to take him to get it. He’s going on about how long it is and I’m like “wow, what is up with this pepper, how could it be so long?” and then I realized, it’s just a normal amount of time it takes to grow a pepper. It’s not longer than most other crops. He wasn’t used to thinking about it that way and it felt really burdensomely long and he was like, “what am I doing, this is crazy long” and I said “no, that’s just normal” (f005).

In additional to general lack of support from the Government, farmers expressed their frustrations in feeling that the government was generally not familiar with small farmers and their needs and in one instance, actively working against them. For example, one farmer recalled a conversation he had with a federal representative in 2011:

He said, “You organic guys when you”, and it was very blunt, “when you have more of the ag economy I’ll be able to talk with you”(F003)

.....what I mean is, the issue that I’ve seen and, I don’t know if I can accurately portray this, the State doesn’t want us to succeed, in my opinion. Like rules and regulations, and I know there are stupid people out there, but when the health department comes and shuts down a vendor because they didn’t deep freeze their cooler, but their

98 meats are at the proper temperature and everything’s iced, .....(f009)

This general lack of knowledge and understanding, at all levels, was particularly surprising to one farmer, who stated that, having returned from several meetings at the state capital, it was concerning to her that the state governor never once mentioned [the success of] agriculture in her speeches despite it being the third largest economic base in the state of

Michigan:

I just got done with the meeting last week up in Lansing and we met with DNR and MEDQ and Michigan Department of Ag and three representatives were there. During this election cycle in the state of Michigan, Governor Whitmore never once, and it’s not a Republican or Democrat thing, it’s just not, mentioned agriculture as being the

second biggest economic base in the state of Michigan (f002).

Personal issues

Because farm life is labor intensive work/life is challenging but important to them. They commented that if they allowed it, farming could “take over their lives.”

Probably balance. You know, balance between home life ‘cause we’re raising three. You know finding balance with husband, being a mom a wife, a business owner, you know farmer, social media. Trying to manage all of that and being one person and still being sane at the end of the night (f002)

....work life balance, that’s sort of up to me. It depends on how much I want to throw in to my....the farm will take it all if you let it. So, you know it’s easy to sort of waffle between this idea of “well if I just work harder then it will be viable” and there’s some truth in that, in that there’s always more to do, but the reality is that you have to draw some boundaries for sanity’s sake and say “ok well any new thing I take on is going to have to come at the expense of some other thing, ‘cause you can’t work harder”. So, it’s a work life balance (f001).

One farmer commented that although he loved the lifestyle, at times it made him feel inadequate :

99 I don’t want to be a 35 year old man with a family that’s only getting by, as a provider I feel like total shit. This is just like “OK, my ideals are dragging my family.” It’s one thing for me to choose that kind of life, suffering but to drag my family into it and make them part of it is a different thing (F004).

Personal

Figure 22. The personal challenges farmers face, Koenig 2019

100 CHAPTER SIX : DISCUSSION

Although farming in the peri-urban environment is not new, the attention and research about its importance and long- term viability is. Much of today’s research on peri-urban agriculture often lumps it together with urban-agriculture as if they are interchangeable or even one-in the same. But as Opitz et al. points out

While urban agriculture still meets food needs mainly at the household level, peri-ur- ban agriculture can provide larger quantities and has broader distribution pathways, giving it a separate status in terms of food security. Nevertheless, both possess (un- used) potential, making them valuable for urban food planning, and both face similar threats regarding urbanization pressures, necessitating adequate planning measures (Opitz, Berges, Piorr, & Krikser, 2016 p.1).

Because farmers in the per-urban environment have the capacity to affect the broader communities as described by Opitz, it is essential to understand their motivations and challenges. Although not all findings are discussed, some of the crucial issues that influence farmers in the peri-urban environment are explored below.

What motivates these farmers?

Research suggests that one of the motivating factors to farm is the lifestyle that it affords

(Ahnström et al., 2009; Ball & Wiley, 2005) and this thesis confirms this. Previous research discusses the independence and the opportunity to work outdoors as motivating factors

(Sullivan, McCain, De Young, & Erikson, 1996). These aspects of the life style were important to the farmers interviewed, but the farmers were a little more nuanced in their descriptions.

Farming independence was referred to it as “solitude” and “therapy” and working outside including “moving your body through the environment” and an “opportunity to notice the things around you.”

Environmental stewardship proved to be a consistent motivating factor in their decision

101 of how they farmed. Environmental stewardship was important to almost all the farmers and they took great care in maintaining and promoting these practices as they felt they had far reaching impacts. These results confirm literature findings thzat stewardship is an important motivational factor for farmers of all sizes (Reimer, Thompson, & Prokopy, 2012; Chouinard et al.,

2008; Ryan, Erickson, & De Young, 2003).

One of the most important factors that the farmers mentioned was community. Several farmers spoke of how having connections with their customers and community was what kept them going. Knowingly or not, a growing body of research suggests that farmers participate in what is known as ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR). CSR refers to a “firm’s voluntary activities that appear to further some social good, beyond the interests of the firm and that which is required by law” (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001 p.117). These activities typically include the reduction of environmentally hazardous substances, participation in humanitarian activities and the support of local communities and businesses (Barnett, 2007; McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).

Although the idea of CSR is generally used in reference to a corporations environmental sustainability goals, CSR can be seen as integral to the way of life for farmers. Niehmn, Swinney

& Miller (2008) identified several ways in which CSR can be applied to farming. These include (1) a firm’s (or farm’s) commitment to community; (2) the reciprocal relationship between residents and businesses in a community; (3) community support and (4) a sense of commitment (Niehm,

Swinney, & Miller, 2008). Indeed the majority of the farmers in this study were concerned about the welfare of the environment but they were also involved in the welfare of their community by engaging regularly with their community members through markets and giving back to the community by involving them in their farming business and in supporting them financially.

That’s not a problem..... ‘cause we take care of the township, we take care of the cemeteries, we take care of the fire department, that’s all on top of this. We support a school, we support our church, I mean we got a lot of things that we support besides just the farm here, so everybody has different thoughts that we bring together and

102 we’ll discuss it, you know, I would say, well, you know your idea really isn’t going to work or say, you know what, just say maybe that idea, maybe that idea is something that we can incorporate. Because just the other day came to our attention that we got customers that want [pea] shoots. Well we don’t have a shoot setup here. So we’re going to gear for a shoot setup. So we just started yesterday getting this new program, new idea laid out how we can incorporate that into the business(F001).

Although several farmers said that concern for the environment is what drew them to farming, many alluded to the fact that this was an unexpected benefit of farming, to know that they were doing all they could to take care of the environment suggesting that CSR is an embedded aspect of farming (Aguinis & Glavas, 2013).

The challenges farmers in the per-urban environment are not inconsequential. Even though the farmers interviewed love what they do, almost all of the farmers found work life balance a persistent challenge. Many of them expressed the feeling that if they didn’t make a concerted effort to maintain balance, farming would take over their lives.

Another significant challenge is financial viability. Martinez et al. (2010) found that because many farms in a peri-urban environment are smaller, their access to large markets is challenging and farmers often rely on direct sales and other streams of income or entrepreneurial activities to maintain financial viability (Martinez et al., 2010) and the farmers interviewed for this thesis confirm this. As a consequence, the farmers interviewed found they needed to be savvy at marketing their products to different types of consumers.

I speak Spanish, I speak German and so on...... So anyway with that said I’ve educat- ed myself on a lot of these people who just moved into the country or new citizens and a lot of them are more or less frowned on like.....like “I’m not gonna sell to those guys, that guy don’t look quite right, a little shady maybe”..... then I’ll say “Hey come on over here brother you know they come right over and they’re like, “Who are you, where you come from” and get them stirred up like “How come you talk to me?” I said ‘cause I want you to come over my table (F001).

One farmer who is a member of a farmer co-op has had to learn to do billing, marketing and handle sales for the co-op. Much of the work he does is for free, but he admits that he has

103 a vested interest in the success of the co-op as he is the largest partner. He also states that some

of the farmers “just wanna farm.”

Additionally, although government monies exist for smaller farmers, it is difficult for them to navigate the requirements to obtain these funds. In a needs assessment study of small- scale farmers in Florida, Goodwin & Gouldthorpe (2013) found that frustration with government assistance is found at all levels. Like the southeast Michigan farmers, these small scale farmers felt that government requirements for grant monies was unnecessarily burdensome and that the government didn’t support them. In some cases the farmers felt the government applied a double standard with requirements of imported food stuffs i.e. competition (J. Goodwin &

Gouldthorpe, 2013)

Lastly, farmers mentioned access to land as a significant challenge. This is also supported by the literature. Zagata & Sutherland (2015) point out that not only is land difficult to come by for new and small farmers, but when they find it, it is often too expensive. Farmers stated they are often in competition with each other because larger, existing farmers are trying to capitalize on economies of scale with the purchase of more land (Zagata & Sutherland, 2015).

By and large farmers love what they do, but the challenges they face are real and persistent. As the number of farmers decline, it is important to support the reasons why farmers farm in addition to drawing new farmers to the profession. This does not seem to be the case as evidenced by the rate at which farmers choose to exit farming. Over the last four years in

Michigan alone, dairy farms have decreased by 20% (Heslip, 2018). Consequently, as populations are expected to increase to nine billion people by 2050, it is expected that more food will need to be produced with fewer farms and farmers (IOM & NRC, 2015). Many believe this is simply not possible without employing “more of the same”; where more of the same means increased amounts of environmentally degrading practices. The farmers interviewed for this thesis have

104 shown that, by and large, their farming practices employ more environmentally friendly methods as compared to industrial agriculture, but in order to maintain these methods, motivations need to be supported and challenges need to be minimized.

105 CHAPTER SEVEN : CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The farmers of southeast Michigan that were interviewed for this study overwhelmingly love what they do. Most often it was because of the lifestyle it afforded them. The independence, ability to spend time with family and friends (or not) are aspects that not only drew them to the profession, but also kept them in it. Almost all of them cared about the environment, and their farming methods reflected that. Although only three out of the ten famers interviewed are certified organic, the majority of the farmers take great pains in minimizing their environmental impact and are “nearly organic without the certification.”

Despite these motivations, the farmers face some very real challenges. By and large, most farmer’s challenges had to do with a lack of support. In some ways, this perceived lack of support was obvious as in the case of state and federal governments. Many of the farmers were keenly aware that they are farming within the context of a deeply entrenched system that caters to the dominant global agribusiness. Difficulties ranged from financial viability, i.e. lack of markets and frustrations in obtaining government monies, to dealing with neighbors who participate in the practices of this entrenched system (e.g. spraying pesticides). Often the farmers felt the government was actively working against them.

Sometimes this lack of support came from lack of education on the part of consumers, i.e. “why does this pepper cost so much?” to politicians not understanding the struggles these farmers face and therefore not implementing mechanisms to alleviate them, i.e. make the grant process more easily accessible.

One of the most important frustrations farmers felt was accessibility to land. Faced with factors beyond their control, i.e. cost of land, it was suggested that the government could do more to address this situation. Considering that value of land is set by the market, it is unclear how this would be achieved.

106 Lastly, although weather was mentioned as a challenge, it was not a deal breaker. Many farmers took great strides (and pride) in finding ways to mitigate its effects. By using hoop houses for season extension in addition to growing crops specifically hearty in colder climates, these farmers grew products that are truly local.

Ultimately these farmers choose to farm because they are philosophically motivated to do so. They are comitted to producing healthy, local food in an environmentally responsible manner. They see their farming as part larger societal and environmental systems and value the contributions they can make.

Recommendations

Recommendations for peri-urban farmers in southeastern Michigan center around opportunities that help farmers stabilize farm viability and increase opportunities for education.

Education

Agriculture is the third largest economic base in Michigan. As such it is suggested that research focus on ways to support existing small farms by making a concerted effort to educate the general public on the benefits of buying local. A few of the farmers indicated that consumers that buy local are a small group of people and that opportunities to buy local i.e. farmers markets or markets that focus on local food, are destinations and not part of the everyday availability in the larger chain stores. Educating the general public at a state level through marketing campaigns, much like the federal “Know your farmer, know-your food campaign,” would stimulate dialogue regarding local foods (including seasonality) and increase awareness of the general population therefore increasing visits to these destinations in addition to encouraging larger grocery stores to stock more locally produced foods. These campaigns should

107 also address economies of scale and why local food may cost more.

Farm Viability

Health Insurance

A concern voiced by the smaller, younger farmers was access to health insurance.

Although healthcare for the general public exists through the Federal Medicare program, small farmers would benefit from health insurance program specifically tailored to their needs and afforded to them through a guild-like or union program. These programs exist in other professions such as artist and entertainment guilds/unions where it’s member have bargaining power for comprehensive health insurance and are not limited in things like enrollment deadlines.

Grant Support

Although there are existing monies from both state and federal government, it was clear from the farmers that have tried to take advantage of them, these monies were difficult to get for a number of reasons. The grant applications were cumbersome, time consuming and had deadlines during the busiest times of the year (May - October). Granting agencies should be aware of these facts and tailor their programs to fit these constraints. Additionally, a wider range of areas covered should be available for things such as purchasing efficient equipment, i.e. heaters and coolers. These grant monies could more widely extend to opportunities that foster things like season extension, therefore alleviating some of the need for off-farm, seasonal employment.

Farm Support

Currently, industrial agricultural dominates two areas, that if made available to small

108 farmers, would greatly improve farm viability: farm insurance and subsidies. Small farmers are more affected by fluctuations in weather, access to water etc. An entire farm can be wiped out in one season versus one very large field that is one of many. Because small farms tend to be more diversified, they are more difficult to estimate for insurance purposes. However, this is a known situation amongst small farmers across the United States and therefore not so unique that formulas cannot be developed to address this problem.

The original intent for farm subsidies was to provides economic stability for farmers during the great depression. Today, the largest farms (agribusiness i.e. commodity producers) receive the bulk of subsidy benefits. Making benefits available to small farmers would go a long way to ensuring small farm viability. Additionally, make benefits/tax breaks available to those farmers who practice conservation agriculture, which most small farmers do simply because of their farming practices.

Land transfer and Farmland Protection

In an effort to address the lack of available land, programs that support the equitable transfer of land to new and small farmers should be established. Very often, a farm is a farmers retirement investment and the opportunity to obtain a fair price for his or her land is of the highest priority. State governments could work with large and small farms much like land grant opportunities that aim to keep farm land safe from development, these same institutions could work with new and small farmers in their efforts to obtain affordable land. This is a similar situation to Cuba where new and beginning farmers are given two years to produce food on land

“given” to them by the federal government. If, after two years, they are not able to bring product to market, the land is “given” to someone else.

Because agricultural lands have value pricing for development beyond their value for food production, farmers may be forced to sell their farms out of agricultural production

109 especially in peri-urban areas. Agricultural Greenbelts, agricultural conservation easements, and land banking have proven effective at maintaining productive farmland in Britain, Europe, New

Zealand and Canada.

Minimum Wage Regulations

Lastly, the federal government needs to implement a higher federal minimum wage, or “living wage”. One of the main reasons that small farm viability is difficult is because products from small farmers are too expensive. More than one farmer commented on how his customer base is limited because customers simply cannot afford his/her products. Currently many farmers markets accept WIC but very often, there is a stigma attached to using WIC and customers are reluctant to use them at farmers markets etc. A higher minimum/living wage would level the playing field and would work toward customers being able to choose high quality, locally-grown food versus food produced by a system that makes them dependent on commodity products.

This thesis illustrates that small farmers in southeast Michigan have a challenging time making a living at running their small business. Removing barriers and providing incentives in the form of tax breaks and grant monies can go a long way in helping small farmers both enter into the profession and stay in their chosen field that they love.

110 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman-Leist, P. (2013). Rebuilding the Foodshed: How to Create Local, Sustainable, and Secure Food Systems. White River Junction: Chelasea Green Publishing.

Adams, D. C., & Salois, M. J. (2010). Local versus organic: A turn in consumer preferences and willingness-to-pay. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 25(4), 331–341.

Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2013). Embedded Versus Peripheral Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological Foundations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 314–332.

Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergea, H., Francis, C., Skelton, P., & Hallgren, L. (2009). Farmers and nature conservation : What is known about attitudes , context factors and actions affecting conservation ? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 24(1), 38–47.

Albrecht, W. (1958). Soil Fertility and Animal Health (1st ed.). Webster City: Fred Hahne Printing Company.

Allen, A. (2003). Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: Perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization, 15(1), 135–148.

Allen, M. F. (2007). Mycorrhizal fungi: highways for water and nutrients in arid soils. Soil Science Society of America, 6(2), 291–297.

Allison, F. E. (1973). Soil Organic Matter and Its Role in Crop Production. New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co.

Alston, J. M., Anderson, M. A., James, J. S., & Pardey, P. G. (2010). Persistence Pays- U.S. Agricultural Productivity Growth and the Benefits from Public R&D Spending (1st ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag New York.

Altieri, M. (2009). Agroecology, small farms, and food sovereignty. Monthly Review, 61(3), 102–113.

Andersson, K., Eklund, E., & Lehtola, M. (2009). Farmers, business- men or green entrepreneurs? Producers of new rural goods and services in rural areas under urban pressure. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(1), 29–43.

Andresen, J. A. (2007). Historical climate trends in Michigan and the great lakes region. In International Symposium on Climate Change on the Great lakes Region: Decision Making Under Uncertainty (p. 16). East Lansing.

Antle, J. M., Jones, J. W., & Rosenzweig, C. E. (2017). Next generation agricultural system data,models and knowledge products : Introduction. Agricultural Systems, 155, 186–190.

Antrop, M. (2000). Changing patterns in the urbanized country- side of Western Europe. Landscape Ecology, 15, 257–270.

111 ASPE. (2019). U.S. Poverty guidelines, 2019. Retrieved from https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty- guidelines

Babbie, E. (2011). The Basics of Social Research (5th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Babbie, E. (2013). The Practice of Social Research. (E. Mitchell, N. Albert, J. Chell, M. Ortberg, & M. Cregger, Eds.) (13th ed.). Wodsworth, Cengage Learning.

Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., & Chappell, M. J. (2007). Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 22(2), 86–108.

Baertlein, L., Huffstutter, P. J., & Shrivastava, A. (2013). U.S. clears Smithfield’s acquisition by China’s Shuanghui. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-usa-china-smithfield/u-s-clears-smithfields-acquisition-by-chinas-shuanghui- idUSBRE98513I20130907

Baime, A. J. (2014). The Arsenal of Democracy. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Ball, A., & Wiley, A. (2005). The aspirations of farm parents and pre-adolescent children for generational succession of the family farm. Journal of Agricultural Education, 46(2), 36–46.

Barański, M., Srednicka-Tober, D., Volakakis, N., Seal, C., Sanderson, R., Stewart, G., … Leifert, C. (2014). Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta- analyses. The British Journal of Nutrition, 112(5), 794–811.

Barbieri, C., Mahoney, E., & Butler, L. (2008). Understanding the nature and extent of farm and ranch diversification in North America. Rural Sociology, 73, 205–229.

Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder influence capacity and the variability of financial returns to corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.

Barrett, C., Carter, M., & Timmer, C. P. (2009). A century -long perspective on agricultural development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 92(2), 447–468.

Bean, M., & Sharp, J. (2011). Profiling alternative food system supporters: The personal and social basis of local and organic food support. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(3), 243–254.

Berg, B. L. (2001). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (Fourth). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Bhuyan, S. (2005). Does vertical Integration effect market power? Evidence from U.S. food manufacturing industries. Journal of Agriculture and Applied Economics, 37(1), 263–276.

Bingen, J., Sage, J., & Sirieix, L. (2011). Consumer coping strategies: A study of consumers committed to eating local. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 35(4), 410–419.

112 Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006). Avoiding the local trap scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 195–207.

Borras, S. M., Hall, R., Scoones, I., White, B., & Wolford, W. (2011). Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing : an editorial introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 6150(38), 2.

Brandt, K., Leifert, C., Sanderson, R., & Seal, C. J. (2011). Agroecosystem management and nutritional quality of plant foods: The case of organic fruits and vegetables. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1–2), 177–197.

Breitburg, D., Levin, L. A., Oschlies, A., Grégoire, M., Chavez, F. P., Conley, D. J., … Zhang, J. (2018). Declining oxygen in the global ocean and coastal waters. Science, 359(6371).

Brinkley, C. (2012). Evaluating the Benefits of peri-urban agriculture. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(3), 259–269.

Brinkley, C. (2014). Avenues into food planning: A review of scholarly food system research. International Planning Studies, 18(2), 243–266.

Bryant, C. R., & Chahine, G. (2015). Action research and reducing the vulnerability of peri-urban agriculture : a case study from the Montreal region. Geographical Research, 54(May 2016), 165–175.

Busck, A. G., & Kristensen, S. B. P. (2014). From agriculture to nature – a study of drivers of land use change in a peri-urban landscape. Danish Journal of Geography, 114(1), 15–32.

Buxton, M., Carey, R., & Phelan, K. (2016). The role of peri-urban land use planning in resilient urban agriculture: A case study of Melbourne, Australia. In B. Maheshwari, V. P. Singh, & B. Thoradeniya (Eds.), Balanced Urban Development : Options and Strategies for Liveable Cities (p. 592). Spinger International Publishing.

Calvet-mir, L., Gómez-baggethun, E., & Reyes-garcía, V. (2012). Beyond food production : Ecosystem services provided by home gardens . A case study in Vall Fosca , Catalan Pyrenees , Northeastern Spain. Ecological Economics, 74, 153–160.

Campbell, H., & Rosin, C. (2011). After the ‘ Organic Industrial Complex ’ : An ontological expedition through commercial organic agriculture in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), 350–361.

Canning, P., Charles, A., Huang, S., Polenske, K. R., & Waters, A. (2010). Energy Use in the U.S . Food System. Washington D.C.

Canning, P., Rehkamp, S., Waters, A., Etemadnia, H., (2017). The Role of Fossil Fuels in the U.S. Food System and the American Diet, USDA Economic Research Service. Washington, DC.

Carlson, D. (2012). 2012 Drought: Why the midwest matters. Retrieved December 9, 2014, from http://openmarkets.cmegroup.com/4236/2012-drought-why-the-midwest-matters

113 Carlsson, J., Lidestav, G., Bjärstig, T., Svensson, J., & Nordström, E. (2017). Opportunities for integrated landscape planning – the broker , the arena, the tool, Landscape Online,55, 1–20.

Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin.

CDC. (2013). Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States. Retrieved from https://www.cdc. gov/drugresistance/pdf/ar-threats-2013-508.pdf [Accessed 12/13/2018]

CDFA. (2018). California Agricultural Statistics Review 2017-2018. Sacramento. Retrieved from www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics [Accessed 2/19/19]

CFR. (2018). Code of Ferderal Regulations. Retrieved from https://www.govinfo.gov/help/ cfr#about [Accessed 1/17/19]

Chamberlain, A. J., Kelley, K. M., & Hyde, J. (2013). Comparing consumer preferences for locally grown and certified organic produce in the Mid-Atlantic Region of the United States. HortTechnology, 23(1), 74–81.

Chase, L., & Grubinger, V. (2014). Introduction to Food Systems. In Food, Farms and Community: Exploring Food Systems (1st ed., p. 288). Lebanon: University of New Hampshire Press.

Chen, A., Grabbel, E., Johnson, K., Kiepura, J., Murphy, K., & Sevald, B. (2014). Recovery Park Sustaining Detroit. Ann Arbor.

Chen, G., Zhu, H., & Zhang, Y. (2003). Soil microbial activities and carbon and nitrogen fixation. Research in Microbiology, 154, 393–398.

Chouinard, H. H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P. R., Ohler, M., Chouinard, H. H., Paterson, T., … Ohler, A. M. (2008). Will farmers trade profits for stewardship ? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection, 84(1), 66–82.

Cialdella, J. S. (2014). A landscape of ruin and repair : Parks, potatoes, and Detroit ’ s environmental past,. The Michigan Historical Review, 40(1), 49–72.

Clancy, K., & Ruhf, K. (2010). Is local enough? Some arguments for regional food systems,. CHOICES, 25(1).

Cockrall-King, J. (2012). Food and the City. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Cohen, N. (2014). Laboratories for Urban Agriculture: The USA - Detroit. In A. Vijoen & K. Bohn (Eds.), Second Nature Urban Agriculture: Designing Productive Cities (1st ed., pp. 130– 145). London: Routlage Taylor and Francis Group.

Colasanti, K. J. A., Hamm, M. W., & Litjens, C. M. (2012). The city as an “Agricultural Powerhouse”? Perspectives on expanding urban agriculture from Detroit, Michigan. Urban Geography, 33(3), 348–369.

114 Comis, D. (2002). Glomalin: Hiding place for a third of the world’s stored soil carbon. Agricultural Research, 50(9), 4–7.

Constance, D. H., & Choi, J. Y. (2010). Overcoming the barriers to organic adoption in the United States: A look at pragmatic conventional producers in Texas. Sustainability, (2), 163–188.

Coulomb, D. (2008). Refrigeration and cold chain serving the global food industry and creating a better future: two key IIR challenges for improved health and environment. Trends Food Sci.Ence and Technology, 19, 413–417.

Cressey, D. (2015). Widely used herbicide linked to cancer. Retrieved November 13, 2018 from https://www.nature.com/news/widely-used-herbicide-linked-to-cancer-1.17181

Denning, G., & Fanzo, J. (2016). Ten forces shaping the global food system. In M. Eggersdorfer, K. Kraemer, J. B. Cordaro, J. Fanzo, M. Gibney, E. Kennedy, … J. Steffen (Eds.), Good Nutrition: Perspectives for the 21st Century (pp. 19–30).

Desan, M. H. (2014). Bankrupted Detroit. Thesis Eleven, 121(1), 122–130.

DHS. (2019). Encyclopedia Detroit. Retrieved from https://detroithistorical.org/learn/ encyclopedia-of-detroit/eastern-market-historic-district

Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well- being. PLoS Biology, 4(8), 1300–1305.

Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005a). The 20th Century Transformation of U . S . Agriculture and Farm Policy. Washington, DC.

Dimitri, C., Effland, A., & Conklin, N. (2005b). The 20th Century Transformation of U . S . Agriculture and Farm Policy The 20th Century and Farm Policy. Washington, DC.

Dimitri, C., Oberholtzer, L., & Pressman, A. (2016). Urban agriculture: connecting producers with consumers. British Food Journal, 118(3), 603–617.

Dunbar, W., & May, G. (1995). Michigan A History of the Wolverine State (3rd ed.). Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdsmans.

Dunckel, M. (2011). Michigan leads the nation in the production of blueberries and tart cherries. Retrieved December 1, 2019, from https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/michigan_leads_ the_nation_in_the_production_of_blueberries_and_tart_cherrie

Dunne, J. B., Chambers, K. J., Giombolini, K. J., & Schlegel, S. A. (2010). What does ‘ local ’ mean in the grocery store? Multiplicity in food retailers’ perspectives on sourcing and marketing local foods, 26(1), 46–59.

Edmondson, J. L., Davies, Z. G., Gaston, K. J., & Leake, J. R. (2014). Urban cultivation in allotments maintains soil qualities adversely affected by conventional agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology, 51(4), 880–889.

115 Eichenlaub, V. (1979). Weather Climate of the Great Lakes (1st ed.). South Bend: University of Notre Dame Press.

Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. SAGE Open. https://doi. org/10.1177/2158244014522633

Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115.

EPA. (2018). Inventory of U.S Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2017. EPA 430-R-19- 001. Washinton D.C.

FAO. (1996). Food for All. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0262e/x0262e00.htm

FAO. (2009). Executive summary on How to Feed the World in 2050 (Vol. 2050). Rome.

FAO. (2010). The Second Report on the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Rome. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1500e/i1500e.pdf

FAO. (2013). Food wastage footprint: Impacts on natural resources. Retrieved from http://www. climatecentral.org/news/food-waste-worsens-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fao-16498

Fertner, C. (2012). Downscaling European urban-rural typologies. Danish Journal of Geography, 112, 77–83.

Fess, T. L., & Benedito, V. (2018). Organic versus conventional cropping sustainability : A comparative system analysis. Sustainability, 10.

Fizzell, C. (2014). Status and trends of Michigan’s wetlands: Pre-European settlement to 2005. Retrieved from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deq/DEQ-Water-Wetlands_- Status_and_trends_498644_7.pdf

Flick, U. (2010). An Introduction To Qualitative Research Fourth Edition. SAGE Publications (4th Editio). London.

Foley, J. a., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. a., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The Interview: From neutral science to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 695–727). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fonte, M. (2008). Knowledge, Food and place. A way of producing, a way of knowing. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(3).

Frankfort-Nachmias, C. Nachmias, D. (1996). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (5th ed.). London: Arnold.

116 Freedgood, J., Pierce-Quiñonez, M., & Meter, K. (2011). Emerging assessment tools to inform food system planning. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 2(1), 83–104.

Gallons, J., Toensmeyer, U., Bacon, J. R., & German, C. (1997). An analysis of consumer characteristics concerning direct marketing of fresh produce in Delaware: a case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28(1), 98–106.

Gardner, B. D. (1977). The economics of agricultural land preservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59, 1027–36.

Gardner, B. L. (2002). American Agriculture in the Twentieth Century: How it Flourished and What It Cost. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Geldis, K. (2012, February). The 15 richest counties in America. Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.com/where-the-one-percent-live-the-15-richest-counties- in-america-2012-2

Gelski, J. (2018). Sales growth of organic foods slips to 6.4% in 2017. Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/11853-sales-growth-of-organic-foods- slips-to-64-in-2017

Ghane, E. (2018). Agricultural Drainage. Extension Bulletin E3370. East Lansing. Retrieved from https://www.egr.msu.edu/bae/water/sites/default/files/content/images/Agricultural_ Drainage/AgriculturalDrainage-2-2-18-WEB.PDF

Giger, J. (2017). Transcultural Nursing: Assessment and Intervention (7th ed.). St. Louis, Toronto.

Golden, R. (2015). $15 million slated for Detroit’s Recovery Park. Curbed Detroit. Retrieved from https://detroit.curbed.com/2015/10/26/9907634/15-million-slated-for-detroits- recovery-park

Gomiero, T., Pimentel, D., & Paoletti, M. G. (2011). Environmental impact of different agricultural management practices: Conventional vs. organic agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 30(1–2), 95–124.

Gonzalez, C. (2012). The Global Food System, Environmental Protection, and Human Rights The Global Food System, Environmental Protection, and Human Rights, 7.

Goodwin, H. L. (2005). Location of production and consolidation in the processing industry : The case of poultry. Journal of Agricultureal and Applied Economics, 37(2), 339–346.

Goodwin, J., & Gouldthorpe, J. (2013). Small farmers, big challenges : A needs assessment of florida small-scale farmers’ production challenges and training needs. Journal of Rural Social Sciences, 28(1), 54–79.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. 117 Gregory, P. J., Ingram, J. S. I., Andersson, R., Betts, R. a., Brovkin, V., Chase, T. N., … Wilkinson, M. J. (2002). Environmental consequences of alternative practices for intensifying crop production. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 88(3), 279–290.

Group, H. (2018). U.S. Grocery Shopper Trends 2018. Arlington.

Grubinger, V., Berlin, L., Berman, E., Fukagawa, N., Kolodinsky, J., Neher, D., … Wallin, K. (2010). A Food Systems Spire of Excellence at the University of Vermont, Burlington, VT.

Guiomar, X. (2010). Policies supporting peri-urban agriculture. In M. Galli, S. Lardon, E. Marraccini, & E. Bonari (Eds.), Agricultural Management in Peri-urban Areas (p. 168). Pisa.

Gullino, P. (2018). Linking multifunctionality and sustainability for valuing peri-urban farming : A case study in the Turin Metropolitan Area (Italy). Sustainability, 10(5), 1625-1643.

Guthman, J. (2004). Back to the land: the paradox of organic food standards. Environment and Planning, 36, 511–528.

Guyton, K. Z., Loomis, D., Grosse, Y., El Ghissassi, F., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Guha, N., … Straif, K. (2015). Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The Lancet Oncology, 16(5), 490–491.

Halden, R. U., & Schwab, K. (2008). Environmental Impact of Industrial Farm Animal Production. Baltimore.

Hammond, R. A., Dub, L., Asia, S., Asia, S., Africa, S., Africa, S., … Both, N. S. (2012). A systems science perspective and transdisciplinary models for food and nutrition security, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109 (31) 12356-12363.

Hampwaye, G. (2013). Geoforum benefits of urban agriculture : Reality or illusion ? Geoforum, 49, R7–R8.

Hanak, E., Lund, J., Dinar, A., Gray, B., Howitt, R., Mount, J., … Thompson, B. (2011). Managing California’s Water From Conflict to Reconciliation. San Francisco

Hand, J., & Gregory, A. (2017). The Detroit frontier : Urban agriculture in a legal vacuum. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 92(2).

Heimlich, R. (1989). Metropolitan agriculture: Farming in the city’s shadow. Journal of the American Planning Association, 55(4), 457–466.

Heimlich, R., & Anderson, W. (2001). Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. USDA-ERS. Washington D.C.

Hendrickson, M. K. (2015). Resilience in a concentrated and consolidated food system. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 418–431.

118 Heslip, N. (2018). Michigan dairy farmers either exit or eat up equity. Retrieved February 18, 2019 from https://www.farmprogress.com/dairy/michigan-dairy-farmers-either-exit-or- eat-equity

Hess, D. J. (2004). Organic food and agriculture in the US : Object conflicts in a health – environmental social movement. Science as Culture, 13(4), 493–513.

Hinrichs, C. C. (2013). Regionalizing food security? Imperatives, intersections and contestations in a post-9/11 world. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 7–18.

Hintzen, K. (2015). A history of wetlands in Michigan: Part 3. Retrieved March 13, 2019 from https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/a_history_of_wetlands_in_michigan_part_3_ hintzen15

Hitaj, C., & Suttles, S. (2016). Trends in U.S. in agriculture’s consumption and production of energy : Renewable power, shale energy , and cellulosic biomass. USDA Economic Research Service, report EIB-159.

Hitchcock, M. (2015). Opportunity abounds in the Michigan food and agriculture industry. Retrieved October 4, 2019, from https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/opportunity_ abounds_in_the_michigan_food_and_agriculture_industry

Hodgson, K., Campbell, M. C., & Bailkey, M. (2011). Urban Agriculture: Growing Healthy, Sustainable Places. Chicago.

Holt, A. R., Alix, A., Thompson, A., & Maltby, L. (2016). Science of the total environment food production, ecosystem services and biodiversity : We can’t have it all everywhere. The Science of the Total Environment, 573, 1422–1429.

Horrigan, L., Lawrence, R. S., & Walker, P. (2002). How sustainable agriculture can address the environmental and human health Harms of industrial agriculture. Environmental Health Per, 110(5), 445–456.

Horst, M., Mcclintock, N., & Hoey, L. (2017). The intersection planning, urban agriculture, and food justice : A review of the literature. Journal of the American Planning Association, 3, 277-295.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

Hudson, B. (1994). Soil organic matter and available water capacity. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 49(2), 189–197.

Huntington, T. G. (2007). Available water capacity and soil organic matter. In Encyclopedia of Soil Science (2nd ed., pp. 139–143). New York: Taylor and Francis.

119 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). (2009). Global report - agriculture at a crossroads. In B. McIntyre, H. Herren, W. Judi, & R. Watson (Eds.), Global Report - Agriculture at a Crossroads (p. 606). Washington D.C.

Institue of Medicine (IOM), & National Research Council (NRC). (2015). Effects of the U.S. food system. In M. C. Nesheim, M. Oria, & P. T. Yih (Eds.), A Framework for Assessing Effects of the Food System (p. 445). Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Irwin, E. G., Nickerson, C. J., & Libby, L. (2003). What are farmland amenities worth? CHOICES, 21–24.

Jacobs, D., & Tapsell, L. (2013). Food synergy: the key to a healthy diet. Proceeding of the Nutrition Society, 72(2), 200–206.

Janick, J., Korcak, R. F., Hershey, D. R., Carson, R., Spring, S., (1991). History of the organic movement. Proceedings of the 88th American Society of Horticultural Sciences. Alexandria.

Janker, J., Mann, S., & Rist, S. (2018). What is sustainable agriculture? Critical analysis of the international political discourse. Sustainability, 10(2), 4707-4726.

Jarosz, L. (2008). The city in the country: Growing alternative food networks in Metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(3), 231–244.

Johnson, I. (1971). The Michigan Fur Trade. Grand Rapids: The Black Letter Press.

Kalia, A., & Gosal, S. K. (2011). Effect of pesticide application on soil microorganisms. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 57(6), 569–596.

Keeffe, J. O., Buytaert, W., Mijic, A., & Brozovi, N. (2016). The use of semi-structured interviews for the characterisation of farmer irrigation practices,Hydrology and Earth Systems Science, 20, 1911-1924.

Khoury, C. K., Bjorkman, A. D., Dempewolf, H., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Guarino, L., Jarvis, A., … Struik, P. C. (2014). Increasing homogeneity in global food supplies and the implications for food security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(11), 4001–6.

Khursheed, S., Simmons, C., & Jaber, F. (2016). Glomalin, a key to locking up soil carbon. Advances in Plants & Agriculture Research, 4(1), 230–234.

Kieninger, P., Yamaji, E., & Penker, M. (2011). Urban people as paddy farmers: The Japanese Tanada ownership system discussed from a European perspective. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 26(4), 328–341.

Killham, K. (1994). Soil Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

120 Kopytek, A. (2015). Crowley’s : Detroit’s Friendly Store. Stroud: The History Press.

Kulak, M., Graves, A., & Chatterton, J. (2013). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions with urban agriculture : A life cycle assessment perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 111, 68–78.

Landis, D. A. (2017). Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and Applied Ecology, 18, 1–12.

Michigan Legislature. (2012). A brief history of Michigan. Michigan Manual. Lansing. Retrieved January 12, 2019 from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(53vqcntwvoyss3tbqsathrcx))/ documents/2011-2012/michiganmanual/2011-MM-P0000-p0000.pdf

Leiper, C., & Clarke-sather, A. (2017). Co-creating an alternative: the moral economy of participating in farmers’ markets. Local Environment, 22(7), 840–858.

Leverette, F. (1917). Surface Geology and Agriculture Conditions in Michigan. Lansing: Wynkopp Hallenbeck Crawford Co.

Lewinski, D., Settlemyer, L., Heins, P., Toering, S., & Shapiro, T. (2015). Open Space in Detroit: Key Ownership and Funding Considerations to Inform a Comprehensive Open Space. Washington D.C.

Lewis, K. (2002). West to Far Michigan: Settling the Lower Peninsula, 1815-1860. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Libohova, Z., Seybold, C., Wysocki, D., Wills, S., Schoeneberger, P., Williams, C., … Stott, D. (2018). Reevaluating the effects of soil organic matter and other properties on available water- holding capacity using the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 73(4), 411–421.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.g

Lotter, D. (2003). Organic Agriculture. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 21(4), 59–128.

Low, S., Adalja, A., Beaulieu, E., Key, N., Martinez, S., Melton, A., … Jablonski, B. (2015). Trends in U.S. Local and Regional Food Systems, AP-068. Washington D.C.

Low, S., & Vogel, S. (2011). Direct and intermediated marketing of local foods in the United States. Economic Research Report, (128), 38 p.

Lyon, B., & Ehrenreich, N. (2011). The Global Politics of Food : A Critical Overview The Global Politics of Food : A Critical Overview (No. 186). Retrieved October 20, 2018 from http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/art186

Maccoby, E. E., & Maccoby, N. A. (1954). The interview: A tool of social science. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology Vol 1. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley.

121 Mäder, P., & Berner, A. (2011). Development of reduced tillage systems in organic farming in Europe. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(01), 7–11.

Maleksaeidi, H., & Karami, E. (2013). Social-ecological resilience and sustainable agriculture under water scarcity. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 37(3), 262–290.

Martinez, S., Hand, M., Pra, M. , Pollack, S., Ralston, K., Smith, T., … Newman, C. (2010). Local Food Systems. Concepts, Impacts, and Issues, ERR 97. U.S. Service, 1-50.

Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Ortiz-Monasterio, I. (1998). Integration of Environmental, Agronomic, and Economic Aspects of Fertilizer Management,Science , 280(April), 112–116.

McConnell, V., & Walls, M. (2005). The value of open space: Evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (p. 66). Washington, D.C.

McGarry-Wolf, M. (1997). A target consumer profile and positioning for promotion of the direct marketing of fresh produce: a case study. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 28, 11–17.

Mcgrath, C., Palmgren, P. J., & Liljedahl, M. (2018). Twelve tips for conducting qualitative research interviews. Medical Teacher, 0(0), 1–5.

McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117–127.

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDOARD). (2015). Facts About Michigan Agriculture. Retrieved on September 12, 2019 from https://www.michigan. gov/mdard

Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDOARD). (2017). Michigan Agriculture Facts and Figures. Lansing.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems - - A Primer. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Mie, A., Andersen, H. R., Gunnarsson, S., Kahl, J., Kesse-Guyot, E., Rembiałkowska, E., … Grandjean, P. (2017). Human health implications of organic food and organic agriculture: A comprehensive review. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 16(1), 1–22.

Miles, M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

Mogk, J. E., Kwiatkowski, S., & Weindorf, M. J. (2010). Promoting urban agriculture as an alternative land use for vacant properties in the city of Detroit : Benefits, problems, and proposals for a regulatory framework for successful land use integration, 56, Wayne Law Review, 1521.

122 Moretti, F., van Vliet, L., Bensing, J., Deledda, G., Mazzi, M., Rimondini, M., & Fletcher, I. (2011). A standardized approach to qualitative content analysis of focus group discussions from different countries. Patient Education & Counseling, 82, 420–428.

Morgan, D. (1993). Qualitative content analysis: A guide to paths not taken. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 112–121.

Morrison, A. C. (1937). Man in a Chemical World. The Service of Chemical Industry (1st ed.). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Michigan State University. (n.d.). Soils. Retrieved from http://geo.msu.edu/extra/geogmich/soils. html

Mueller, N. D., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Ray, D. K., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. a. (2012). Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature, 490(7419), 254–257.

Mulcahy, Jane Christine, “Exploring Scale and Boundaries in Food System Assessments” (2017). Theses - ALL. 142

Mulley, Susan J. 2007. (De) Constructing the Countryside: Vernacular Perceptions of Pastoral Landscape and the Rural Idyll. Unpublished PhD dissertation. University of Guelph, Guelph Ontario Canada

Murphy, K. M., Campbell, K. A., Lyon, S. R., & Jones, S. S. (2007). Evidence of varietal adaptation to organic farming systems. Field Crops Research, 102, 172–177.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2012). Census of Agriculture. Washinton DC.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). (2017).Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2016-2017. Lansing.

National Research Council (NRC) (2010). Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century. Washington D.C.

National Research Council (NRC). (2005). Valuing Ecosystem Services: Toward Better Environmental Decision-Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Neuendorf, K. (2002). The Content Analysis Guidebook. Thosand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Newing, H., Eagle, C. M., Puri, R. K., & Watson, C. W. (2011). Conducting Research in Conservation: A social Science Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Nickerson, C. J., & Barnard, C. (2006). Farmland protection programs. In N. Gollehon & K. Wiebe (Eds.), Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, Economic Information Bulletin EIB-16. Washington D.C.

Nickerson, C. J., & Hellerstein, D. (2003). Protecting rural amenities through farmland preservation programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 32(01), 129–144.

123 Niehm, L., Swinney, J., & Miller, N. (2008). Community social responsibility and its consequences for family business performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 6(43), 331– 350.

Norris, P., Taylor, G., Wyckoff, M., (2011). When urban agriculture meets Michigan’s right to farm act: The pig’s in the parlour. Michigan State Law Review, 2011(365), 365–404.

Olson, B., Davenport, M. A. (2017). An inductive model of farmer conservation decision making for nitrogen management. Landscape Journal, 36(1), 59–73.

Ontl, T. A., & Schulte, L. A. (2012). Soil carbon storage. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10).

Opitz, I., Berges, R., Piorr, A., & Krikser, T. (2016). Contributing to food security in urban areas : differences between urban agriculture and peri-urban agriculture in the Global North. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(May), 341–358.

Orsini, S. (2013). Landscape polarisation, hobby farmers and a valuable hill in Tuscany: Understanding landscape dynamics in a peri-urban context. Geografisk Tidsskrift, 113(1), 53–64.

Paddeu, F., & Flaminia, P. (2017). Legalising urban agriculture in Detroit : a contested way of planning for decline. The Town Planning Review; Liverpool, 88(1), 109–129.

Paull, J. (2013). The Rachel Carson Letters and the Making of Silent Spring. SAGE Open, 51–53.

Paull, J. (2014). Lord Northbourne , the man who invented organic farming , a biography. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(1), 31–53.

Pfeiffer, D. A. (2006). Eating Fossil Fuels:Oil, Food, and the Coming Crises in Agriculture. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Pimentel, D. (2006). Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 8(1), 119–137.

Pimentel, D., & Burgess, M. (2013). Soil erosion threatens food production. Agriculture, 3, 443–463.

Pimentel, D., Hepperly, P., Hanson, J., Douds, D., & Seidel, R. (2010). Environmental, energetic, and economic comparisons of organic and conventional farming systems. BioScience, 55(7), 573–582.

Ponti, T. De, Rijk, B., & Ittersum, M. K. Van. (2012). The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 108, 1–9.

Porceddu, E., & Rabbinge, R. (1997). Role of research and education in the development of agriculture in Europe. European Journal of Agronomy, 7(1–3), 1–13.

124 Poremba, D. (2001). Detroit: A Motor City History. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.

Pothukuchi, K. (2010, October 24). To support sustainable urban agriculture , Detroit needs exemption from Michigan’s Right to Farm. Michigan Citizen, pp. 1–4. Highland Park.

Pothukuchi, K. (2012, January). Our food, our community : Telling our own stories. Michigan Citizen, 1–3. Highland Park.

Pothukuchi, K. (2015a). Five decades of community food planning in Detroit : City and grassroots, growth and equity. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(4), 419–434.

Pothukuchi, K. (2015b). Urban agricultural policy in Detroit: History and prospects. In M. Chumbler, S. Negro, & L. Bechler (Eds.), Urban Agriculture Policy, Law, Strategy, and Implementation (pp. 279–298). Chicago: American Bar Association.

Pothukuchi, K. (2017). To allow farming is to give up on the city : Political anxieties related to the disposition of vacant land for urban agriculture in Detroit. Journal of Urban Affairs, 39(8), 1169–1189.

Pothukuchi, K., & Kaufman, J. (2000). The food system: A stranger to the planning field. American Planning Association, 66(2), 113–124.

Potteiger, M., Systems, F., & Potteiger, M. (2013). Eating places: Food systems, narratives, networks, and spaces. Landscape Journal, 32(2), 261–275.

Powlson, D. S., Gregory, P. J., Whalley, W. R., Quinton, J. N., Hopkins, D. W., Whitmore, A. P., … Goulding, K. W. T. (2011). Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy, 36(SUPPL. 1), S72–S87.

Preiss, P., & Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2017). Fostering sustainable urban-rural linkages through local food supply : A transnational analysis of collaborative food alliances. Sustainability, 9(1155), 30.

Primdahl, J., & Kristensen, L. S. (2011). The farmer as a landscape manager: Management roles and change patterns in a Danish region. Danish Journal of Geography, 111(2), 107–116.

Pudup, M. B. (2008). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects. Geoforum, 39(3), 1228–1240.

Punch, K. (1998). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. London: Sage Ltd.

Rainey, R., Crandall, P., O’Bryan, C., Ricke, S., Pendleton, S., & Seideman, S. (2011). Marketing locally produced organic foods in three metropolitan Arkansas farmers’ markets: Consumer opinions and food safety concerns. Journal of Agricultural and Food Information, 12(2), 141–153.

Raun, W., & Johnson, G. (1999). Improving nitrogen use efficiency for cereal production. American Society of Agronomy, 9(3), 357–363. 125 Ray, D. K., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Increasing global crop harvest frequency: recent trends and future directions. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4), 1-11.

Reganold, J. P., & Watcher, J. (2016). Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nature Plants, 2(March).

Reimer, A. P., Thompson, A. W., & 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.

Ren, F., Reilly, K., Kerry, J., Gaffney, M., Hossain, M., & Rai, D. (2017). Higher antioxidant Activity, total flavonols, and specific quercetin glucosides in two different onion (Allium cepa L.) varieties grown under organic production: Results from a 6-Year field study. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 65(25), 5122–51.

Roberts, R. E. (1884). Sketches and Reminiscences of the City of the Straits and Its Vicinity. Detroit.

Robertson, G. P., Gross, K. L., Hamilton, S. K., Landis, D. A., Schmidt, T. M., Snapp, S. S., & Swinton, S. M. (2014). Farming for ecosystem services: an ecological approach to production agriculture. BioScience.

Rockström, J., Karlberg, L., Wani, S. P., Barron, J., Hatibu, N., Oweis, T., … Qiang, Z. (2010). Managing water in rainfed agriculture—The need for a paradigm shift. Agricultural Water Management, 97(4), 543–550.

Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., Wetterstrand, H., … Sibanda, L. (2017). Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4–17.

Rogus, S., & Dimitri, C. (2015). Agriculture in urban and peri-urban areas in the United States: Highlights from the Census of Agriculture. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 30(1), 64–78.

Rossett, P. (2006). Food is Different: Why we must get the WTO out of Agriculture. London: Zed Books.

Rotz, S., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2015). Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 459–473.

Ryan, R., Erickson, D., & De Young, R. (2003). Farmers’ motivations for adopting conservation practices along riparian zones in a mid-western agricultural watershed. Journal of Environmental Planning, 46(1), 19–37.

Sandelowski, M. (1995). Qualitative analysis: what it is and how to begin? Research in Nursing & Health, 18, 371–375.

126 Schrama, M., Haan, J. J. De, Kroonen, M., Verstegen, H., & Putten, W. H. Van Der. (2018). Agriculture, ecosystems and environment crop yield gap and stability in organic and conventional farming systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 256(June 2017), 123–130.

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., & Foley, J. A. (2012). Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture. Nature, 485(7397), 229–232.

Sexton, R. J. (2014). Industrialization and consolidation in the U.S. food sector: Implications for competition and welfare. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(5), pp. 1087- 1104.

Shi-mingl, M. A., & Sauerborn, J. (2006). Review of history and recent development of organic farming worldwide. Agricultural Sciences in China, 5(3), 169–178.

Siegel, K. R., Bullard, K. M. K., Imperatore, G., Kahn, H. S., Stein, A. D., Ali, M. K., & Narayan, K. M. (2016). Association of higher consumption of foods derived from subsidized commodities with adverse cardiometabolic risk among US adults. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(8), 1124–1132.

Simonetti, L. (2012). The ideology of Slow Food. Journal of European Studies, 42(2), 168–189.

Sinclair, K., Curtis, A., Mendham, E., & Mitchell, M. (2014). Can resilience thinking provide useful insights for those examining efforts to transform contemporary agriculture? Agriculture and Human Values, 31(3), 371–384.

Sligh, M., & Cierpka, T. (2007). Organic values. In W. Lockeretz (Ed.), Organic Farming An International History (p. 295). Cambridge: CAB International.

Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., … Schneider, U. (2008). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 363, 789–813.

Sommers, L. (1984). Michigan: A Geography (1st ed.). Boulder: Westview Press.

Stevenson, F. J. (1982). Humus Chemistry. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Sullivan, S., McCain, E., De Young, R., & Erikson, 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.

Sumner, D., Bervejillo, J., & Kuminoff, N. (2003). The measure of California agriculture and its importance in the state’s economy. In J. Siebert (Ed.), California Agriculture Dimensions and Issues. Davis: Giannini Foundation. Retrieved January 12, 2015 from http://giannini. ucop.edu/CalAgbook.htm

127 Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2015). Qualitative research : Data collection, analysis, and management. California Journal of Health-System Pharmacists, 68(3), 226–231.

Techtown. (2017). Techtown. Retrieved April 7, 2019, from https://techtowndetroit.org/ recoverypark-farms-rpf-gary-wozniak/

Tendall, D. M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q. B., … Six, J. (2015). Food system resilience : Defining the concept. Global Food Security, 6, 17–23.

Thilmany-McFadden, D., & Onozaka, Y. (2010). Local food consumers : How motivations and perceptions translate to buying behavior. CHOICES, (25), 7.

Thilmany, D., Bond, C. A., & Bond, J. K. (2008). Going local: exploring consumer behavior and motivations for direct food purchases.American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5), 1303–1309.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(2), 237–246.

Thu, K. (2009). The centralization of food systems and political power. Culture & Agriculture, 31(1), 13–18.

Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(50), 20260–4.

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418(August), 671–677.

Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., Antonio, C. D., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., … Swackhamer, D. (2001). Forecasting agriculturally driven environmental change. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 292(5515), 281–284.

Treseder, K. K., & Turner, K. M. (2007). Glomalin in ecosystems. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 71(4), 1257.

Tubiello, F. N., Salvatore, R. D., Colec, R. D. C., Ferrara, A., Rossi, S., Biancalani, R., … Flammini, A. (2015). The contribution of agriculture, forestry and other land use activities to global warming, 1990–2012. Global Change Biology, 21(7), 2655-2660.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2017). Turning Soils into Sponges: How Farmers Can Fight Floods and Droughts. Retrieved from https://www.ucsusa.org/food-agriculture/advance- sustainable-agriculture/turning-soils-sponges

United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects: 2014 Revision, Highlights.

U.S. Climate Data. (2010). Retrieved November 4, 2019, from https://www.usclimatedata.com/ climate/michigan/united-states/3192

128 Underwood, K. L. City of Detroit Urban Agriculture Ordinance (2013).

World Water Assessment Programme (WWAP). 2012. The United Nations World Water Development Report 4: Managing Water under Uncertainty and Risk. Paris, UNESCO

United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Maerketing Services. (2017). National Count of Farmers Market Directory Listings Graph: 1994-2017. Retrieved from https:// www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NationalCountofFMDirectory17.JPG

United States Department of Agriculture-Economic Research Services. (2017). Irrigated Acres in US. Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/irrigated-agriculture-in- the-united-states/documentation/

United States Department of Agriculture. Food , Agriculture , Conservation , and Trade Act of 1990 (1990). Retrieved February 3, 2019 from https://www.usda.gov/oce/sustainable/ definitions.htm

United States Department of Agriculture. (2017). U.S. Census. Washington D.C.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2015). Irrigation Water Use. Retrieved August 8, 2016 from http://water.usgs.gov/edu/wuir.html van Sandt, A., Low, S., & Thilmany, D. (2018). Exploring regional patterns of agritourism in the U.S. : What ’s driving clusters of enterprises? Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 47(3), 592–609.

Veeke, H. P. ., Ottjes, J. A., & Lodewijks, G. (2008). The Delft Systems Approach Analysis and Design of Industrial Systems (1st ed.). London: Springer-Verlag.

Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M., & Ingram, J. S. I. (2012). Climate change and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37(1), 195–222.

Vidal, R., and A. Fleury. 2008. Agriculture in urban planning in Ile-de-France. In Rurality Near the City—Proceedings of the International Conference and Workshops held in Leuven, Belgium, on February 7–8th, 2008, ed. V. Dewaelheyns, and H.Gulinck, 75–82. Leuven: KU Leuven.

Vitiello, D., & Wolf-Powers, L. (2014). Growing food to grow cities?: The potential of agriculture for economic and community development in the urban United States. Community Development Journal, 49(4), 508–523.

Vogl, C. R., Axmann, P., & Vogl-Lukasser, B. (2004). Urban organic farming in Austria with the concept of Selbsternte (’self-harvest‘): An agronomic and socio-economic analysis. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19(2), 67–79.

Walker, W. K. (2002). Whole hog : The preemption of local control by the 1999 Amendment to the Michigan Right to Farm Act : Local control by the 1999 amendment. Valparaiso University Law Review, 36(2), 461–504.

129 Weber, R. (1990). Basic Content Analysis (Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Book 49) (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Weinman, A. (2018). Stop Nestlé’s water grab. Retrieved March 5, 2019, from https://www. corporateaccountability.org/blog/stop-nestles-water-grab/

Welch, S. (2018). Recovery Park could create 170 jobs for Detroiters —or it could close. Retrieved March 3, 2019 from https://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20180325/news/656191/ recoverypark-could-create-170-jobs-for-detroiters-or-it-could-close

White, M. M. (2011). D-Town Farm: African american resistance to food insecurity and the transformation of Detroit. Environmental Practice, 13(4), 406–417.

Williams, A., Hunter, M. C., Kammerer, M., Kane, D. A., Jordan, R., Mortensen, D. A., … Davis, A. S. (2016). Soil water holding capacity mitigates downside risk and volatility in US rainfed maize : Time to invest in soil organic matter? PLoS ONE, 11(8), 1–11.

Worthington, V. (2001). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 7(2), 161–173.

Wright, S. F., & Upadhyaya, A. (1996). Extraction of an abundant and unusual protein from soil and comparison with hyphal protein of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Soil Science, 161, 575–586.

Young, J. C., Rose, D. C., Mumby, H. S., Benitez-capistros, F., Derrick, C. J., Finch, T., … Rose, D. C. (2018). A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, (May 2017), 10–19.

Youngberg, G., & Demuth, S. P. (2013). Organic agriculture in the United States : A 30-year retrospective. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

Zagata, L., & Sutherland, L. (2015). Deconstructing the ‘ young farmer problem in Europe ’ : Towards a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 38, 39–51.

Zasada, I., Fertner, C., Piorr, A., & Nielsen, T. S. (2011). Peri-urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift, 111(1), 59–72.

Zepeda, L., & Leviten-Reid, C. (2004). Consumers’ views on local food. Journal of Food Distribution Research, 35(3), 1–5.

130 APPENDIX A

131 APPENDIX B

Email interview invitation

Hello [Name of Farmer]-

My name is Cici Koenig and I am a graduate student in Landscape Architecture and am inter- viewing local farmers in Southeast Michigan about their motivations and challenges. I was referred to you by [Name of referrer] at the [place of referral] as a farmer that might be interested in this project. I expect the interview to take about an hour and it would be at the location that is most convenient for you.

If this is something that you would be interested in, I would very much appreciate it.

If so, I can be reached at either

626.264.0322 or

[email protected]

Thank you so much for your time

Cici Koenig

132 APPENDIX C

133 134 APPENDIX D

Semi Structured Interview Questions - Local produce farmers’ motivations and challenges in Southeastern Michigan

Hello [insert farmer name(s)]

First of all, I want to thank you for agreeing to take part in this interview. As I mentioned to you before when asking if you would be willing to participate in this research, I am inter- viewing local farmers in the southeast Michigan area for my master’s thesis to find out what their motivations and challenges are in farming.

Also, as I mentioned I would need you to sign a consent form, which I have here, as proof of your agreement to participate in this research.

And lastly, I also want to reassure you that any and all personal information will be kept confidential and that you can terminate the interview at any time for any reason. And I just want to confirm that you are ok with this interview being recorded.

Ok then, let’s begin

[Header question]

1. How would you describe your farm?

(prompts)

1.1 . What is the first thing that comes to mind I ask you that question?

1.2. What kinds of crops do you grow?

1.3. How many days a year are you in production

1.4. How many acres is your farm?

1.5. What % do you cultivate?

1.6. What % is habitat/vacant?

1.7. What % cannot be cultivated?

1.7.1 Why?

[Lead in question]

2. Do you come from a farm family?

(If NO, move to question 3)

(If yes, continue with following prompts if needed, then move to question 3)

2.1.1 What impact do you think that had on your decision to farm?

2.2.2 What type of farming did your family do?

135 2.2.3 Does your family still farm?

2.2.4 Do you farm the family farm?

[Main questions]

3. (Ask all respondents) What motivated you to go into farming?

(prompts)

3.1. What were your expectations when you decided to go into farming?

4. (Ask all respondents) What challenges do you face as a farmer?

(prompts)

4.1 Can you tell me what your experience has been like so far as a farmer?

[Reflective questions]

5.1. What factors influence your quality of life as a farmer?

Prompt – what do you think are most important for you to be happy and fulfilled as a farmer?

5.2. If you had to leave your farm tomorrow and stop farming, what would you miss?

Prompt – what aspects of the farm/living on the farm would you miss?

[Wrap up]

6.1 Do you belong to, or are you involved in, any farm related organizations?

6.2 What farm support organizations do you have contact with, if any?

6.3 Where do you market your farm produce?

6.4 Is there anything else you would like to tell me?

6.5. Are there other farmers, bureaucrats or farm related organizations, market owners, or customers whom I should talk to?

Excellent.

Lastly, I have some questions with some demographic information. It allows me to get a more complete picture of farmers in southeast Michigan. Of course, again these answers will be kept separate from the other interview questions and will be aggregated with the other farmer’s information so that each farmers information is not identifiable.

7.0 Demographics - see insert

[Closing ]

Thank you again for participating in this interview. It’s been very helpful and informative.

136 Do you have any questions for me?

Also, if at any time you need to contact me for any reason, here is my business card with both my phone number and email.

Demographic Questions

1. How long have you been farming?

2. What type of Farming do you do?

3. Do you live on your land?

4. Do you own your farm?

Lease?

Share?

Borrow?

If you own your farm, do you lease, share or borrow it to someone else?

5. How many people are involved in your farm operation?

6. Who is involved in your farm operation?

Spouse or partner?

Parents?

Children?

Other family members?

Employees? Volunteers? Interns?

Friends?

7. Who made the decision to go into farming?

(For all the major people involved (eg farmer and partner or spouse)

8. In what year were you born?

9. What is your level of education?

If university, what was your major?

10. What is your Gender?

11. What is your Race?

Ethnicity?

12. Do you work in any Non-farm employment?

137 Hours per week?

Type of Work

13. What is your gross annual income?

$10,000 to $24,999 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $249,999

$250,000 to $499,999 $500,000 or more

138