Exploring Opportunities for Technological Innovation and Reconfiguration in the Local Food Sector

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Design Management Department in Partial Fulllment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Fine Arts By Dustin Larimer Savannah, GA July, 2011

Prologue

My journey has taken me through many life-changing adventures and challenges, over many miles and with enough uncertainty to tank the NYSE (again). Through it all I have quietly carried a belief that in return for the incredible opportunities I have enjoyed, I must nd a way to apply what Ive learned to make a positive contribution to the world around me. Moving the ball forward is what inspires me to act; it is why I am here. Through my studies I have learned how to analyze, deconstruct and reframe complex

design problems to discover original, innovative insights and opportunities. When I rst began the Design Management program, I was asked to explain what I thought design was about, to which I answered Design is about solving problems. If asked again, today, I would answer that Design is about creating the conditions for people to solve their own problems and improve their own particular circumstance. Solving problems for people only seems to create new problems. In my previous career as a web technologist I developed a strong appreciation for the

potential web-based frameworks have created for improving quality of life. The best frameworks are simply tools that put prohibitive complexity to order the epitome of elegance. A welldesigned tool can enable new types of behavior or displace unfavorable ones. It can bring people together, make tasks more efcient, or sometimes even create entirely new opportunities that no one not even the designer previously thought possible. I believe such a technological innovation has the potential to transform the ow of one of our most critical resources: healthy food.

Table of Contents
List of Figures List of Tables Abstract Chapter 1: Introduction
Another Record Year Designing Flexibility Out of the System The Problem with Alternatives An Opportunity

1 4 5 6
7 8 13 20

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Socio-economic Foundation A Well-Coordinated Revolution

22
23 27

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

Research Design Phase 1: Field Study Preparation Phase 2: Field Research Phase 3: Data Analysis Process & Procedures Phase 4: Dene an Opportunity Space & Design Criteria Research Limitations

31
31 33 38 42 44 44

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings

Identifying Thought-Leaders within the Local Independent Food Network

45
46

Field Research: Trends and Patterns Hobbyists Becoming Professionals Full-time Professionals Moving Forward

58 59 67

Chapter 5: Design Concept Development

Design Criteria: Stories about the Future Concept Exploration The Design Solution: NeighborFarms

78
78 81 97

Chapter 6: Conclusions & Directions for Future Research

Value Proposition of the Design Solution Directions for Future Research

103
105 105

Appendices
Appendix A: Interview Protocol (90-120 minutes) Appendix B: Informed Consent Appendix C: Producer Startword List Appendix D: Consumer Questionnaire Appendix E: Cultural Model of a hobbyist, a part-time pro, and a full-time pro Appendix F: Growth trajectory from hobbyists to full-time professional status

106
106 108 109 110 113 114

Glossary Works Cited About the Author

115 118 128

Larimer 1

List of Figures
Figure 1.1Customer-facing portion of the Business Model Canvas Figure 1.2Three-dimensional Producer Matrix Figure 1.3Environmental Threats, part 1 Figure 1.3Environmental Threats, part 2 Figure 3.1Illustrated research design Figure 3.2Project scope Figure 3.3Sortable business attribute cards Figure 3.4Annual timeline template Figure 3.5Afnity Process Illustration Figure 3.6Business Model Canvas Figure 4.1Communication View for local organic near:31401 and local organic near:30458 Figure 4.2Communication View of farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458 Figure 4.3Communication View of local organic near:31401, local organic near:30458, farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458. Figure 4.4Communication View for forsyth farmers market and statesboro farmers market Figure 4.5Resulting producer list, sorted and numbered by overall frequency of use within ltered content. Figure 4.6Chart of responses for How were you rst introduced to this producer? Figure 4.7Chart of responses for How many of your friends also shop from this producer? and How many of your friends shop at the same market(s)? Figure 4.8Word cloud generated with responses to Which other producers do you buy from frequently, and what do you value most about them? Figure 4.9Stacks of notecards resulting from interview transcripts Figure 4.10Clustering notecards into emergent themes and topics to identify patterns 15 18 19 20 32 35 39 40 42 43 47 48 50 51 52 56 56 57 58 59

Figure 4.11Cultural Model of Hunter Cattle Company, Reads Bees and Gratitude Gardens Figure 4.12Growth trajectory from hobbyist to full-time professional Figure 4.13Three sample timeline worksheets completed during interviews Hope Grows Farm, Hunter Cattle Company, and Reads Bees Figure 4.14Illustrated mashup of timeline worksheets completed during interviews Hope Grows Farm, Hunter Cattle Company, and Reads Bees Figure 4.15Clustering notecards into emergent themes and topics to identify patterns Figure 4.16Cultural Model mapped to the 4 Ps of Marketing: Product, Promotion, Place, Price Figure 4.17Business Model Canvas for individual growers participating in farmers markets Figure 4.18Business Model Canvas for individual growers supplying wholesale distributors Figure 4.19Business Model Canvas for a collaborative growers network providing food boxes Figure 5.1Early concept sketches articulating relationships of exchange Figure 5.2The many relationships and exchange models behind Heritage Organic Farms Figure 5.3Early concept sketches exploring potential service models Figure 5.4Co-sketch session with Arianne from Hope Grows Farm Figure 5.5Illustration of the collaborative food box model, regularly distributed to customers at pre-arranged locations Figure 5.6Illustrated ow chart of the web service Figure 5.7Exploring an expanding conceptual space Figure 5.8NeighborFarms logo Figure 5.9Evolving interface of NeighborFarms: wireframes, style and layout iterations Figure 5.10Evolving design of NeighborFarms homepage and dashboard Figure 5.11NeighborFarms homepage featuring a large map for geo-browsing Figure 5.12Producer dashboard view displaying an individual producers bulk inventory and associated project allocations

60 61 65 66 68 69 71 74 75 82 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 89 90

Figure 5.13NeighborFarms dashboard where teams of producers can collaborate on projects Figure 5.14Producer dashboard view displaying active and past invoices Figure 5.15Producer dashboard view displaying a map of available projects to join Figure 5.16Concept illustration, printed and shared at a farmers market in San Antonio Figure 5.17Website demonstration, printed and shared at a farmers market in San Antonio Figure 5.18Paper prototype of mobile app demonstrated at a farmers market in San Antonio Figure 5.19Scenes from the Pearl Brewery Farmers Market in San Antonio Figure 5.20NeighborFarms homepage Figure 5.21NeighborFarms invoice dashboard page Figure 5.22NeighborFarms inventory dashboard page Figure 5.23NeighborFarms projects dashboard page Figure 5.24NeighborFarms projects dashboard page where producers can nd projects to join Figure 5.25NeighborFarms account settings dashboard page

90 92 93 94 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

Larimer 4

List of Tables
Table 3.1Four-phase Project Timeline Table 4.1Actors listed by betweenness centrality for local organic near:31401 and local organic near:30458 Table 4.2Actors listed by betweenness centrality for farmer market near: 31401 and farmer market near:30458 Table 4.3Actors listed by betweenness centrality for local organic near: 31401, local organic near:30458, farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458 Table 4.4Interviewee types, times and locations Table 4.5Data collected from Attributes of Success exercise 33 47 49 5051

58 63

Larimer 5

Abstract

Exploring Opportunities for Technological Innovation and Reconfiguration in the Local Food Sector

Dustin Larimer July, 2011

This study deconstructs the market mechanics and social dynamics of independent food networks and explores new opportunities for technological innovation and reconfiguration. The findings suggest that the independent food movement, as a system of commerce, largely defies conventional market logic supporting modern industrial food production. What to outsiders may look like a values-conscious commodities business is actually a rich cascade of dense social networks, woven together around a mutual determination to thrive in defiance of the ills of an unsustainable, global calorie-making apparatus. However, small-scale producers cannot be sustainable if they are not also profitable. The emergence of an effectively decentralized, resilient food system can be accelerated

by introducing new economic, logistic, and regulatory tools that enhance producer viability while reinforcing the values that lie at the very heart of the independent food movement itself. Such tools must be designed by and for dynamic, loosely-coupled communities which are defined by shared values and independence; they must be effective because of these communities' very nature, rather than in spite of it.

Larimer 6

Chapter 1: Introduction

This project deconstructs the market mechanics and social network dynamics of independent food systems and explores new opportunities for technological innovation and reconfiguration. The independent food movement, as a system of commerce, largely defies conventional market logic supporting modern industrial food production. What to outsiders may look like a valuesconscious commodities business is actually a rich cascade of dense social networks, woven together around a mutual determination to thrive in defiance of the ills of an ecologically and socially abusive, global calorie-making apparatus. For some independent producers, food production is as much a means of protest as it is a means of making a living. For others it is not just about food, it is about the people that food weaves together; it is about community. As our civilization ventures forward into an increasingly uncertain future, many influential

institutions the United Nations, among them are calling for decentralized, ecologically restorative agriculture, or agroecology, that has so far proven to significantly increase production yields, repair environmental damage and capture massive quantities of carbon from the atmosphere. Such a model is already being employed by a growing number of independent food producers across the United States and around the world. Small independent producers also benefit from these ecologically-intensive production methods. Increased diversity means not only greater variety for customers but also greater resiliency in the face of single-product market saturation from large-volume competitors.

Larimer 7

As well-intentioned and environmentally revitalizing as the independent food movement

may be it exists in conflict with many of the expectations and assumptions of the existing conventional production and consumption paradigms. The emergence of an effectively decentralized, resilient food system can be accelerated by introducing new economic, logistic, and regulatory tools that enhance producer viability while reinforcing the values that lie at the very heart of the movement itself. Such tools must be designed by and for dynamic, looselycoupled communities which are defined by shared values and independence; they must be effective because of these communities very nature, rather than in spite of it.

Another Record Year

During the summer of 2010 the jet stream over Eurasia made a sharp kink. Hot, dry air was drawn up from the Sahara desert northward into the western plains of Russia, diverting heavy rain systems southward directly into Pakistan's annual summer monsoon (Masters, 2010). Sporadic weather anomalies are not unheard of, but what is especially unusual about this event is what the jet stream did next: nothing. It simply froze in place for well over a month unleashing a catastrophic deluge that submerged nearly 1/5 of Pakistan's land area (CNN Wire Staff, 2010), affecting nearly 20 million people and inicting massive damages on the country's wheat harvest. A few weeks later record high temperatures and a devastating drought ignited hundreds

of wildres across Russia's western plains. The res lasted for nearly two months, eventually leading the country to ban exports of wheat for the year (Gronholt-pedersen, 2010). Wheat prices at the Chicago Board of Trade soared, sparking food riots in Mozambique and heightening anxiety of rising food prices around the globe (Javier, 2010). By late October the north-central United States was also experiencing the effects of a supercharged jet stream. A massive storm churning across the Midwest produced the lowest atmospheric pressure

Larimer 8

readings ever recorded for a land-based storm (Spotts, 2010). Winds as strong as 90 mph, heavy rains, and dozens of tornadoes knocked out power for nearly a quarter of a million people (MSNBC, 2010). Waves exceeding twenty-six feet in height were recorded on Lake Superior just past noon on October 27 (Environment Canada, 2010). These are only a few incidents from what has become an all-around record-breaking

year of weather events. In March of 2010, southwestern China experienced an 80 percent drop in rainfall, slashing projected summer grain yields and creating water shortages for over 50 million people (AsiaNews, 2010). While it is tempting to correlate the recent outbreak of destructive weather with anthropogenic climate change, such a connection is not necessary to understand how the unpredictability of the weather has always been the nemesis of mankind's agricultural ambition. Rain falls too soon, too late, too much, too little, or sometimes not at all, crops fail and people starve. It is also not difcult to imagine what kind of scenarios may emerge if global warming is in fact deteriorating conditions for agriculture: greater intensity at the extremes; heavier rains and longer droughts, hotter summers and colder winters. A greater frequency of "record-breaking everything," means smaller yields, higher production costs, higher consumer prices, and less certainty that food will be available for anyone at any given time.

Designing Flexibility Out of the System

The fact that so much uncertainty continues to haunt modern agriculture is not for a lack of effort or innovation. Abundant fossil fuels, foreign market liberalization, and the technological revolutions of the last century have together rapidly transformed food production into a marvel of hyper-efciency. What was once a localized political economy of stability is now a globally rationalized, centrally-coordinated war against uncertainty, marching to a logic of publiclysubsidized overproduction.

Larimer 9

For decades, the key strategy to ghting this war has been to overpower the odds with

the brute force of energy-intensive biochemical and mechanical intervention. More energy in means more energy out. Producing far more calories than the market demands forces prices so low that food is affordable and readily available to (almost) everyone. In the United States, when prices fall low enough, farmers are compensated for the losses through various subsidy programs. Minor production shortages are then (hopefully) absorbed by the sheer scale of the system, and price uctuations are often absorbed by retailers to avoid losing customers to competitors. Producers in this global production strategy must perpetually increase efciency to stay

competitive, either by innovating away from costs or consolidating with other operations to shed redundancy, increase volume and amplify savings. This model has resulted in a handful of massive, tightly coupled market participants at every link in the value chain. For example, an oligopoly of half a dozen transnational corporations oversees the global seed industry (Howard, 1274). Today producers have fewer upstream input options, fewer downstream market access options, and virtually no leverage over the terms of exchange after harvest. Their only option is to keep chasing higher yields and to try to avoid going out of business like so many of their neighbors. The rationalization of modern agriculture has dealt a critical blow to the biodiversity of

4.9 billion acres of the Earths surface (FAOSTAT, 2008). Three quarters of the worlds food supply is derived from just 7 of 200,000 plant species on Earth, with just three of those species corn, wheat, and rice supplying half of all calories and proteins (Hawken/Lovins, 194). In the United States, nearly 70% of farmland is dedicated to just three crop species: corn, soybeans and wheat (USDA NASS, June 2010). Such large populations of a single species are extremely vulnerable to attack by opportunistic pests, parasites, weeds and disease, and are incapable of surviving without the support of excessive petroleum-based pesticides and herbicides. Not

Larimer 10

surprisingly, these chemicals must be updated regularly and replaced with more potent successors, to which insects will inevitably adapt to resist (Hawken/Lovins, 196). The corn and wheat fields that supposedly feed the world have essentially become battlefields in a chemical arms race between the Ag sciences six decades of trial and error and insects millions of years spent perfecting rapid adaption. According to Professor David Pimentel from the Cornell University, approximately 2/5 of the world's crops are lost in the field to disease, insects and weeds (Hawken/Lovins, 195). Conventional agriculture consumes 70% of all freshwater allocation on the planet (FAO

"Depletion of Fresh Water Resources). It takes 1,000 tons of water to produce a single ton of grain, and since water used for crops in Russia is not water used in Egypt, for example, around 980 billion tons of water are redistributed around the world every year (Roberts, 227-231). Through this lens, top grain exporters like the United States, the European Union, India, and Russia are also top water exporters as well. The energy consumption of this system is also enormous. On average, every single

calorie of conventionally-produced food is backed by an average 10 calories of fossil fuel, accounting for an estimated 20% of total energy consumption in the United States (Hawken/ Lovins, 192). Cheap oil lets food production and processing move to where they are most efficiently operated, and food consumption to where it is most financially rewarded. Geographic proximity to the consumers whose very survival depends upon its daily availability is no longer a concern. Affordable overnight cargo flights and low labor wages in developing nations have made it incredibly cost-effective for vegetables to be grown in a different hemisphere than which they are consumed. What was once a great step forward for efficiency now looks like a potentially crippling dependency. The connection between food, oil and just about everything else is best illustrated by a

series of events during the first half of 2008, when global oil production actually increased and

Larimer 11

demand decreased relative to prior quarters. Investors eager to get away from an imploding real estate market flooded oil futures, food commodities and other raw materials (Frankel, 2008). A dual increase in the prices of oil and corn slammed the corn-based biofuel industry, which consumes nearly 1/3 of the United States' annual corn harvest (Roberts, 325). The result was an autocatalytic price hike for both commodities. A leaked report conducted by the World Bank claimed biofuel production was inflating food prices by as much as 75% (Chakrabortty, 2008). Higher oil prices means higher prices for petroleum-based agricultural inputs, like fertilizer and pesticides, as well as near-prohibitive fuel costs for transportation and machine operation. Since about 1/3 of the global grain harvest is fed to livestock, meat prices also increased dramatically (Roberts, 325). Commodity speculation seized the industry. Oil hit $100 per barrel on the first trading day of 2008 (Elliott, 2008), and by April skyrocketing food prices spurred food riots in dozens of countries around the world. Shocked and unprepared, governments scrambled to maintain order, sometimes by military intervention and severe antihoarding laws (The Economist, 2008). By mid-summer oil hit $144 per barrel (Saefong, 2008). Oil isn't the only fossil fuel that modern agriculture depends on. The other is natural gas,

which at the moment is a heavily-invested source of energy in a process that yields an even more important element: nitrogen. Nitrogen plays a vital role in the molecular composition of all living organisms. Without it, there simply cannot be life. There is a finite amount of nitrogen available in a readily usable form, effectively capping the ecological carrying capacity of any given ecosystem. This also limits the production potential for any given plot of land under cultivation. Then in the early 20th century, a method for chemically deriving a synthetic concentration of nitrogen was invented: the Haber-Bosch process (Encyclopdia Britannica "Haber-Bosch process"). The Haber-Bosch process enabled affordable mass-production of ammonia (NH3) a

nitrogen-rich chemical compound that could literally be poured on the ground to increase fertility.

Larimer 12

While artificial fertilizers can greatly improve crop yields, they also devastate the innumerable microscopic organisms that generate and support the soil that crops need to survive. As these tiny ecosystems collapse farmers must apply more and more nitrogen to maintain yields. Dead soil is easily washed or blown away, as has an estimated 1/3 of the topsoil in the United States since the beginning of the industrial agriculture era (Hawken/Lovins, 192). On a larger scale, the UN FAO reported in July of 2008 that nearly 1.5 billion people worldwide people rely on degraded land (FAO, 2008). According to conventional logic, the solution is to apply still more chemical fertilizer currently more than 210 million tons every year ("Current World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2011/12" 16). From the 1960s through the 1990s synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use skyrocketed by 645%,

along with powerful advances in irrigation and farm mechanization (Hawken/Lovins, 191). During roughly this same period, global grain production increased by 300%, while the human population grewby 240%. Mathematically, that should mean a 112.5% increase in available calories for every man, woman and child on this planet (Roberts, 24). In reality, nearly a billion people worldwide one in seven experience some degree of malnutrition, if not full-fledged starvation (FAO, 2009), including over 50 million U.S. citizens who in 2009 were classified as "food insecure" (Nord et al., 6). Equally alarming is that now an enormous percentage of the global population is entirely dependent on continued artificial nitrogen synthesis, which in turn is heavily dependent on natural gas (Roberts citing Vaclav Smil from the University of Manitoba, 21). It's also worth mentioning that new natural gas discoveries peaked in the 1970s. As an exploding global population puts a greater strain on a limited resource base, the

sheer volume of 2010's crop failures has once again sent food prices soaring around the world. Despite the best laid schemes of conventional wisdom, and decades and fortunes spent innovating against nature, the modern food system is just as vulnerable as any before it. Only

Larimer 13

now, however, the survival of hundreds of millions of people all around the globe is contingent on fair weather and endless fossil fuel reserves.

The Problem with Alternatives

Progress in the war against uncertainty has not come without significant economic, social and environmental costs. Greater transparency of those consequences has fueled a resurgence of support for alternative production methods most notably the organic and local food movements, with the latter gaining greater momentum in recent years. Organic production and handling criteria became federally standardized in 1990, when

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) established the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) (Gold, 2007). As defined by the USDAs National Organic Standards Board, organic agriculture is: ... an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of offfarm inputs and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. While the organic food industry was estimated at a mere $1 billion the year the OFPA was implemented, it weighed in at just over $20 billion in 2008 (Dimitri, iii, 1), and grew an additional 8 percent the following year during one of the worst financial disasters of our countrys history. This incredible growth appears to have been driven almost exclusively by a previously unclassified segment of consumers, cutting across consumers of many conventional attributes of distinction income, ethnic background, family-size, etc. who base buying decisions on values more important than price alone (Greene, 3-5). The USDAs 2008 Organic Production Survey revealed that 74 percent of organic sales

distribution occurred within 500 miles of the farm, and 44 percent occurred within 100 miles (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010), so any attempt at a distinction between

Larimer 14

local food production and organic is problematic. Such comparison implies certified vs. uncertified within close geographic proximity to consumption, which is simply not accurate, since many industry organizations have emerged to provide more robust or specialized quality assurance criteria for specific markets like livestock and poultry. Many local, non-organic producers also claim to practice the same production methods, but simply refuse to deal with the time, expense and regulatory obstacles encountered during the certification process (USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2010). Some producers invent new descriptors and qualifiers for their production methods, others make no claim at all. One particularly promising methodology gaining traction is sustainable agroecology, an

ecologically pro-generative, knowledge-intensive approach to reintegrating natural processes and biodiversity with modern production practices to foster greater resilience and stability (Pretty, 2-3). Many prominent institutions the United Nations among them are calling for increased emphasis on such a model, which have so far proven to significantly increase crop yields, repair environmental damage and transfer massive quantities of carbon from the atmosphere back into the soil (Pretty, 3). And for small producers, increased diversity means not only greater variety for customers but also greater resiliency in the face of such challenges as single-product market saturation by large-volume competitors. Sustainable agroecology known by many names is already being employed by a

growing number of growers across the United States and around the world. Its methods do not fit squarely into any one category, but may be partially exhibited in practice by many producers across categorical divides. Events like organic-only meetings, however, deny nearby uncertified producers the opportunity to contribute to and learn from others strategies and experiences an invaluable step toward fostering more creative and intelligent behavior among market participants. Today there are literally thousands of groups around the country that seek to educate the public about sustainable agroecology (Hawken, 174).

Larimer 15

Exclusive categories simply do not hold up in a domain flooded with so many shades of

grey, yet it is this characteristically independent nature that binds these producers together in purpose. Unfortunately, this identity of independence also has the potential to farmers market ideological polarity among producers with contrasting methodologies, such as certified vs. uncertified. Therefore, it is far more productive in the scope of this projectto regard these producers for what they have in common: they are all independent small business owners who continuously face threats to their economic viability. Food production at any scale is chock-full of uncertainty, but small-scale operations that sell directly to consumers assume many of the same responsibilities that go with any retail business: developing a compelling offering, creating relationships with prospective customer segments, and exchanging through the right channels (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Customer-facing portion of the Business Model Canvas (Osterwalder, 28)

Larimer 16

Over the past two decades the boom of interest in alternative food sources has created

the opportunity for a myriad of hobbyists to consider going pro. Not all have taken the leap, however. These producers, who are not necessarily concerned with consistent revenues and cost-based pricing, can occasionally throw a wild-card into the marketplace for producers whose economic survival depends on those very things. Those who do take the dive into professional independent agriculture learn very quickly to diversify their offering and add as much value as possible to the goods they produce (Macher, 127-155). A diverse product mix and value-add processing can create far greater customer interest and greater profit margins than basic raw goods alone. Bio-diversity can also foster symbiosis, both in the ground and at the market (Salatin, 69). Accomplishing these tasks really only comprises the first half of the battle, however. Producers still need to let consumers in their communities know whats available in the first place, where to find it, and when. A 20012002 research project by the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education

Program at the University of California at Davis conducted foodshed assessments for three California counties that best reflect the condition of the states food system. The counties surveyed were either already highly urbanized or were experiencing steep population growth and land development. This makes the projects findings useful for small-scale producers just about everywhere, since local means in a city for 82% of the United States population (CIA, 2011). A resonant theme among these three reports is that direct marketing was absolutely critical to the viability of small farms in every county (King, 37). In Stanislaus county, farms using direct marketing strategies boosted gross receipts 105% (Anderson, 34), however such marketing activities required a substantial investment of time and capital (Anderson, 42). By the end of the study, the number of farms engaged in methods of direct marketing had dropped by 16% (Anderson, 34). This emphasis on direct marketing is echoed by acclaimed permaculture farmer-turned-author Joel Salatin, who warns that focusing on production without a comparable

Larimer 17

marketing strategy is a guaranteed way to go out of business (Salatin, 77), and that product development, promotion, and competitive retail pricing are all equally vital to the success of a small farm (Salatin, 67). Traditionally, market communication challenges like advertising and valuation have been

tackled collectively through a number of exchange models that reward participants for the synergy of their collective participation. A farmers market, as an economic event, is the best example. Producers benefit from shared advertising, cross-exposure to each others customers, and relatively low managerial overhead. Consumers enjoy great variety and exposure to producers who they might not otherwise have access to, in one place at one time. Buyers clubs and farmers cooperatives, on the other hand, emerged as ways for either party to achieve greater economic leverage by reaching a critical mass of supply (for farmers coops) or demand (for buyers clubs) which then satisfies a degree of uncertainty for the opposing party in the transaction. Another emerging model, the CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) is a cocreation partnership between producers and consumers, where buyers make requests and pay subscription fees or preseason deposits to producers in exchange for their services. Once again, a key strategy in the negotiation is for one party to mitigate the uncertainties of the other. The uncertainties that small-scale farmers face today are daunting enough, but what

about those that havent yet emerged? In 2005 a Whole Foods market study revealed that 73 percent of consumers thought organic food was just too expensive to make the switch (Whole Foods, 2005), but as was highlighted previously, conventional production has many critical uncertainties that could at any time cause volatile price shocks, possibly accompanying longterm shortages. But even if such a shock doesnt occur, gradual changes like waning oil reserves, shifting rainfall patterns, and the arrival of a few billion more people will certainly drive conventional prices higher over a longer time horizon. What might happen if the big-box

Larimer 18

grocery store cant compete with the farmers market? This is just one of many possible scenarios that concern producers in every category.

Figure 1.2. Three-dimensional Producer Matrix demonstrating the relationships among producers of various degrees of certification, geographic participation, and production scale. Change is inevitable, but will likely affect producers of different scale in different ways.

Such distinctions are shown in Figure 1.2. High oil prices will make distance prohibitive for large multinational operations, forcing either an active pursuit of new transportation technologies or a re-localizing of the value web through a round of aggressive acquisitions or possibly both. Regional producers may likewise be inspired to find new nearby markets, as illustrated in Figure 1.3. The collective variety of farmers markets can shelter specialized producers from this invasion by offering greater value (in this case, variety in one convenient location) than a single low-cost product at large volumes. This advantage is not guaranteed, however, and some

Larimer 19

markets may even embrace the large-volume invader for the value their participation would pass on to customers. How might small-scale, specialized producers cope when increasing transportation costs or emerging technology inspire large-volume regional producers of a similar specialty to sell directly to consumers in their own backyards? All participants will be forced to innovate to stay viable, however the largest operations may be the only ones financially capable of investing in the profound changes required by this hinge moment in history.

Figure 1.3. Innovative large-volume producers driven by prohibitive transportation costs enter smaller local markets, saturating entire product categories and driving specialized smallscale producers out of business.

Larimer 20

An Opportunity
A consequence and perhaps a benet of the independent food movements decentralized nature is heavy fragmentation and redundancy. In nature, such abundance of diversity is a sign of resilience, and greatly strengthens the ecosystem as a whole, since there is no single failure point threatening to bring the entire system to a halt. Perhaps a new set of tools could be created which leverage socially-driven exchange models to further mitigate the uncertainties that accompany small-scale food production and commerce.

Figure 1.4. Network effect of proposed socially-driven collaborative framework creates instances of greater economic gravity than large-scale suppliers can offer.

Larimer 21

An intelligent web-based platform that gives small-scale producers an opportunity to

team together and collaborate on market strategies and joint offerings could dramatically enhance the viability of independent food networks. By providing the necessary communication channels, feedback loops and responsive inventory management tools, these emergent business clusters could accomplish instances of greater economic gravity than the market forces which would otherwise undo them (Figure 1.4). Such a framework essentially commoditizes shelf space rather than food and gives producers and consumers an immediate communication channel to collaborate and even improvise when needed, alleviating signicant uncertainty on both ends. The challenge is rst to understand how independent food networks might cope with a

series of possible global food system failures, so that the capabilities of the system best reect the needs of its users. Not all local food economies are the same. Some are very large and robust and some just getting off the ground, with many various stages of development in between, so this framework must be adaptive and structurally renegotiable by the users who will populate it. Next, what kind of market models would best support and positively reinforce the "economies of synergy" that independent food systems are capable of achieving? Initial support of a particular model may be a means of achieving necessary adoption, but how should the industry look several years out, and what types of economic behaviors can be fostered to get there? Finally, to ensure that the needs and desires of the locale being studied are accurately represented, which members of the independent food network in Chatham County, Georgia, are best positioned to prototype and pioneer this new model?

Larimer 22

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Literature reviewed for this project covers a wide range of topics, from swarm creativity to business model innovation, from economic calculation to the economic empowerment of the modern web-enabled world. The purpose of this review is to establish a unifying theoretical lens through which to view the viability of igniting an explosion of self-organizing value creation among independent producers and consumers, in an increasingly interconnected environment of democratized resources and shifting values. The chapter begins with a founding perspective on how society constructs and implements knowledge to coordinate economic activity. Next, that perspective is extended to explore the implications and opportunities for entirely new modes of economic coordination that did not exist within the scope of independent food production prior to the proliferation of the world wide web.

Humanity has had a dramatic and fundamental relationship with food over the past 12,000 years. At the end of the last ice age the Earth rapidly entered a warming period, which was catastrophic for most of the large, furry four-legged mammals at that time. This was also bad news for humans, who had just invested thousands of years constructing a survival strategy that had suddenly become not only irrelevant but dangerous to pursue. Unless reasonable alternatives were discovered and adopted, humans very well could have followed the mammoth into extinction. This wasn't the rst ecological shock humanity faced, and it certainly wouldn't be

Larimer 23

the last. Situations change, and when they do only the most exible, inventive, and adaptive species will survive. High-protein hunters soon found themselves relying heavily on plant-based food, and

eventually focused their efforts on the most efcient and calorie-rich species of plants and animals available. Agriculture was born. Over time, individuals learned to produce more than enough food to feed themselves, allowing others to focus their time and talents on specialized pursuits that might generate unique exchangeable value of their own. Similarly, population centers began to specialize in different domains and trade lines were established to move goods across land and sea, pulled along by various modes and degrees of economic gravity. Agriculture emerged as a driving force of modern civilization, turning the raw bounty of nature into fuel for economic growth. So disruptive was this transition that nearly every aspect of social life was recongured around the new ecological and economic reality. A new balance had to be discovered, but getting there required the invention of new tools, exchange models, social congurations and responsibilities, governance, and risk abatement.

Socio-economic Foundation
Information is essential to every human endeavor, and the marketplace is no exception. The study of economics seeks to explain relationships between production, availability, distribution and consumption, but at its core it is a social science concerned with the choices and behaviors people exhibit in response to these factors; it is the science of choice under circumstance. The more information market participants individuals and organizations alike have at their disposal, the more intelligent their decisions will be. However, information is not always available nor easily accessed, especially in times of rapid, turbulent change. People are, as Peter Schwartz states in The Art of the Long View (1996), the scenario-building animal. By renegotiating and reassembling the causal relationships and circumstances that led to the

Larimer 24

present, people are able to construct elaborate stories of what could come to be, far into the future, and then consider the implications of the many causal relationships and uncertainties that connect the distant future back to today (Schwartz, 26-28). The real value of information comes from the knowledge that is generated through the rich exchange among actors. Thomas Davenport and Laurence Prusak, in Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know (1998), define knowledge as: ...a uid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers... (5) Or, more elegantly, knowledge derives from minds at work (5). Fritjof Capra, in The Hidden Connections (2002), emphasizes that the communication at

the heart of knowledge creation is not simply the passing off of information, but rather a means of coordinating behavior (83); it is the tethering force that binds all socially-driven endeavors together. Niklas Luhmann, in Essays on Self-Reference (1990), extends Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varelas classic contribution of the autopoietic system to social systems, and establishes communication as the mode of self-production and reproduction (3-9). Essentially, as Luhmann explains, communicating about communication itself recursive self-referential renegotiation recycles and reinforces the very composition of the network as well as its identity. In the words of Maturana, in Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization (1981): [...] through their interactions, generate and realize the network that produces them and constitute, in the space in which they exist, the boundaries of the network as components that participate in the realization of the network. (21). This process self-maintenance that occurs within social systems is the life blood of

creativity and rapid adaptation. The social reconguration of disparate concepts and objects from a past that is as Etienne Wenger says in Communities of Practice (1998) inherently ambiguous and open for renegotiation, brings forth original ideas, images, and methods that better address the challenges of the moment (83). Keith Sawyer, in Group Genius (2007),

Larimer 25

expounds on this theory, demonstrating how the complex task of facilitating collaboration among participants of diverse cultural and experiential backgrounds is rewarded with the richness and originality of the creative insights that can emerge (124-125). The inherent conflict of this social reality, as Friedrich Hayek notes in The Use of

Knowledge in Society (1945), is that ...the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form, but solely at the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess. (519) Therefore the chief economic problem of society, according to Hayek, is the difficulty involved in quickly and effectively adapting to spontaneous changes in circumstances across a vastly decentralized array of individual actors, each carrying just a few pieces of the puzzle (524). Traditionally, widespread economic coordination has been attempted by constructing

hierarchies of command, charged with consolidating information and issuing responses aligned with a central plan. Centralized decision-making according to Hayek in The Road to Serfdom (1949) can be not only painstakingly slow but, dangerously also disconnected from the needs and concerns of the individuals and communities affected by such decisions (57-58). In this way, the modern rationalization of agriculture has sought to standardize and tightly couple the interlinking pieces of production to remove variability and improve responsiveness to centrally administered adjustments. Conversely, more intelligent and responsive economic coordination can be achieved

because of decentralization, with the proper communication device(s) in place to allow the impact of individual decisions to cascade freely throughout the system. The price mechanism is just such a communication device, assigning objects an indexical score embodying the core values required to make a logical choice of substitution. The product of the price mechanism might actually be price the dominant device coordinating participation across the entirety of the modern global economy. Hayek demonstrates how, when availability or desire of an object

Larimer 26

change, its price also changes to reflect the adjustment. The man on the spot doesnt need to know why those changes have occurred, but rather how much more or less difficult achieving their goal will be (The Use of Knowledge in Society 525). As each decision invokes a reaction by those also connected to the event, information of the initial change is diffused throughout the marketplace. Fundamentally, in a system where the knowledge of the relevant facts is dispersed among many people, prices can act to coordinate the separate actions of different people in the same way as subjective values help the individual to coordinate the parts of his plan. (The Use of Knowledge in Society 526) The full realization of these criteria is catallaxy, a more appropriate concept than economy which Hayek denes in Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice (1978) as the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market (108-109). Ultimately, however, the signaling content of the price mechanism the variables

observed and corresponding information shared will be entirely contextual to its respective social system of production, which, according to J. Rogers Hollingsworth and Karl H. Mller in Advancing Socio-Economics: An Institutional Perspective (2003) ...consists of a society's norms, rules, habits, conventions, and values, which in turn inuence the institutional arrangements (e.g., markets, the state, association, networks) which are dominant in a society. In Contemporary Capitalism Hollingsworth and Karl H. Boyer discuss how such forms of economic coordination are increasingly difficult to establish in environments with a high diversity of interests and values, resulting in an increased prominence of hierarchical institutions (29). Communication of any kind economic, interpersonal, political, or other is a means, not an end in itself. Etienne Wenger, in Communities of Practice (1998), offers a deeper perspective into how mutually engaged groups of people are constantly at work constructing and renegotiating meaning, identity, and the very reality of their respective contexts (51, 149). Its not surprising,

Larimer 27

then, that social systems with divergent values and interests would be fundamentally incapable of responding to changes in a uniform manner, since information flowing among and between independent worldviews takes on entirely different meanings. Independent agriculture, as previously described, hosts a vast and dynamic landscape

of interests where value is not determined by traditional means of supply and demand. The incurred expense of choosing independently produced goods over conventionally massproduced food is offset by a wide range of values from an equally diverse assortment of worldviews. However, these social systems of flexible specialization, which Hollingsworth denes as diversied low-volume production with an emphasis on economies of scope (1998), share many of the same goals, opportunities, and threats. How then might these decentralized and fragmented production systems achieve better coordination so that the entire ecosystem as a whole may become more exible and responsive in the face of change?

A Well-Coordinated Revolution
The world is experiencing nothing short of a full scale revolution of collaboration and innovation, unleashed by the information and communication technology breakthroughs of the past sixty years. Todays web-enabled global citizen is more interconnected with and perhaps interdependent upon more people from a greater diversity of cultures and perspectives in their daily renegotiation of meaning, identity and reality than at any other time in history. What some claim is an era of runaway individualism, social isolation and abandoned privacy is in fact a series of examples of humanity doing exactly what it does best: removing constraints and uncertainty through technological leverage to join together in constructing a better tomorrow. In Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything, Don Tapscott and Anthony

Williams describe how people from all walks of life now have access to the tools and channels necessary to communicate and collaborate in nearly every mode of value creation imaginable,

Larimer 28

and express that it is profoundly changing the world as we know it (10-11, 247). Innovative companies like Google, Facebook, YouTube, Vimeo, Flickr and Wordpress have driven the proliferation of this collaborative infrastructure by carefully brokering relationships of exchange between many different types of customers within multi-sided platforms. Each customer segment benets directly from the value created by another. A wide range of previously capitalintensive web services email and messaging, le sharing, video compression and hosting, advertising, analytics, and content publishing has now become publicly accessible and dramatically affordable, dissolving barriers to participation and sparking an explosion of entrepreneurial innovation and value creation. For better or for worse information today knows virtually no boundaries, coursing

throughout the connected world to all who seek it faster than ever before. Yochai Benkler, in The Wealth of Networks (2006), explains how this enhanced access to information has profoundly empowered individuals to act with greater autonomy than ever before; to do more for and by themselves, and in loose commonality with others, without being constrained to organize their relationship through a price system or in traditional hierarchical models (Benkler, 8). The combination of low barriers to participation and this loose commonality among participants creates conditions for greater experimentation and exploration, particularly as Benkler emphasizesfor non-market or socially-driven endeavors (11). Richard Normann notes, in Reframing Business: When the Map Changes the

Landscape (2001), that many business ventures are no longer bound by physical location or hard assets to operate effectively (28-29). Today its all too common to hear of new companies launching with entirely virtual, geographically dispersed staff. In a radical reversal of Coases Theorem1 , eliminating the transaction costs that once justied the consolidation of production

Coases Theorem: Theorem by Ronald Coase detailing how, in the absence of transaction costs, trade in an externality will lead to the most efcient outcome for all parties involved.

Larimer 29

has now forced these operations back apart, signicantly changing the denition of strategic advantage (Tapscott, 55-57). Employees and independent contractors can now work from almost anywhere on Earth by leveraging these ubiquitous web-based application frameworks to communicate and collaborate as if they were in the same room as their peers. Established businesses are unbundling their non-critical operations, choosing instead to form symbiotic business webs where each player is free to innovate around their respective core contribution to the partnership (Normann, 51-55; Tapscott, 214-215). With an innovative vision and the right business logic, any member of the business web now has the opportunity to fundamentally reframe the nature of the game and quickly re-bundle the resources necessary to align and command a larger piece of the value creation process than they may legally own (Normann, 65-67, 83). The key pattern across all of these different contexts is that the autonomy gained by the

hyper-connectedness and free-ow of information fosters loose coupling a concept renewed by Orton and Weick in Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization (1990) within the complex, ever-evolving web ecosystem. Participants are free to explore and experiment within a universe of possibilities and dedicate their efforts where and with whom they choose. The dynamic topography of the social landscape underlying this environment sets the stage for a rich collage of perspectives, motivations and norms, and an equally vast mix of possible congurations and relationships, as well as alternative resources and competing initiatives. While this diversity suggests extreme discontinuity close-up, social activities coalesce

into recognizable, seemingly intelligent patterns of unied behavior from a far enough vantage point. Peter Gloor, research scientist at MITs Center for Collective Intelligence, explains how clouds of interest form around shared pursuits and exciting new ideas, and complex patterns similar to those seen in swarming organisms such as bees and migratory birds begin to emerge from human communication structures. As a community takes shape a meritocracy

Larimer 30

emerges within, establishing order based on the contribution and competence of these collaborative, mutually engaged members near the core of the swarm. In Coolhunting: Chasing Down the Next Big Thing, Gloor denes these Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs) as: cyberteams of self-motivated people with a collective vision, enabled by technology to collaborate in achieving a common goal an innovation by sharing ideas, information, and work (76). The diffusion of meaning through diverse social webs is anything but linear or orderly, but swarming behavior can be identied and even forecasted as people begin gravitating around original, innovative ideas and the COINs that bring them to fruition (Gloor, 45-46). Because trust and authenticity are so critical to the continuity of a meritocracy, members

have a genuine incentive to validate their own contributions, as well as the contributions of their peers. Through this peer-to-peer accreditation, Benkler explains, self-assembled interest clusters are self-regulating, rewarding favorable behavior and discouraging unfavorable ones, while ltering out extraneous information (Benkler, 12). This collective validation creates a structural basis for automatic coordination within the social system by feeding back relevant information that corrects and reinforces the communitys trajectory toward the ideal state implied by those very feedback loops.

Given the profound connective potential of the web, a truly powerful realization of Hayek's catallaxy could be achieved by empowering the autonomous clusters of interest that form around decentralized and fragmented production systems with a framework composed of instances of renegotiable forms of coordination. Essentially, such a framework would be structurally renegotiable with regard to the feedback loops each cluster chooses to coordinate within itself, while simultaneously promoting the free-ow of salient information among all clusters throughout the entire ecosystem.

Larimer 31

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

The purpose of this study is to deconstruct the market mechanics and social dynamics that drive independent food production in Chatham County in southeast Georgia. Specifically, this project asks Which types of a market models best support and positively reinforce the "economies of synergy" that independent food networks are capable of achieving? Next, this project asks Which members of the local community (Chatham County, GA) are best positioned to prototype and pioneer this new model? And finally, How will independent food networks respond to a series of possible futures? While economics seeks to explain the relationships between production, availability,

distribution and consumption, the discipline is essentially a social science concerned with the choices and behaviors people exhibit in response to these factors. It is the science of choice within parameters, contexts and circumstances. Independent food networks are as much about community as they are commerce, so to best understand the dynamics at play within the complexity one must identify the innovative thought-leaders at core of the social web, and learn to view the world through their eyes and empathize with their hopes, fears and aspirations.

Research Design
Figure 3.1 illustrates the phase progression of this project. This study progressed from wide consideration of market participants to the focused and extensive contextual immersion within the ongoing affairs of a sample of producers who are among the most central and influential in

Larimer 32

the area. Observational and participatory data from these experiences was sorted, clustered, modeled and mapped to achieve a holistic, systemic perspective of the social and economic drivers that dene the business environment. These models then informed the construction of several future scenarios which explore global drivers and their possible implications for local practice. Findings from all of these activities shape nal design criteria as well as establish a roster of the most inuential co-design candidates.

Figure 3.1. Illustrated research design

Larimer 33

Project Timeline This project will be conducted in four phases from May, 2010 to May, 2011 (Table 3.1).
Date Activities Details 4 months Exploring Opportunities for Technological Innovation and Reconguration in the Local Food Industry Exposing known unknowns, assumptions and biases to initiate secondary research Establishing criteria for innovator prole and ltering of prospects 2 months Contextual immersion and data collection; Iterative analysis and adaptation Site visits, semi-structured interviews, hands-on participation, photo documentation 7 months Ongoing data analysis and modeling; Strategic scenario development Data modeling, system mapping, business model canvas development 3 months

Phase 1: Field Study Preparation May 2010 Prospectus approval

May 2010 Aug. 2010

Secondary research; Developing interview protocol Identifying and contacting interview prospects

Aug. 2010

Phase 2: Field Research Aug. Sept. 2010

Phase 3: Data Analysis Sept. 2010 March 2011

Phase 4: Dene an Opportunity Space & Design Criteria March May 2011 Formalize ndings and design criteria; Identify co-design candidates Project completion and defense

May 2011

Table 3.1. Four-phase Project Timeline

Phase 1: Field Study Preparation

Revealing Known Unknowns and Assumptions Known unknowns and general assumptions about independent food commerce must be confronted for two very critical reasons. First, assumptions and subsequent biases must be articulated and neutralized to ensure purely objective inquiry and analysis. Second, confronting

Larimer 34

and categorizing known unknowns establishes clear topics for secondary research. This approach creates a solid foundation for developing an interview protocol with an informed, rened understanding of the context in question.

Secondary Research Secondary research explored the global drivers and trends that will affect local practice. The USDA has been tracking organic production and sales data for several years and is a reliable and recognized source of national statistics and analysis. The USDA has also produced extensive forecasts and projections for the U.S. agriculture industry, which indirectly provided a reliable starting point for constructing logic axes of driving forces. Secondary research was also drawn from industry reports and trade association publications, and social science journals, as well as university research projects at other universities. Finally, a series of Condor analyses were conducted to create a comprehensive view of conversation within the independent food community.

Identifying the Interviewee Group Engaging the most innovative and opinion-leading producers is critical to the success of this project. Innovators and early adopters adopter categories established by Everett Rogers in Diffusion of Innovations (2003) are generally quite proactive in adopting new ideas, methods and behaviors, and are widely regarded as such by their peers (Rogers, 283). Opinion leaders within a community are not only highly inuential, but also exemplify and express the systems structure (Rogers, 27). These participants perspectives and strategies will represent those of many other producers within their networks, providing a rich view into the community at large.

Larimer 35

Primary research conducted for this project focused on participants of two markets in

southeastern Georgia, the Forsyth Farmers Market in Savannah, and the Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market in Statesboro (Figure 3.2).

Figure 3.2. Two target markets within the projects geographic scope: The Forsyth Farmers Market, in Savannah, and The Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market, in Statesboro To identify the most central, inuential producers within these locales, a mixed methodology of observation was employed to blend environmental scanning, social network analysis, and simply asking around. Several student projects from the Savannah College of Art and Design have involved participants of the local food economy, including producers, market managers, and retail business owners. A handful of names have consistently come up in conversation with the students and faculty, who express that not only have these particular producers been very helpful to research projects, but that they have something special to share as well. Another practical approach to sampling the best suited producers is to simply remove

from consideration those who cannot be found online. Many of the producers matching the innovator/inuencer prole will be actively applying technology to the number one challenge facing small-scale producers, as established by the UC Davis study referenced in Chapter 1: direct marketing. These producers will be using online tools like promotional websites,

Larimer 36

Facebook, and newsletter mailing lists to connect with their customers, and are frequently referenced or cross-linked by other such producers. Many producers names appear on various online directories and farmers market vendor rosters, but for many that is the extent of their web presence. Remaining prospects not tting the prole of the socially-connected curator of new ideas ltered themselves from the list by simply not responding to the invitation to chat. However, a few producers who were frequently referenced in conversation by those who t the target prole were simply unable to spare the time to meet.

Identifying Leaders through Social Network Analysis Accurately identifying the innovators and thought-leaders of the local producer community is absolutely critical to the success of the eld research phase. To ensure accuracy, another perspective had to be woven into analysis: that of the crowd. Two distinct processes were employed to achieve this, each with a sophisticated piece of software created by Peter Gloor and his team of fellow researchers at MIT Center for Collective Intelligence. This program is called Condor. Condor allows you to create visual maps, movies and many graph metrics of relationships. Relationships can come from social networks, Web site link structures, and concept maps of unstructured documents, online forums, phone archives, e-mail networks, and many more. (Condor Manual 2.2, 2007) While Condor is as versatile as it is powerful, this analysis will only require a few key features. The rst is the Web Collector, which will query Google Search for specically constructed keywords and compile the results into an SQL database for later analysis. For each initial result a second query is executed for any possible web entities linking back to that result as well. This multi-degree search adds a rich layer of interconnectivity, allowing Condor to analyze and calculate relationships and various modes of centrality. The primary mode of centrality for this project will be betweenness centrality, which is a relative calculation of importance based on the

Larimer 37

number of shortest paths between nodes that run over each node. A node with the greatest betweenness centrality, therefore, is essentially a super-connector, enjoying the shortest path to all other nodes in the network. With regard to social networks, these nodes are the leaders. The rst step in this study was to identify and analyze the communication structure that

supports the collective conversation around such topics as local/organic food producers and markets within southeastern Georgia. By executing parallel queries that include a Google Search lter syntax near: followed by the ZIP code for each respective town, the results were contextualized to a web user from each locale. These localized results were then studied both independently and together as a merged communication view. This structure was then analyzed as a web of relationships among and between websites, news articles, blog entries, directory listings, and forums, revealing the most commonly referenced and interconnected nodes in the network. The second step in this study was to analyze the frequency and association of words

and phrases found within the content collected for each of the results of the rst step. Several parallel queries were executed for each locale, and the resulting data sets merged together, so that an aggregate content analysis could be conducted. One important feature of Condors term analysis functionality is the ability to feed in a startword list of key terms and phrases to lter against. In this case, a startword list of every identiable producer in the region was used so that the most frequently referenced and interconnected names were highlighted and analyzed within the data set. The goal of this phase is to identify the fulcrum of the conversation, where innovators

and common participants collide to share new ideas and learn from one another, and then to identify the most popular, commonly referenced producers within that conversation. The resulting list of crowd-elected producers was then approached during the next phase for interviews and rst-hand observation.

Larimer 38

Once interviews were underway, the community was further analyzed through ofine

social network analysis coupled with noted actor references and the guiding principle of the friendship paradox. The friendship paradox, as established by sociologist Scott Feld in Why Your Friends Have More Friends than You Do (1991), holds that any given person in a social network tends to have fewer friends than their friends do, and that randomly selected friends of initial participants will be closer to the center of the social network. By documenting and mapping early contacts and interviewees references to friends and professional colleagues involved in the local independent food network, actors of greater centrality and inuence were revealed for later consideration.

Phase 2: Field Research

Data Collection & Documentation The value of contextual immersion and participant observation cannot be overstated. Primary research included semi-structured interviews, frequent farm and market visits, hands-on participation and volunteer work. Data collected from these methods include transcribed interview audio, eld notes, email conversations, newsletters and marketing brochures.

Semi-structured Interviews A semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix A) was developed to engage interviewees in a strategic conversation about their current business success and challenges, past lessons learned, and concerns about the future. The goal of such an extensive protocol is not to cover each and every question verbatim, but rather to support several conversational elements. The protocol also includes several exercises and two printed worksheets intended to support a visual dialogue by engaging interviewees in simple diagramming and concept sketching,

Larimer 39

invoked during various stages of the interview session. All participants signed an informed consent document (Appendix B), establishing the boundaries and expectations of disclosure for any data collected from our meeting. The rst set of questions was designed to create a rapport and put the interviewee at

ease by discussing topics like the initial inspiration for getting into and staying in the business, favorite aspects of the business, signicant accomplishments from the past year and goals for the upcoming year. The interviewees were also asked to sort a deck of seven business attribute cards (Figure 3.3) in sequence of importance.

Figure 3.3. Sortable business attribute cards invoke a reflective conversation about importance The second set of questions built off of the rst, focusing on the time and techniques that

go into operating their business. This section also introduced a few hypothetical scenarios, like, If you could avoid doing one thing for the year, what would it be? and If you could only do one

Larimer 40

thing this year, what would it be? The purpose of these questions was to explore the time expenditures that distract from the real joy of the practice, and, once these truths have been surfaced, to articulate as many activities and expenses as possible. The third set of questions shifts perspective to reect on the partnerships and

relationships that are directly involved in the producers practice, and then to collaboratively sketch those interactions. This exercise did not produce elaborate diagrams every time, but a few great system maps were created when the information was forthcoming. The fourth set of questions focuses on arriving at an informed value proposition by

exploring marketing strategies, differentiation, exchange channels and customer relationships.

Figure 3.4. Annual timeline template

Larimer 41

Agricultural practices change dramatically with the seasons, so an annual timeline exercise was conducted (Figure 3.4) to help producers articulate shifting operations, expenses or concerns, as well as different expectations among partners or customers as the year progresses. The fth and nal set of questions brought everything together and shifted the

conversation forward into the future, beginning with a discussion about the interviewees source of inspiration and cause for admiration within their profession. After invoking heroes and thought leaders came probes for concerns about the future, one- and ve-year aspirations for their own business, and ten-year predictions for independent food production at large. Like each previous set, a hypothetical scenario was proposed. This particular exercise is based on a question borrowed from Kees van der Heijdens conversation protocol from Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation (2005). First, the interviewee was asked If you could ask a fortune teller three questions about the future and get three perfect answers, what would those questions be? Once the questions are established, the interviewee was asked to imagine that they are now the fortune teller, and to answer each question so that the future turns out better than the present. Finally, the interviewee was asked to answer those questions again, however from a perspective that the future will become much worse than the present. Responses to this exercise were incorporated into future scenarios which would directly impact this interviewee.

Data Collection Tools & Equipment Simple data collection tools were employed for this study. An iPhone Voice Memos app was used for recording interview audio and post-interview reections, which was then synced to iTunes for easy playback and transcription. Photo documentation of market events, interviews and tangible data analysis methods were also used. Condor (social network analysis software developed at MITs Sloan School of Management) was used to observe and analyze large virtual communities, as well as online activity concerning local actors within the study scope. All

Larimer 42

digital data was stored on a personal computer, as well as external and cloud backup storage. Notebooks, sketchbooks and Post-Its were used to capture, sketch, explore and articulate complex ideas, relationships and systems during the data collection phase.

Phase 3: Data Analysis Process & Procedures

Data collected during the second phase was analyzed extensively through a series of sensemaking and pattern-constructing methodologies.

Afnity Diagramming Key observations, statements, questions and perspectives were extracted from the transcript record of each interview and notes from spontaneous encounters. These individual extractions were saved on 3.5x5 notecards with a small reverse-side mark indicating the interviewee of origin. This allowed processing of cards both by interviewee and as an aggregated collection. Notecards were sorted into clusters as new and unique hierarchies and modes of relation emerged from the data (Figure 3.5). The goal of this process was to give the data voice so that it might reveal deeper patterns of behavior and causality than that of individual interviews alone.

Figure 3.5. Affinity Process: constructing categorical relationships to make sense of complexity.

Larimer 43

Business Model Canvas The business model canvas (Figure 3.6), developed by Alexander Osterwalder, Yves Pigneur and hundreds of volunteer contributors from around the web in their book, The Business Model Generation, is a tool for spatially reasoning with the many interconnected components of a business model. A business model is simply too complex and too abstract for a person to hold the entire concept in their mind. Osterwalder et al.s canvas enables effective deconstruction, exploration and prototyping of business models, not just by individuals but by collaborative teams as well.

Figure 3.6. Business Model Canvas: Key Partners (KP), Key Activities (KA), Key Resources (KR), Costs and Expenses ($C), Value Proposition (VP), Customer Relationships (CR), Channel (CH), Revenue Stream ($R), and Customer Segments (CS) (Osterwalder) A series of canvases were created to synthesize secondary research, but were further

rened as primary data became available through research. This iterative process helped expose initial misconceptions while laying the groundwork for more informed conversations

Larimer 44

about each interviewees business model and strategic approach to surviving in their particular business environment.

Strategic Scenario Development Findings from primary and secondary research were combined into a set of three scenarios: one exploring a future dened by business as usual, as held by the participants of the study as well as opinions and projections from the industry at large, and two alternative scenarios that cover a range of possible futures. These scenarios will ultimately provide high-level strategic guidance and design criteria for the concept development and prototyping phases.

Phase 4: Dene an Opportunity Space & Design Criteria

Formalizing Findings and Design Criteria The nal phase of this project was to articulate the ndings of this project through the establishment of design criteria for effective application and implementation. This phase also presents recommendations for future research and exploration.

Research Limitations
No local food economy is the same as any other. Some are very large and robust and some are just getting off the ground, with many various stages of development in between. The network analyzed in this study offers a limited number of actors matching targeted adopter categories. While the goal is to achieve rich, qualitative depth of understanding, the small sample size available in this particular context may produce ndings that are inherently limited in their widespread application.

Larimer 45

Chapter 4: Analysis & Findings

The guiding research questions of this project were designed in such a way that satisfying the rst would provide the foundational basis for the next, which would then support the last. This means analysis was conducted for each question concurrently with preparation for the next. The rst question, Which producers within the local independent food network are best positioned to represent the community at large? required a blended methodology of environmental observation and social network analysis. The resulting collection of producers and afliations were then approached with a wide array of primary research methods to reveal greater patterns within the tacit hopes, fears, opportunities and challenges of the community, as well as which the second question probes the market models which are emerging to face the gravity of this shared reality. Finally, a series of strategic scenarios will be developed to concretize these collective patterns and insights to offer an answer to the third question, How might this independent food network cope with dramatic change brought by global volatility? It is important to highlight that these cycles of exploration and analysis did not occur in a

strictly linear procession, but in iterative loops, returning to renegotiate previous ndings as more information came to light. For the sake of brevity and coherence, however, analysis and ndings will be presented in a linear fashion following the guiding research questions, with iterative progression expounded when necessary.

Larimer 46

Identifying Thought-Leaders within the Local Independent Food Network

The approach to identifying the most central, well-connected producers within the network involves a four-part Condor analysis. The goal of this analysis will be to discover which producers people in Savannah and Statesboro, Georgia, are talking about, and where that conversation exists online.

Step 1: Identifying Central Hubs and Brokers The rst step is to nd where the collective conversation is taking place. If someone living in either Savannah or Statesboro, Georgia, wanted to go online and learn more about the independent food producers or markets in their area, what would they search for, and what might they nd? Two very simple queries were constructed: local organic and farmer market. Also, since Condor allows Google Search ltering syntax to be passed along with each request, each query was forked to include either near:31401 for Savannah, and near:30458 for Statesboro. This resulted in the following four queries: local organic near:31401 local organic near:30458 farmer market near:31401 farmer market near:30458 Communication Views for local organic near:31401 and local organic near:

30458 (Figure 4.1) reveal particular websites that have high betweenness centrality, connected to the queries and to each other as well (Table 4.1). PickYourOwn.org appears frequently throughout many of the analyses, however upon further inspection the site appears to be a directory with content focused at the entire continent, much like AmericanTowns.com and LocalFarmMarkets.org. FarmerD.com and GeorgiaOrganics.org are very relevant, and were quite frequently referenced in conversation with colleagues and contacts within the network

Larimer 47

throughout the entire project. WalkerOrganicFarm.com is also an interesting nd, being the only website of a producer to make the list.

Figure 4.1. Communication View for local organic near:31401 and local organic near:30458

Actor

Betweenness Centrality

local organic near:31401 www.pickyourown.org www.americantowns.com local organic near:30458 www.farmerd.com www.walkerorganicfarm.com www.localfarmmarkets.org www.georgiaorganics.org www.savannahgreensource.com www.eatwild.com

0.53621596 0.4464443 0.4240562 0.2956541 0.25329235 0.06453028 0.035557505 0.030728709 0.029411765 0.0061457413

Table 4.1. Actors listed by betweenness centrality for local organic near:31401 and local organic near:30458. WalkerOrganicFarm.com is the only listed website of a producer.

Larimer 48

Communication Views for farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:

30458 (Figure 4.2) show a slightly different set of websites connected to those particular queries and each other with varying degrees of betweenness centrality (Table 4.2). A few new names popped up during this search, including as SavannahVisit.com, N-Georgia.com, SCADDistrict.com, and Events.WSAV.com (a local news station). These sites all feature some kind of an events calendar, and it is probable that they have at some time directly referenced a farmers market in the area. MainstreetStatesboroFarmersMarket.com and ForsythFarmersMarket.org are the ofcial websites of the two markets within the scope of this study. CoastalOrganicGrowers.org, however, was a surprise. Upon further investigation, Coastal Organic Growers (COG) is an independent growers network that includes producers from all across the region.

Figure 4.2. Communication View of farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near: 30458

Larimer 49

Actor

Betweenness Centrality

farmer market near:31401 www.pickyourown.org www.americantowns.com savannahvisit.com www.city-data.com www.n-georgia.com www.myrecipes.com culturemob.com farmer market near:30458 www.scaddistrict.com www.mainstreetstatesborofarmersmarket.com www.forsythfarmersmarket.org www.localfarmmarkets.org events.wsav.com upperocmulgeeriver.com coastalorganicgrowers.org

0.8292693 0.28020948 0.26568162 0.26634383 0.222333 0.14613304 0.13046575 0.13046575 0.10284869 0.049992878 0.03677539 0.03751604 0.03067229 0.016806724 0.013865551 0.008631243

Table 4.2. Actors listed by betweenness centrality for farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458. A nal combined Communication View (Figure 4.3) shows the overlapping

interconnectivity of the sites returned in these four queries. Highlighted websites in Table 4.3 are to be the most relevant and vital to information ow within the web-enabled independent food network. The websites for Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market, Forsyth Farmers Market, and Coastal Organic Growers all publish rosters of participating producers and vendors, which sets the stage for the next step.

Larimer 50

Figure 4.3. Communication View of local organic near:31401, local organic near:30458, farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458.

Actor

Betweenness Centrality

farmer market near:31401 local organic near:31401 www.pickyourown.org www.americantowns.com savannahvisit.com www.city-data.com www.n-georgia.com www.farmerd.com www.myrecipes.com culturemob.com local organic near:30458 www.localfarmmarkets.org farmer market near:30458 www.scaddistrict.com www.mainstreetstatesborofarmersmarket.com

0.655538 0.28038993 0.27238503 0.2602706 0.21861896 0.21007833 0.119094215 0.12133072 0.106234275 0.106234275 0.09656211 0.06737153 0.06265235 0.04053676 0.028409997

Larimer 51

Actor

Betweenness Centrality

www.forsythfarmersmarket.org www.walkerorganicfarm.com www.savannahgreensource.com www.georgiaorganics.org www.associatedcontent.com upperocmulgeeriver.com events.wsav.com coastalorganicgrowers.org

0.02700079 0.023652267 0.013605442 0.006523157 0.011604976 0.007380325 0.013605442 0.011278509

Table 4.3. Actors listed by betweenness centrality for local organic near:31401, local organic near:30458, farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458. A nal Communication View for forsyth farmers market and statesboro farmers

market (Figure 4.4) reveals that Facebook is a super-connector between these two markets. Once again, Coastal Organic Growers also shows its importance as a brokering entity.

Figure 4.4. Communication View for forsyth farmers market and statesboro farmers market reveals top websites connected to these phrases, and to each other as well.

Larimer 52

Step 2: Constructing a Complete Local Producer Roster A comprehensive list of producers participating in the Forsyth Farmers Market and the Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market was created by merging the published rosters from both organizations websites. The Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market publishes a webaccessible PDF Farmers and Vendors, and Forsyth Farmers Market lists producers on their Vendors web page. Coastal Organic Growers Member Farmers roster was also included, since this group emerged as an important tie between the two markets. A few popular restaurants and non-growers appeared on the initial compilation, and were removed to ensure accuracy for this producer-only analysis. Throughout the early phases of this project, a number of producers names consistently

came up in conversation with faculty members, colleagues and initial contacts within the Savannah independent food network. However, producers names were often abbreviated, shortened or otherwise botched altogether. For example, Hope Grows Farm was commonly referenced as just Hope Grows, and Walker Farms Organic Produce might just be called Walker, or Relinda Walker the name of the owner. Slightly modied duplicates were also included in the nal roster, including variable conjunctions like & and and.

Step 3: Applying the Roster to Content Analysis The original queries farmer market near:31401 and farmer market near:30458 were reproduced in a second round of Condor analyses, along with a second set of location-specic queries: farmers local organic near:31401 and farmers local organic near:30458. Unlike before, however, these queries were executed with the additional command to retrieve and index all of the content from hundreds of returned source pages. This content could then be merged into a single data set and ltered against the nal producer roster properly known as a

Larimer 53

startword list (Appendix C) created in the previous step. Each instance of a word or phrase from the startword list found in the content is then counted, resulting in a total frequency of use for every supplied word or phrase (Figure 4.5). This frequency ranking equates to the number of times each producer was referenced by a news article, blog post, photo caption, etc. The most commonly mentioned producers, therefore, are the most interesting, socially active and news-worthy participants of the independent food network within the targeted locale.

Figure 4.5. Resulting producer list, sorted and numbered by overall frequency of use within filtered content.

Larimer 54

Step 4: Selecting the Target Research Group The majority of the target research group appear on the list returned in the previous step. The goal was to engage the most central, inuential producers in the area, however other important factors played into the selection process. As outlined in earlier chapters, differences of scale play a critical part in determining how external forces will affect different operations. Also, some producers may have only recently achieved full-time professional status or are considering doing so, whereas others have been in the business for many years. The following list of prospects was created to address these many variables: Walker Farms Organic Produce Established professional operation focused on selling to larger buyers and wholesale distributors, as well as supplying produce to Cha-Bellas box program in Savannah.
Photo: GeorgiaOrganics.org

Hunter Cattle Company Established professional operation that started as a hobby, primarily focused on selling within the immediate locale. (Forsyth and Statesboro)
Photo: HunterCattle.com

Hope Grows Farms Young professionals, focused on local involvement but quickly becoming nationally known for their innovative methods and determination. (Forsyth and Statesboro)
Photo: GeorgiaOrganics.org

Heritage Organic Farms Established professional operation. Owner Shirley Daughtry founded the Coastal Organic Growers network, which now supports a successful weekly subscription produce box program.
Photo: GeorgiaOrganics.org

Larimer 55

Reads Bees A newcomer to the Forsyth Farmers Market, self-declared hobbyist considering the risks and challenges of scaling up in volume.

Photo Not Available

Gratitude Gardens (formerly known as Giddens Garden) A hobbyist/CSA with a growing support base and an interest in exploring types of exchange other than the almighty dollar.

Photo: LocalHarvest.org

Teri Schell Manager for the Forsyth Farmers Market and member of the Savannah Local Food Collaborative.

Photo: SoGreenNetwork.org

Cluster Validation by Consumer Questionnaire A consumer questionnaire (Appendix D) was developed which focused on exposing structural patterns in the social composition of Hope Grows Farm, as well as identifying common overlaps with other producers. The survey was created as a Google Docs form and distributed to Hope Grows Farms 500-contact newsletter list, as well as their 500+ friends on Facebook. A unique short-url was created for each channel so that analytics could be captured to compare click-thru participation. Over 150 clicks were logged, with over 75% of activity happening in response to the email link. It is possible, however, that many of Hope Grows email contacts are also Facebook friends. Fifty-four respondents actually completed the questionnaire. The average customer

relationship is 2 years 7 months, with a slight majority (60%) of respondents buying less than

Larimer 56

every week, but at least once per month. A staggering 92.5% of respondents either"stumbled upon [Hope Grows] at the market" (76%) or intentionally "sought them out" (17%) (Figure 4.6).

Figure 4.6. Chart of responses for How were you first introduced to this producer? However, more than half of respondents reported having between 1 and 5 friends who also buy from Hope Grows, and more than 5 friends who visit the same market (Figure 4.7).

Figure 4.7. Chart of responses for How many of your friends also shop from this producer? and How many of your friends shop at the same market(s)?

Larimer 57

These groups of friends coincidentally found their way to the market and bought eggs, or these friendships were forged at the market, suggesting a dense network of social ties has been woven together throughout the marketplace. This should also highlight how absolutely critical it is that producers maintain persistent community participation. Another important question asked of Hope Grows Farms customers was to list any other

producers whom they frequently patronize. Figure 4.8 illustrates the responses to this question as a word cloud, with terms scaled by frequency of mention. The official frequency rank for mentioned producers is: 1. Clark and Sons 2. Hunter Cattle 3. Walker Farms Organic Produce 4. OakTree Organic Farm 5. Southern Swiss Dairy

Figure 4.8. Word cloud generated with responses to Which other producers do you buy from frequently, and what do you value most about them?

Larimer 58

Field Research: Trends and Patterns

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven participants four identied as central and inuential, one market manager, and two hobbyists for a total of 13 hours 18 minutes of insightful conversation (Table 4.4).
Interviewee Type Interview Time Location

Walker Farms Organic Produce Hunter Cattle Company Hope Grows Organic Farm Heritage Organic Farms Reads Bees Gratitude Gardens Teri Schell Total Interview Time

Produce Farmer Grass-fed Beef Poultry, Pork Produce Farmer Honey Bees Produce Farmer Market Manager

00:55:23 01:21:06 04:20:01 01:46:27 01:31:51 01:43:37 01:44:40 13 hrs 18 min

Phone Farm Sentient Bean Farm Firehouse Subs Quiznoz Forsyth Park

Table 4.4. Interviewee types, times and locations Each interview was recorded with the iPhone Voice Notes app, imported to iTunes and manually transcribed. Signicant details from the transcripts were then highlighted and transferred to 3.5 x 5 notecards, sorted into decks and marked by interviewee for focused analyses (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9. Stacks of notecards resulting from interview transcripts

Larimer 59

Hobbyists Becoming Professionals

The incredible swell of support for independent food producers organic and non-organic, alike has opened the door for many aspiring hobbyists to pursue food production as a full-time career. This analysis focused on the patterns and discontinuities among producers occupying three stages of that trajectory: amateur/hobbyist, semi-pro (or part-time), and professional (full-time). Gratitude Gardens best exemplies the hobbyist. They are no strangers to the garden, but their pursuit is, in their own words, not about business, and not so much about customers as it is about friends. At the time of the interview, their CSA was just completing its rst year. Reads Bees, also in its rst year, exemplies the semi-professional part-time split of a hobby showing the promise of becoming a viable, cash-ow positive business. Finally, Hunter Cattle Company, a family business in its seventh season, exemplies the conclusion of this trajectory from a hobby to a full-time professional operation. Notecards for interviews with these three producers were spread out across a large table

and clustered into themes and topics, as shown in Figure 4.10. A story soon emerged.

Figure 4.10. Clustering notecards into emergent themes and topics to identify patterns While their perspectives on the value of certication were as different as night and day, several common threads emerged from the analysis. All three producers believe in earning customers trust through integrity, and derive personal fulllment and enjoyment from the honest nature of their work. All three also set their prices by undercutting their closest perceived competitor. For

Larimer 60

Hunter Cattle and Reads Bees that means wholesale distributors and similar nearby operations. For Gratitude Gardens that means Wal-Mart. Hunter Cattle and Gratitude Gardens both expressed a longing to take money out of the equation. Gratitude Gardens was interested in exploring bartering and volunteer labor: wish we could all just show up and trade! Hunter Cattle longed to just be able to give beef away: Wow, is that grass-fed beef? Yes it is, and Id like to give it to you. The underlying motivations informing these few similarities, however, stem from two fundamentally different realities. Figure 4.11 shows a cultural model of the inuential actors and organizations involved in

these three producers operations.

Figure 4.11. Cultural Model of Hunter Cattle Company, Reads Bees and Gratitude Gardens (See Appendix E for a full-size graphic)

Larimer 61

Figure 4.12 illustrates the growth trajectory of a producer from hobbyist to full-time

professional, based on a composite of the stories shared by the three aforementioned producers. All three producers had previous careers. Read Nichols (Reads Bees) and Del and Debra Ferguson (Hunter Cattle) were previously involved in construction, and found their way to their current endeavor through the recommendation of friends. Then, as Del and Debra exclaimed, The demand found us! Growing to meet that demand took time, however, to which Read can also attest. Read Nicholss operation is hindered by supply limitations, but increasing volume requires more time, and he wonders, How much can I put in and still be happy with what Im doing? Developing the business into a full-time operation also required the Fergusons to become students of their craft. Georgia Organics, a non-prot organization focused on promoting healthy local food economies, offers a wealth of information to producers and consumers alike, and was extremely helpful in the early days of Hunter Cattles venture.

Figure 4.12. Growth trajectory from hobbyist to full-time professional (See Appendix F for a full-size graphic)

Larimer 62

The real challenge to growth becomes apparent once supply limitations are overcome.

There is a balance to maintain. Simply increasing supplyand the resulting variable costs of production without the supporting market demand can be disastrous. As the Fergusons said, ...we need to add customers while we grow our stock. The consumer questionnaire (Appendix D) revealed one very important nding from consumers who also reported buying frequently from Hunter Cattle: 92.5% of respondents eitherstumbled upon [them] at the market" (76%) or intentionally "sought them out" (17%) (Figure 4.6). More indicative of this participation-driven social reality is Del and Debra Fergusons weekly summer-time itinerary: Interviewer: So, how much time do the markets take up in a week? Del: "Per market averages around 6 hours, and we have to have at least 2 people.. so 12 man-hours at least, per market. Sometimes we have other events, like Saturday afternoon, we'll leave a market and head to another event where we'll be meeting people and grilling burgers.. You know, the best selling tool we have is people actually tasting the product." Debra: "We do ve different markets, and one of them we do twice.. so SIX in a week." Del: "We have marketing where we're letting people know where we are, what we're doing, we constantly have to go to areas where people will nd us.. festivals, functions, things like that. We have festivals also where we sell our product as hamburgers or brisket sandwiches, or BBQ ribs.. stuff like that. That's us trying to reach new people.. and that's what farmers markets are.. reaching customers directly. We also have to tell our customers where else they can go pick up our product.." Without this direct exposure the Fergusons would not be able to grow their business, but they already dedicate 72 man-hours per week to maintain their presence at the markets. Continuing to grow their stock will require a far greater time commitment than the Ferguson family is currently capable to delivering without further departure from the reason they started: Del: I bought the land and the cows because I enjoy being on the land, with the cows. [...] It's about enjoying being in it. But no, I got to be at all those markets, I've gotta be delivering to stores, I've got to call all those customers, I've got to be on the internet, you know, doing research and whatever. The actual thing that I like is what I don't get to spend the time doing."

Larimer 63

Another key distinction between the three producers considered in this analysis is the attitude toward expenses and losses. Gratitude Gardens reported spending close to $3,000 on their garden and gave away nearly $2,000 of produce, while only collecting about $500 for the year. Career producers like Hunter Cattle, on the other hand, are more likely to substitute extra time or personal labor to avoid taking such a signicant loss.

Attributes of Success This exercise was completed with ve of the seven interviewees. The following index lists each attribute with a corresponding number in Table 4.5: 1. Word-of-Mouth Reputation 2. Your Story 3. Providing a Healthy, Nutritious Product 4. Local Business 5. Production Methods 6. Reaching New Customers 7. Retaining Loyal Customers
ATTRIBUTE CARD-SORT RESPONDENTS Read Nichols Hunter Cattle Co. Forsyth Farmers Market Gratitude Gardens Hope Grows Heritage Organic Farms Walker Farms Organic Produce Cert? NO YES N/A NO NO YES YES Range Local Regional Regional Local Local Regional Regional Seasons Status 1 7 2 1 2 6 8 Semi Career Career Hobby Career Career Career Meet Place Firehouse Subs Farm Market Quiznoz Sentient Bean Farm Phone (Home) 1 1 4 3 4 2 2 7 6 5 3 5 3 5 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 7 7 7 5 6 2 6 2 3 6 4 5 4 6 6 7 3 3 2 5 1 -

Table 4.5. Data collected from Attributes of Success exercise. Data could not be collected for Heritage Organic Farms and Walker Farms Organic Produce, due to location of interview

Larimer 64

Unfortunately, data for this exercise was not collected while interviewing Heritage Organic Farms and Walker Farms Organic Produce, due to the circumstances and locations of either meeting. All career/semi producers put less of an emphasis on the Your Story card, whereas

Gratitude Gardens (hobbyist) gave it a higher score. Interestingly, this particular attribute, which was deliberately ranked so low in importance, was a central theme in almost every interview. Understandably, no one wants to proclaim telling the world why Im so great is job number one, but making sure that the story was conveyed in some way did turn out to be a critical aspect of building a loyal following. The story should be accessible, but not pushed. All producers except for Gratitude Gardens gave Retaining Loyal Customers a high rank. Nearly all of the producers thought being known as a local business was the last

possible reason for success, except for Read Nichols (Reads Bees), a newcomer trying to decide between maintaining the hobby or scaling up in volume. Read expressed in the interview that local conveys that people know they can trust you and contact you at any time. This theme of honesty and integrity resonated throughout his interview, not as a characterization of his business, but of how he wanted to be known as a person. In fact, this theme resonated through most interviews to a certain degree, however, other producers found other attributes to be more signicant in their daily business dealings. All producers ranked Reaching New Customers near the bottom of the list, and always

lower than Word-of-Mouth Reputation, which received signicantly higher marks. Most of the producers felt the power of word of mouth awareness and friend recommendations were driving growth. The general strategy driving the full-time professionals in the set is to keep loyal customers happily engaged, focus on improving production methods and maintaining quality, and things will be just ne.

Larimer 65

Seasonal Operations, Shifting Priorities Annual timeline graphic worksheets were introduced to focus the conversation around how operations and priorities change throughout the year. Figure 4.13 shows three of these exercises, conducted with Hope Grows Farms, Hunter Cattle Company, and Reads Bees.

Figure 4.13. Three sample timeline worksheets completed during interviews Hope Grows Farm, Hunter Cattle Company, and Reads Bees Figure 4.14 shows an illustrated composite of all three of these worksheets. The cyclical nature of independent food production becomes very clear when illustrated in this way. Early spring requires careful preparation of the life cycles which will carry the operation throughout the season. Read is checking his bees, looking for parasites and making sure hive construction is healthy and strong. Del Ferguson, at Hunter Cattle Company, is weaning calves and castrating bulls. A few markets in the area open early, but by April the weekly rush is in full swing and will continue until the markets close in December. During the summer and fall there are numerous challenges for producers time. The

Fergusons often spend 70-80 man-hours at markets every week, while somehow nding time to manage a second round of breeding and four hay cuttings. Read Nichols is less occupied by comparison, but has the unique challenge of conserving his limited supply so that it lasts through the end of the market season. By November the focus begins to shift away from markets, sales and production, and

more toward winding down for the winter and revitalizing the stock. Arianne and Elliot at Hope

Larimer 66

Grows Farm take advantage of the offseason to focus on large infrastructure projects, recounting how that time is where they have to spend money to make money. Once project money runs out, its time to start gearing back up for the next season. Some producers try to maintain sales during the offseason, which can prove difcult

since the markets are closed. During a follow-up interview, Arianne of Hope Grows explained that a few producers were banding together to put on informal meet-ups right across the street from where the Forsyth Farmers Market is normally held. Producers would coordinate with their customers through email and everyone would meet at a designated spot once a month to chat and exchange goods.

Figure 4.14. Illustrated mashup of timeline worksheets completed during interviews Hope Grows Farm, Hunter Cattle Company, and Reads Bees

Larimer 67

Full-time Professionals Moving Forward

Data collected for professional, full-time producers and one market manager was analyzed separately to reveal patterns and ambitions emerging from seasoned market participants. This analysis includes Walker Farms Organic Produce, Hunter Cattle Company, Hope Grows Farm, and Heritage Organic Farms, as well as Teri Schell, market manager of the Forsyth Farmers Market in Savannah, Georgia. Since these individuals were identied and contacted based on their centrality and perceived inuence within the community, their business strategies and concerns are signicant within the greater marketplace of ideas. The producers involved in this analysis represent a wide range of possible exchange

models. Walker Farms Organic Produce sells to large wholesale distributors. Hunter Cattle Company and Hope Grows Farm are heavily involved with the farmers markets in Savannah and Statesboro, as well as some moderate low-volume commercial sales within either community. Heritage Organic Farms coordinates produce from a regional network of growers who collaborate on various projects, including a food box program that drops over 500 food boxes every month. Heritage Organic Farms also supply a few local businesses in Savannah. Hunter Cattle Company, Hope Grows Farm and Heritage Organic Farms all expressed

great enthusiasm for growing their businesses but felt severely maxed out for time and were unsure of the best way to proceed. Relinda Walker of Walker Organic Farms said her operation is as big and diversied as she would like it be, and is actually looking for ways to either make better use of what she has or scale back down and return to direct-market sales. Notecards containing key observations and quotes were sorted into clusters to identify

patterns within interviewees perspectives and sentiments (Figure 4.15). Several dominant patterns and distinctions emerged around the aforementioned exchange models and the marketing required to make each successful.

Larimer 68

Figure 4.15. Clustering notecards into emergent themes and topics to identify patterns Figure 4.16 illustrates these patterns and distinctions in the form of a Cultural Model mapped against the 4 Ps of Marketing: Product, Promotion, Place, and Price. Ties between objects and topics are color-coded to show positive (green) and negative (red) sentiment. An interesting distinction emerged within the Promotion quadrant of how producers

establish the value of their operation to customers. Heritage Organic Farms was the rst farm in Georgia to become certied Organic by the USDA. Shirley Daughtry, Heritage Organic Farm owner and Coastal Organic Growers founder, was unwavering in her support for the federallyadministered label, and believed non-certied produce from her area was actually dangerous to consume. You just cant trust words like sustainable or natural what does that really mean? Teri Schell also supports the label as a symbol of trust. People are happy if they feel they can trust a farmer. Relinda Walker from Walker Farms Organic Produce was initially committed to the practices of organic farming but gained certication for its value as a marketing instrument. Hunter Cattle Company pursued certications that are actually more difcult to acquire than USDA Organic which offered much needed specicity for their product. Hope Grows Farm is unwilling and unable to get certied. Organic chicken feed is simply too expensive and would drive their prices to staggering heights. The real issue is trust. Acquiring certication is one effective way to earn customers trust, but it is clearly not the only way.

Larimer 69

Figure 4.16. Cultural Model mapped to the 4 Ps of Marketing: Product, Promotion, Place, Price The concept of community validation emerged throughout all of the interviews. Arianne

McGinnis of Hope Grows Farm commented that people need to decide what kind of production theyll support. Arianne and Elliot, the two minds behind Hope Grows Farm, are passionately committed to their principles of growing food responsibly and with integrity. Their methodology is known as post Organic, for the added depth of ecological involvement which they practice.

Larimer 70

While the signicance of this might be lost on the novice market-goer or outsider, the mission of Hope Grows Farm is not simply to peddle as many eggs as possible. The mission is to help drive a movement; to grow the community. Once that novice market-goer steps inside and experiences the energy of that community, certications mean very little. This idea extends to all of the producers involved. Certications help attract new customers to the fold, but what really keeps them coming back is the social experience that weaves them into the marketplace.

Individual Farmers Market Vendors Farmers markets are the natural stronghold of the social experience: weekly community events where friendships are catalyzed, regulars can catch up with their favorite growers, and parents can educate their children about what kind of food is grown in their area. As was revealed previously, many farmers owe their strong customer bases to consistently being stumbled upon by passers-by. However, as highlighted with red ties in Figure 4.16, this particular model is not without its fair share of challenges and frustrations. A common complaint is that committing to a market requires a signicant investment of

time for preparation and travel. Then once the day arrives, Shirley Daughtry asks, What happens if [your produce] doesnt sell? A poor customer turn-out is not only discouraging after a long week of hard work, but signicantly threatening to the viability of the growers as well. Teri Schell emphasizes how important it is that loyal customers bring their friends, because without enough shoppers the vendors will stop coming. This challenge is compounded in regions such as southeast Georgia, which Teri described as not having many qualied farms to work with in the rst place. Most farmers have CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture) and dont need to come here. Also, many farmers markets close in the winter, even though some farmers are still capable of producing food. It is understandably risky for producers to rest their security solely on a market model fraught with variability and uncertainty.

Larimer 71

Figure 4.17 illustrates the business model of an independent grower selling at a market.

The primary value proposition of a market is a rich variety of fresh, healthy food produced with integrity. A wide range of customers are attracted, including restaurant chefs and other such commercial buyers who wouldnt have access to so much product diversity in one place. To accomplish this exchange, producers rely on each other and the market manager (and possibly community development groups) to adequately promote the event to ensure a strong turnout.

Figure 4.17. Business Model Canvas for individual growers participating in farmers markets

Larimer 72

Producers spend a lot of time picking, packaging and then transporting their goods to the market, along with their booths and other necessary equipment. Once customers show up farmers have to balance scal responsibility with social interaction. Arianne explains, I don't have much time at the market. It's a transaction. I spend the whole week farming and then I have 5 hours to make money - just ve. Expenses vendors incur in addition to hours spent include labor wages, fuel, packaging and containers, processing costs and possible market membership fees. A few clever and replicable strategies emerged from the interviews which have the

potential to create signicant cost savings. An organization called World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms, more commonly known as WWOOF, matches eager volunteers with sustainable farms around the world. These volunteers, called WWOOFers, exchange part-time labor for housing, food and months of hands-on education. Hope Grows Farm has hosted several WWOOFers in the past, and Heritage Organic Farms expressed an interest in hosting WWOOFers in the near future. Gratitude Gardens, from the previous analysis, mentioned hosting a few world-wandering volunteer WWOOFers. By incorporating the WWOOFer exchange program into a farms operation, a market-going grower offsets signicant time and labor expenses for pre-market preparation and packaging. By delegating some of the transaction-specic tasks, the grower could also free up more personal time for chatting with customers and fellow vendors. Another great idea that surfaced from discussions is the idea of a truck-share, much

like the ride-share and carpooling programs that commuters have adopted in recent years. During the interview with Walker Farms Organic Produce, Relinda considered going back to direct sales at farmers markets. One of the big obstacles, however, is fuel to make the trip. Driving my Tundra to Savannah every week is still a big deal at 17 miles-per-gallon. Relinda then explained an idea of pooling resources with nearby farmers to acquire and operate a

Larimer 73

shared truck to haul everyones produce to the area markets. The concept had yet to be validated, but that kind of innovative thinking will surely lead to breakthrough concepts.

Individual Wholesale Suppliers Similar concerns emerged for producers supplying large wholesale buyers. As Arianne from Hope Grows warns, Depending on just one buyer is dangerous. Committing a large portion of production to a single buyer could end in disaster if that buyer should decide to switch suppliers. Another problem with this channel is the time required to coordinate schedules, track orders and invoices, process changes and special requests and follow up after deliveries. Relinda Walker, of Walker Farms Organic Produce, recounts her own experience with large wholesale buyers. They make it easier for themselves, but it makes it harder for you to t their system... its a pain in the butt! Arianne also cautions that these large distributors want to squeeze you to do more for less... to get bigger or get out altogether. For many producers, that simply isnt why they got into this line of work in the rst place. Figure 4.18 illustrates the business model of an independent grower supplying

wholesale distributors. Whereas the farmers market model proposes a rich variety of products, the wholesale model proposes reliability and contracted volume quota. The channel is largely impersonal, as the end-consumer may not know the name or the story of the farm where their food originated. Key activities, as noted previously, involve a signicant amount of time just coordinating exchanges with buyers, processing orders and adjusting to changes. Additionally, labor expenses and equipment maintenance will be higher since these producers generally operate at a higher volume than their direct-market colleagues.

Larimer 74

Figure 4.18. Business Model Canvas for individual growers supplying wholesale distributors

Collaborative Food Box Program Heritage Organic Farms provides weekly boxes of fresh Organic produce a model which combines much of the critical social experience of a weekly market with greater leverage over disruptive circumstances and uncertainty (Figure 4.19). HOF is able to provide their customers with year-round variety because the produce is sourced from Organic farmers all across the region. The boxes are distributed weekly to drop points around the area, where customers simply show up and collect their assortment.

Larimer 75

Figure 4.19. Business Model Canvas for a collaborative growers network providing food boxes HOF also offers custom-tailored boxes for customers with particular health issues,

dietary challenges or taste preferences. This is made possible by a nutritionist who volunteers time to design product assortments with specic nutritional content, and then pairs recipes with every box conguration. This process is terribly time consuming, but allows the program to connect more intimately and completely with the needs and desires of their customers. HOF also has a secretary dedicated to addressing special requests and ensuring customers never receive duplicate recipes, and a family member who manages the programs nances. Shirley

Larimer 76

mentioned an interest in incorporating WWOOFers into HOFs operation, which could offset additional labor expenses and help ease the weekly task of assembling boxes prior to drops. The result of these volunteers tireless effort is a social experience that truly transcends

the buyer/seller relationship and makes Heritage Organic Farms a partner in each customers personal well-being. The model is certainly not scalable, as Shirley admitted: if HOF continues to grow she will need help managing the operation.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) and Crowd-funding Heritage Organic Farms food box model is an example of Community Supported Agriculture powered by multiple growers. In the traditional CSA model, consumers invest up front and share the rewards of the farmers effort throughout the season. These consumers also share the risk. Drought and infestations do happen, and consumers get to experience that rsthand with a CSA. Another aspect of the CSA model is that the actual exchange can happen almost anywhere: the producers farm, a parking lot, or a volunteers front yard. A common challenge to this model in practice is that product variety is limited to whatever the farm produces, and a weekly box of squash and onions may not attract as much interest as it would surrounded by the rich variety of a farmers market. Half-way through this project Hope Grows Farm launched a CSA to support a new

product venture. Arianne and Elliot took deposits as seed money to invest in the infrastructure required to bring the venture online. In an interesting twist on the traditional model, customers who invest in Hope Grows Farms CSA receive weekly credit rather than a pre-planned box of food. This lets customers apply their credit to purchases at any farmers market Hope Grows Farm attends, or they can pick up their purchases at the farm. Even though exchange is still constrained by the variability and unpredictability of farmers markets the transaction occurs

Larimer 77

early enough in the season to have a positive impact on growing the business. Unfortunately, this model adds signicant time expense managing customer accounts at the point of exchange. While the CSA model shows great interest from producers, it clearly does not scale

without requiring signicant resources for managing nances, logistics and customer accounts. Achieving product diversity through a socially-driven model other than farmers markets is also increasingly difcult without collaboration among growers, which in turn adds another degree of managerial responsibility to the equation.

Larimer 78

Chapter 5: Design Concept Development

Findings and insights gained through this research project opened new opportunities for design intervention in the independent food sector. The design process began almost immediately and continued in parallel for the entire project, providing an outlet to digest data and prototype novel, practical applications of the ndings. This phase also occurred in several different regions, creating an opportunity to validate new concepts in locales beyond the research context.

Design Criteria: Stories about the Future

The following stories are ctional accounts of the possible futures that small-scale independent food producers may one day nd themselves in. These stories were constructed at the intersection of global drivers and local practice, are intended to offer a broad perspective of the driving forces that shape will shape the future. They are also intended to serve as the guiding criteria of the design solution stemming from this project, since such a solution must be developed in order for small-scale farmers in the independent food sector to thrive in the overlap of these three futures. The Big Slowdown explores the implications of a critical aspect of food production at all

scales. Havana, Georgia invokes a similar oil shock and recovery to that experienced by Cuba after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Another Option introduces this projects resulting design concept through the eyes of a small-scale independent farmer to articulate its intended impact on that farmers business.

Larimer 79

Scenario 1: The Big Slowdown As 2011 came to a close, both oil and food prices were at historic lows. Advocates and observers of the slow food movement started discussing a disturbing 'slow down' of the movement itself. New markets were still opening around the country, but at a lesser rate than in previous years. To exacerbate the dilemma, a growing number of seasoned farms began closing much earlier than they had before. Critics also joked that what they were seeing was the "peak green" of the movement itself; that consumer interest in supporting the trend had nally been maxed out. On the contrary, it was the producers who had been maxed out. Years of rampant market variability and frustrations simply inspired an aging sector to

retire early or take up other pursuits while there was still time. Without a strong replacement generation to take the reins, many market managers began nding their events under-supplied and unappealing to consumers. The cascade of lower turnout in turn frustrated the remaining vendors, who were forced to improvise and nd new outlets for their goods. Without a critical mass of vendors, the whole thing just started falling apart. Many producers here in Savannah responded by setting up their own CSAs to try to

preserve relationships with existing customers, but checking off an entire grocery list let alone completing a single recipe was nearly impossible without spending hours driving around between drop points. It would be great if they could all agree to drop in the same place at the same time! Too bad they never talk to each other. There is one group of producers who have it gured out, though. They all do three or four different things, but they sell it all together in mixed weekly boxes. It costs a little more, but the variety is as good as it gets these days.

Larimer 80

Scenario 2: Havana, Georgia In March of 2013, massive protests and violent clashes with security forces rock the nation of Saudi Arabia, reigniting long-suppressed disaffection for the Saudi royal family. Oil production in the region grinds to a halt, seizing markets around the world. In the United States, as in other nations, domestic transportation grinds to a halt. A national state of emergency is declared. The Strategic Oil Reserves are tapped to ease the crisis, but life gets painful then desperate. The shelves of Wal-Mart and other grocery stores run dry within weeks, and weekly farmers markets become chaotic, sometimes violent, scenes resembling food and aid drops in foreign countries. No longer the symbols of security and community that they once represented, farmers markets are abandoned by producers in favor of more direct distribution methods. This crunch leads many landowners around town to open undeveloped properties to

eager farmers and within several months new crops come online. Since most of this new farmland is fragmented and scattered throughout populated areas, producers seek out new channels for brokering partnerships and securing trustworthy clients. Craigslist becomes an informal bartering hub for basic necessities. As more sophisticated tools and methods soon emerge to help manage the ow of information among and between producers and hungry citizens, life begins to resemble a former, albeit radically altered state of stability.

Scenario 3: Another Option Last winter I started hearing about this new website called NeighborFarms. Two other farmers who set up at the Forsyth Farmers Market were invited to test the site before it opened up to the public. Something must have been working for them because they were still making sales and doing weekly pickups in town two months after the market closed. One day I got an email from one of the test farmers inviting me to join, so I clicked OK and set up an account. First the site asked me questions about my farm what types of food I grow and how much total. It also

Larimer 81

let me put in a little bio and a photo gallery of the farm, which was cool because I didnt have anything like that online before. Next, the site showed me a list of other farmers in the area a few I havent actually met

before and I could see their proles and what types of food they grew. Well, to make a long story short, NeighborFarms lets me start projects with any farmers I want to and we can allocate some of our individual inventories to those projects, give it all a price, and decide if we want to do food drops or delivery or whatever. We actually just set the farmers market as one of our drop points. Then we just invite our customers and their friends to see what we have and they can pay for it all right there. Taxes are automatically calculated and gured in and the money gets split up into each of our accounts. At rst it was strange knowing Ill get paid before I pick for the week, but Im not complaining one bit. After more people started using the site, NeighborFarms made a new tool that lets us

see heat maps of where customers live around town not their actual addresses, but general neighborhoods and districts. So we decided to start a new drop point out east of town and ended up selling out for the last three weeks straight its so simple! Our revenue-per-project score for that drop point is on track to dwarf the others. Now were looking for a few new partners to help deliver further out onto the islands... its nice to nally have options, but its even better to have information too.

Concept Exploration
New ideas and concepts discovered throughout the course of this project were recorded in half a dozen sketchbooks so that they could be frequently re-examined and recycled as the project progressed. Sketching provided a means for reasoning with the complexity encountered during both primary and secondary research phases. Figure 5.1 shows two sketches from early secondary research that articulate various relationships of exchange.

Larimer 82

Figure 5.1. Early concept sketches articulating relationships of exchange

Figure 5.2. The many relationships and exchange models behind Heritage Organic Farms

Larimer 83

These models were further rened during interviews with producers. Figure 5.2 illustrates the many relationships and exchange models behind Heritage

Organic Farms. As patterns began to emerge from one producer to the next, new ideas for intermediary service models began to take shape. Figure 5.3 shows two different concepts for how a web-based platform could help producers and customers collaboratively resolve much of the uncertainty involved in their interactions, and how feedback loops could sustain participant interest and involvement. This concept would be recycled numerous times throughout the project, but ultimately proved to have great potential for impacting this under-served space.

Figure 5.3. Early concept sketches exploring potential service models

Larimer 84

Evolution of the Idea When the concept from Figure 5.3 was rst devised, it was really more of a question than a statement. What form might such a concept take? Would it actually be well received by the producers? What assumptions or over-simplications were lying in wait? These questions informed more and more of the subsequent conversations with producers beyond the initial interview topics. Arianne from Hope Grows Farm expressed interest in web-based solutions, and described a similar service that distant markets were implementing. She was frustrated, however, by the lack of producer engagement it required, and thought it could be better if the producers were given more control to set prices and control vendor participation (Figure 5.4).

Figure 5.4. Co-sketch session with Arianne from Hope Grows Farm

Larimer 85

This idea of controlled participation could be viewed as teaming, which is quite similar

to the Heritage Organic Farms model. Self-regulation and maintenance are also essential to the long-term viability of any socially-driven practice. The concept of fostering and supporting selfregulated producer collaboration emerged as a core initiative in the design solution put forth by this project. Findings also support food box programs as an effective market outlet for such a collaborative project. Figure 5.5 illustrates this concept of a collaborative food box model.

Figure 5.5. Illustration of the collaborative food box model, regularly distributed to customers at pre-arranged locations

Larimer 86

This proposed web service connects small-scale, independent growers with individual

and commercial buyers, sketched in its entirety in Figure 5.6. The real power of the website, however, is in the toolset provided to producers. The site offers collaborative inventory management that allows producers to quickly combine their individual products into more compelling offerings, and then market those offerings directly to their customers. Producers can team together and allocate their respective inventories toward any number of projects, the initial type being a food box program. As the model was further explored additional possibilities emerged (Figure 5.7), such as a mobile app that could streamline point-of-sale interactions and automate much of the cash handling that interviewees so adamantly detested.

Figure 5.6. Illustrated flow chart of the web service

Larimer 87

Figure 5.7. Exploring an expanding conceptual space

Giving it a Name This service will be called NeighborFarms, a construction of neighborhood and farms, and a reference to the pastoral days of agriculture when a farming familys only neighbors and friends were very likely the next farm down the road. The name invokes the shared endeavor of a community bound together in purpose. The NeighborFarms logo is shown in Figure 5.8.

Larimer 88

Figure 5.8. NeighborFarms logo

Prototyping and Validation Several iterations of wireframes were created for all of the primary screens that site members would interact with. Dozens of interface components, type faces and color palettes were also considered before an acceptable theme was developed. Figure 5.9 shows an example of a color-coded wireframe and an early iteration of the producer dashboard. Many of these initial attempts only served to further the conversation about the interactions and processes that the site would have to support, and were quickly discarded once this purpose was fullled.

Figure 5.9. Evolving interface of NeighborFarms: wireframes, style and layout iterations

Larimer 89

Figure 5.10. Evolving design of NeighborFarms homepage and dashboard

Figure 5.11. NeighborFarms homepage featuring a large map for geo-browsing

Larimer 90

As the design process continued, many high-level interface patterns and visual styles

persisted from one iteration to the next. Figure 5.10 shows the homepage and a screen from the dashboard. Finally, one very simple but critically important component was added to the homepage in Figure 5.11 a map. This large map allows customers to quickly browse for available food within their own communities. The dashboard also became signicantly rened in later iterations. Once a team has

formed around a project, each producer will be able to allocate a percentage of their bulk inventory to that project. Figure 5.12 shows a basic display where producers can quickly view and update this information as it changes from week to week.

Figure 5.12. Producer dashboard view displaying an individual producers bulk inventory and associated project allocations This information will be very valuable when planning future availabilities or correlating specic events with revenue gains or losses. Another application of this feature is the opportunity to promote month-by-month or week-by-week consistency to commercial buyers, whose concerns weigh more on reliability than those of regular consumers.

Larimer 91

When a producer updates quantities or prices of their products, changes will be reected

in each projects collaborative management display (Figure 5.13) so that project team members can adapt to challenges and ll in gaps on the y. This shared display is essentially a sandbox where producers can toggle quantities and prices together to mutually construct an offering that offers value to their customers while meeting cost constraints and providing the margins necessary to justify the project in the rst place. What was once a complicated, communicationintensive task of evading constraints is now a simple game of exploring possibilities.

Figure 5.13. NeighborFarms dashboard where teams of producers can collaborate on projects

Larimer 92

This shared display also features a simple chat stream attached to every project so that members can post quick notes for the rest of the team. The goal of this feature is to streamline the kind of important, focused conversation that would otherwise require multiple phone calls or emails which could get lost in crowded inboxes. Once customers have placed orders, producers can view and manage active invoices

associated with each project (Figure 5.6). Producers will also be able to download an archive of past invoices. Data from these invoices will be available for analysis to help calculate important metrics such as revenue-per-project, customers-per-project, or sales-per-customer.

Figure 5.14. Producer dashboard view displaying active and past invoices Figure 5.15 shows another important feature: the transparency for a producer to see

what projects are happening around them. Identifying market activity will help distinguish saturated neighborhoods from those which may be under-served. The map in Figure 5.15 includes a feature that overlaps additional geographic data, such as a customer heat map that

Larimer 93

highlights neighborhoods of origin. By comparing this information with active project locations, producers will be able to identify opportunities to open new projects closer to their customers. This display will also allow producers to browse projects that are seeking additional partners, an effective match-maker for pairing producers who may not otherwise interact with each other.

Figure 5.15. Producer dashboard view displaying a map of available projects to join This prototype was developed over the course of some much needed downtime in San

Antonio, Texas. Printed copies of the concept and several prototype pages (Figures 5.16 and 5.17), as well as a paper prototype screen deck of the mobile app concept fastened to the surface of an iPhone (Figure 5.18), were prepared and taken to the Pearl Brewery Farmers Market (Figure 5.19). Several vendors were shown the concepts and were then invited to participate in piloting this new service.

Larimer 94

Figure 5.16. Concept illustration, printed and shared at a farmers market in San Antonio

Figure 5.17. Website demonstration, printed and shared at a farmers market in San Antonio

Larimer 95

Figure 5.18. Paper prototype of mobile app demonstrated at a farmers market in San Antonio Feedback on the mobile app was lukewarm at best, but every single producer loved the

idea behind the NeighborFarms website and expressed great interest in being involved. It was very interesting to hear how they would apply it to their current business models. The service didnt appeal to them as a revolutionary re-conceptualization of their business model, but rather as a revenue stream with relatively little overhead and time investment. The mobile app, however, just seemed like a hassle introduced into a customer interaction that needs to be smooth and condent. This component may be revisited later, but as this simple test concluded, it is not a critical element of the initial NeighborFarms offering.

Larimer 96

Figure 5.19. Scenes from the Pearl Brewery Farmers Market in San Antonio

Prototype Renement After feedback was collected from the Pearl Brewery Farmers Market demonstrations, the prototype was further rened. When a new visitor arrives at the site the server will have already determined the users town of origin, pre-populating the homepage with geographically relevant results. This allows them to quickly and effectively geo-browse a treasure trove of options within their own neighborhoods and beyond. Dynamic ltering allows customers to nd products that are available within a specied time window. Customers will also be able to nd producers in line with their own particular values. Since customers in Savannah may have entirely different concerns than those in San Antonio the metrics producers elect to be measured by are entirely renegotiable so that crowd validation can serve as a true feedback loop within each locale. Several high-level features, such as the dashboards Analytics and Inbox pages were

scrapped altogether. Although these services were necessary, they were removed because they were found to be so important that they should be embedded within the design of the three main dashboard pages: Invoices, Inventory and Projects. Each of these services was streamlined to provide relevant information at the point of action.

Larimer 97

The Design Solution: NeighborFarms

Figure 5.20. NeighborFarms homepage

Larimer 98

Figure 5.21. NeighborFarms invoice dashboard page

Larimer 99

Figure 5.22. NeighborFarms inventory dashboard page

Larimer 100

Figure 5.23. NeighborFarms projects dashboard page

Larimer 101

Figure 5.24. NeighborFarms projects dashboard page where producers can find projects to join

Larimer 102

Figure 5.25. NeighborFarms account settings dashboard page

Larimer 103

Chapter 6: Conclusions & Directions for Future Research

The intent of this project was to deconstruct the exchange mechanisms and social dynamics of independent food production surrounding two farmers markets in southeast Georgia. The goal driving this work was to discover new opportunities for design intervention that could empower small-scale independent food producers to become more effective and protable. This pursuit of holistic opportunities within a space fraught with contested values and interests is the raison d'tre of the Design Management profession. Initially, this project focused on two farmers markets: the Forsyth Farmers Market, in Savannah, and the Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market, in Statesboro. Additional exchange models were soon discovered, and as the research continued it became clear that many producers shared a common sentiment that farmers markets are not the last word on connecting with customers. The social interaction found within those markets, however, was absolutely critical to the success and vitality of participating producers. Also important is the convenience that a central source of variety provides to consumers. A few of the producers interviewed were also experienced with the challenges of working

with wholesale distributors. While there was mostly positive sentiment toward supplying smaller, locally-owned commercial buyers like restaurants and health food stores, large buyers require far more time, complexity and headache, so they did not warrant enthusiastic support. The ndings suggest a common theme that follows the Goldilocks Principle: there must be a sweet spot where producers can grow enough to make a decent living by selling direct to

Larimer 104

customers, while not becoming so large that they have to sell their souls to the wholesale market. Unless wholesale distributors can make innovative headway to resolve these issues, they may nd their suppliers scaling back down into the direct markets. Heritage Organic Farms solved this quandary with a new model, the collaborative food

box: a regional mix of organic variety, augmented with personalized nutritional planning and thoughtful recipes, delivered weekly to drop points around the area. This model provides the same opportunities for face-to-face interaction and reframes the farm from a simple provider of food to a partner in personal well-being. This endeavor requires an exorbitant time investment in coordinating inventories of growers throughout the region and beyond, as well as managing nances, customer accounts and payments, special requests, nutritional planning and recipe pairing. Many of these activities are subsidized by the hard work of volunteers. While such an arrangement works well in this particular instance, it may prove difcult for others to replicate. Heritage Organic Farms embodied the only collaborative direct-market product venture.

The other producers who were engaged in collective direct-market product ventures, such as farmers markets, frequently articulated collaborative solutions to resource challenges like grain and fuel. This notion of teaming took many forms, but the basic idea was that independent farmers can achieve instances of far greater economic and social gravity if they collaborate. All of the full-time professionals interviewed have employed numerous tools, strategies

and techniques to manage the complexity and variability of their practice. They use tools like Excel, QuickBooks and Quicken to manage their nances and track metrics like cost-per-egg and revenue-per-row. Exploring new opportunities for collaboration will certainly magnify the management challenge. To successfully facilitate this new model of exchange, new inventory and account management tools for independent food producers will be required to automate or otherwise streamline the mundane managerial tasks that support collaborative value creation, so that more time can be given to the socially signicant ones.

Larimer 105

Value Proposition of the Design Solution

NeighborFarms is an online marketplace that connects small-scale, independent growers with individual and commercial buyers. NeighborFarms offers online inventory management that lets these farmers quickly and easily combine their products into a compelling new offering, and market that offering directly to their customers. And since this type of exchange already happens at pre-determined drop points and pick-up spots, this service isnt inhibited by the warehousing and transportation costs of a delivery service. NeighborFarms simply connects under-served buyers and growers, and collects a fee for helping them grow their businesses.

Directions for Future Research

This project revealed new trends in the socially-driven models that small-scale independent food producers are exploring to gain leverage over marketplace uncertainty and variability, but focused very little on how other businesses and consumers respond to those models. Future studies should approach various types of consumers with the same immersive depth and consideration for strategic trajectory. This project also revealed other topics that are waiting to be explored, including opportunities for collaborative input acquisition, land-share, and vehicleshare programs. Given the tenuous state of food production on the national and global levels, and

concerns regarding food security, ongoing research on decentralized, independent food production should be given serious consideration and support. Design must further establish a voice within the exploratory space of economics, industrial ecology, biological and agricultural science, and policy development to pioneer a language of collaboration that builds upon the collective discoveries of all elds. Design has a tremendous opportunity to be the conversation that leads where there is no precedent for what is possible.

Larimer 106

Appendices

Appendix A: Interview Protocol (90-120 minutes)

Set 1: Introduction & Rapport 1. How long have you been [producing, operating] in this area? 2. What inspired you to start? Do you still feel that way today? 3. What do you love most about what you do? Exercise 1: What is essential to your success? Participant sorts deck of Business Attribute Cards + 3 blanks for custom responses 4. Describe your biggest accomplishment this year + goals for next year

Set 2: Sketching the Present-Day Operation 5. What do you spend most of your time doing? 6. If you could avoid doing one thing this year, what would it be? 7. If you could only do one thing this year, what would it be? 8. On a scale of 1-10, how much risk will you tolerate to try new techniques or tools? What guides these decisions? 9. Would you consider yourself tech-savvy? 10. What tools or technologies do you employ today to manage your operation or inventory? Exercise 2: After the participant reveals joys and hassles, list and detail as many activities and expenses as possible

Larimer 107

Set 3: Partnerships 11. What other types of businesses do you interact with? Care to name them specically? Exercise 3: System Diagram of Business Web Probe What do they do for you? What is essential to their operation? How much dependency for your success? Consider them OK? Improvable? Ways to grow relationship? Ideas?

Set 4: Informed Value Prop + Customer Proles 12. Do you consider your product a commodity, service, or something else altogether? (Identify if there is a higher purpose to the business or for the extra effort) 13. How do you market and move your product? (markets, buying clubs, direct sales, etc) 14. How do you differentiate yourself, or is it even necessary to do so? *Any new techniques you or your friends know of? 15. How personally familiar are you with your customers? Exercise 4: Annual Timeline Graph Does your business model change over the course of a year? Do your customers or partners priorities change of the course of a year?

Set 5: From Today, Onward 16. Who do you respect or admire in your industry? Where do you nd inspiration? 17. What is your biggest concern about the future of your business? 18. If you could magically change one thing right now (your biz, the industry, etc), what would it be? 19. Where do you hope to be in one year? In ve years? 20. How will independent food production look in ten years? Closer: Would you like to participate in the prototype phase?

Larimer 108

Appendix B: Informed Consent

Savannah College of Art and Design

Informed Consent Form

I, ______________________________________, voluntarily agree to participate in an interview/inquiry performed by Dustin Larimer, student at the Savannah College of Art and Design. I understand that this interview/inquiry is being conducted in order to identify opportunities for design. I understand that the evaluation methods which may involve me include: 1. the recorded (audio and/or video) observations of my work 2. my completion of an evaluation questionnaire(s) and/or 3. my participation in a 30-90 minute interview. I grant permission for the interview/inquiry to be recorded and transcribed, and to be used only by Dustin Larimer and his Thesis Committee for analysis of interview data. I grant permission for the evaluation data generated from the above methods to be used in an educational setting, and may likewise be published for academic purposes only, including journal articles, research papers, and conference presentations. ______________________________________ Signature _____________________ Date

Larimer 109

Appendix C: Producer Startword List

Clark & Sons Organic, Clark & Sons, Clark and Sons, Mary Curly, Herb Lady, Gateaux de la Toya, Hope Grows, Hope Grows Farms, Joseph Fields Farm, Monts Farm, Moonthyme Garden and Nursery, Moonthyme, Morning Glory Natural Plants, OakTree Organic Farm, OakTree, George Wilson, Castra Rota, Walker, Walker Farms Organic, Hunter Cattle, Cowan Farm, Dubberly's, Dubberly's Shrimp, Tivoli Farm, Tivoli, Southern Swiss Dairy, Reads Bees, Heritage Organic, Heritage Organic Farms, Savannah River Farms, Clee Farm, Sanabella Farms, SAAFON, Adcote Acres, Anderson Farms, B and G Honey, B & G Honey, Brandywine Farms, Brawners, Bull Co, Dirt Rich, Emit Grove, Empyrean, Flat Creek Lodge, Harry & Butterbeans Farms, Harry and Butterbeans, Healthy Hollow Farms, Honey Dew Farms, Lee Family Farms, Life is Good Farm, Ogeechee Peaches, Old South Produce, Roberts Farm, Robinsons, Southern Native Plantings, Statesboro Janitorial, Strickland Farms, Sunny South Peach, Sunrise Produce, Garden of Giddens, Briarwood Acres, Stillwell Farms, Off the Vine Produce, Shrimpy's, Bob Garrison, Brant Family Farm, Do Tell Farm, Little Saint Simons, Little St Simons, Longwood Plantation, Miles Berry Farm, The Pea Patch, Snug Hill Farm, Sustainable Harvest, Three Sisters Farm

Larimer 110

Appendix D: Consumer Questionnaire

A quick questionnaire from Hope Grows The following questionnaire was developed by Dustin Larimer a graduate student of Design Management at the Savannah College of Art & Design in partnership with Hope Grows, to better understand what factors best support the economic viability and exibility of independent food production. Thank you so much for your help! **If you have trouble submitting this form, please send a quick note to

dlarim20@student.scad.edu -- thanks!** * Required 1. What is the name of the producer who sent this questionnaire to you?

2. How long have you known this producer? * Years / Months / Days (if applicable)

3. Which statement best describes how often you buy from this producer? * ( ) "Every week! Rain or shine, I am a regular." ( ) "Every other week or so... sometimes things come up." ( ) "At least once per month... usually" ( ) "I have bought from them once or twice."

4. How were you rst introduced to this producer? * [ ] Stumbled upon them at the market [ ] A friend's recommendation [ ] Actively sought out their particular product

Larimer 111

[ ] Learned about them in the newspaper or on the radio [ ] Learned about them at a social group, club or other gathering [ ] Found them on Facebook

5. How many of your friends also shop from this producer? * ( ) 0 ( ) 1 5 ( ) 6 10 ( ) 11 15 ( ) 16 20

6. How many of your friends shop at the same market(s)? * If you attend multiple markets, please answer for the most frequent ( ) 0 ( ) 1 5 ( ) 6 10 ( ) 11 15 ( ) 16 20

7. Which markets do you attend, and how often?

8. Which other producers do you buy from frequently, and what do you value most about them? Please include producers from all markets you attend

Larimer 112

9. What are the most important factors when considering which producers to buy from? * Please rank each: 1 = not important, 5 = very important be sure to mark every row 1 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 2 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 3 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 4 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) 5 ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Consistent availability (I get it when I want it) Trustworthy production methods

Variety many items from one source

Recommendations by family and/or friends I have particular preferences or dietary needs Volume (I have many mouths to feed)

10. Describe the people in your life who eat the food you buy from this producer What impact does it have on yourself, your family or your friends?

11. Describe a perfect day at the market Who do you see? How long are you there? What details matter the most?

Voluntary Participation * [ ] I voluntarily submit this questionnaire to Dustin Larimer a graduate student of Design Management at the Savannah College of Art & Design and grant permission for the information I provide herein to be analyzed for the purpose of this research project.

Complete Anonymity * [ ] I understand that any identiable information in regard to my name and/or company name will be removed from any material that is made available to those not directly involved in this study.

Larimer 113

Appendix E: Cultural Model of a hobbyist, a part-time pro, and a full-time pro

Larimer 114

Appendix F: Growth trajectory from hobbyists to full-time professional status

Larimer 115

Glossary

A agroecology - A holistic, ecologically-inclusive and management-intensive form of agriculture driven by principles of environmental sustainability. C Catallaxy - "the order brought about by the mutual adjustment of many individual economies in a market (Hayek, 108-109). Coases Theorem - Theorem by Ronald Coase detailing how, in the absence of transaction costs, trade in an externality will lead to the most efcient outcome for all parties involved. Collaborative Innovation Networks (COINs) - Cyberteams of self-motivated people with a collective vision, enabled by technology to collaborate in achieving a common goal an innovation by sharing ideas, information, and work (Gloor, 76). Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) - An alternative food commerce and distribution program where consumers invest up in production ahead of the season and share the rewards and risks of the growers efforts throughout the year. contextual immersion - to become deeply engaged or immersed in the particular context of study. cost-based pricing - a method of establishing prices based on the cost to create and provide goods or services.

Larimer 116

D diffusion - increasing the proportion of individuals who have adopted an innovation. direct marketing - a marketing method of contacting customers directly rather than through passive media channels. E emergent structures - patterns that form as the effects of complex rules cascade back unto themselves, revealing an order within the complexity. F foodshed - the complete trajectory of food within a given context, including production, distribution, exchange, and consumption. I infrastructure - an underlying support system that enables an operation or task. L loosely-coupled (system) - a condition where the components of a system are not critically dependent upon each other, resulting in the potential for dynamic emergence rather than static, pre-determined behavior. M meritocracy - a regulation model where members of a community or organization are promoted for their achievements and contributions P price mechanism - a communication method where economic participants are able to negotiate the value of goods based upon supply and demand. R rationalization - the standardization and homogenization of variable structures and processes to achieve greater efciency and coordination.

Larimer 117

recursion - a condition where a method or activity invokes itself. S semi-structured interview - an improvisational interview method which investigates topics rather than specic questions, and is intentionally open-ended so that new questions can emerge from conversation. social system of production - a system which "consists of a society's norms, rules, habits, conventions, and values, which in turn inuence the institutional arrangements (e.g., markets, the state, association, networks) which are dominant in a society" (Hollingsworth, 2003). swarm creativity - creativity exhibited by clusters of individuals who are mutuallyengaged in a shared pursuit symbiosis - dynamic interconnectedness and reliance among unique biological species systems of exible specialization - a system of "diversied low-volume production with an emphasis on economies of scope (Hollingsworth, 1998).

Larimer 118

Works Cited

Anderson, Jamie, Gail Freenstra, and Shawn King. Stanislaus County Food System Project. Rep. UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, Oct. 2002. Web. 4 May 2010. <http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/CDPP/Report/stanislausreport.pdf>.The Stanislaus County Food System Project is one of three assessments of California counties by students from UC Davis, as part of a national 18-university research project titled Consumers, Commodities and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment (NE-185). AsiaNews. "Worst Drought in a Century Wipes out Harvests in Southwestern China." AsiaNews.it. 22 Mar. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Worstdrought-in-a-century-wipes-out-harvests-in-southwestern-China-17947.html>. Ball, Eldon, Sun Ling Wang, and Richard Nehring. "USDA/ERS Data - Agricultural Productivity in the United States." USDA Economic Research Service - Home Page. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 5 May 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/ data/agproductivity/>. Benkler, Yochai. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale UP, 2006. PDF. Bernard, H. Russell, and Gery W. Ryan. "Text Analysis: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods." Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology. By H. Russell Bernard. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1998. 607-11. Print.

Larimer 119

Capra, Fritjof. The Hidden Connections: a Science for Sustainable Living. New York: Anchor, 2002. Print. Chakrabortty, Aditya. "Secret Report: Biofuel Caused Food Crisis." The Guardian. 3 July 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/ biofuels.renewableenergy>. CIA. "The World Factbook: United States." CIA The World Factbook. Central Intelligence Agency, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 4 Feb. 2011. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/geos/us.html>. CNN Wire Staff. "Urgent Cry for Help as Death Toll Rises from Pakistan Flooding." CNN.com. Cable News Network, 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://www.cnn.com/2010/ WORLD/asiapcf/08/16/pakistan.oods/index.html?hpt=T2>. Coastal Organic Growers. "COG Member Farmers." Coastal Organic Growers Home. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://coastalorganicgrowers.org/COGMemberFarmers.aspx>. Davenport, Thomas H., and Laurence Prusak. "What Do We Talk About When We Talk About Knowledge." Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They Know. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School, 1998. 1-21. Google Books. 7 Mar. 2011. Dimitri, Carolyn, and Lydia Oberholtzer. Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers. Rep. no. (EIB-58). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/EIB58.pdf>. The Economist. "Food and the Poor: The New Face of Hunger." The Economist. 17 Apr. 2008. Web. 30 Nov. 2010. <http://www.economist.com/node/11049284?story_id=11049284>. Elliott, Larry. "Oil Price Breaks through $100-a-barrel Barrier." The Guardian. 3 Jan. 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2010. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/jan/03/oil.marketturmoil>. Environment Canada. Results for C45136 - 2010 10. Buoy Station Data: No. 45136. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 2010. Waves Archive Plot. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.meds-

Larimer 120

sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/waves-vagues/plot-trace/csv.asp? medsid=C45136&obsmonth=10&obsyear=2010&graph=&update=Update +graphs&VCMX=ON&WSPD1=ON&WSPD2=ON&GSPD1=ON&GSPD2=ON&WDIR1= ON&WDIR2=ON&ATMS1=ON&ATMS2=ON&DRYT=ON&SSTP=ON>. Other data formats can be accessed at http://www.meds-sdmm.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/isdm-gdsi/wavesvagues/plot-trace/result-eng.asp? medsid=C45136&obsmonth=10&obsyear=2010&graph=&update=Update +graphs&VCMX=ON&WSPD1=ON&WSPD2=ON&GSPD1=ON&GSPD2=ON&WDIR1= ON&WDIR2=ON&ATMS1=ON&ATMS2=ON&DRYT=ON&SSTP=ON FAO. "1.02 Billion People Hungry." FAO Media Centre. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 19 June 2009. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.fao.org/news/story/0/ item/20568/icode/en/>. ---. "Current World Fertilizer Trends and Outlook to 2011/12." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2008. Web. 11 Mar. 2011. <ftp://ftp.fao.org/agl/agll/docs/ cwfto11.pdf>. ---. "Depletion of Fresh Water Resources." Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Web. 11 Mar. 2011. <http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/lead/ toolbox/Indust/DFreWat.htm>. ---. "Land Degradation on the Rise." FAO Newsroom. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2 July 2008. Web. 23 Jan. 2011. <http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/ news/2008/1000874/index.html>. ---. FAOSTAT World Agricultural Area. 2008. Raw data. Http://faostat.fao.org/site/377/ DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=377.Total world agricultural area for 2008 is 4,883,697,720 hectares, or 18,856,062.3 square miles.

Larimer 121

Feld, Scott L. "Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do." American Journal of Sociology 96.6 (1991): 1464. Print. Food Beware: The French Organic Revolution. Dir. Jean-Paul Jaud. Perf. Francois Veillerette, Richard Clapp and Charles Sultan. First Run Features, 2009. DVD. Forsyth Farmer's Market. "Vendors." Forsyth Farmer's Market | Savannah, Georgia. Savannah Local Food Collaborative, 18 Jan. 2011. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http:// www.forsythfarmersmarket.org/vendors>. Frankel, Doris. "Bearish Investors Snap up Puts in Oil ETF." Reuters.com. Thomson Reuters, 11 Mar. 2008. Web. 25 Jan. 2010. <http://www.reuters.com/article/ idUKN1162085420080311>. Gloor, Peter A., and Scott M. Cooper. Coolhunting: Chasing down the next Big Thing. New York: AMACOM, 2007. Print. Gloor, Peter. Condor Manual. Program documentation. ICKN.org. Vers. 2.2. GalaxyAdvisors, 20 Feb. 2007. Web. 20 Sept. 2009. <http://www.ickn.org/IAP11/Manuals/ condor_manual.pdf>. Gold, Mary V. "Organic Production and Organic Food: Information Access Tools." National Agricultural Library. U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2007. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml>. Greene, Catherine, Carolyn Dimitri, Biin-Hwan Lin, William McBride, Lydia Oberholtzer, and Travis Smith. Emerging Issues in the U.S. Organic Industry. Rep. no. (EIB-55) 36. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3 June 2009. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/ Publications/EIB55/EIB55.pdf>. Gronholt-pedersen, Jacob. "Russia's Grain Export Ban Begins." The Wall Street Journal. 16 Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704296704575431623812899394.html>.

Larimer 122

"Haber-Bosch process." Encyclopdia Britannica. Encyclopdia Britannica Online. Encyclopdia Britannica, 2011. Web. 23 Jan. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/ EBchecked/topic/250771/Haber-Bosch-process>. Hawken, Paul. Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being, and Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Viking, 2007. Print. Hawken, Paul, Amory B. Lovins, and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and, 2000. Print. Hayek, Friedrich A. Von. Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Mirage of Social Justice. Vol. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1978. Google Books. ---. The Road to Serfdom: with The Intellectuals and Socialism. London: Institute of Economic Affairs, 2005. Web. 3 Mar. 2011. ---. "The Use of Knowledge in Society." The American Economic Review 35.4 (1945): 519-30. JSTOR. Web. 3 Mar. 2011. Heller, Martin C., and Gregory A. Keoleian. Life Cycle-Based Sustainability Indicators for Assessment of the U.S. Food System. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, 2000: 42. Hicks, Michael J., and Mark L. Burton. Preliminary Damage Estimates for Pakistani Flood Events, 2010. Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University, Aug. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://cber.iweb.bsu.edu/research/PakistanFlood.pdf>. Hinrichs, Clare, Jack Kloppenburg, Steve Stevenson, Sharon Lezberg, John Hendrickson, and Kathy DeMaster. Commodities, Consumers, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment: Moving Beyond "Global" and "Local"Commodities, Consumers, and Communities. North Carolina State Univserity, 2 Oct. 1998. Web. 31 Jan. 2011. <http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/sociology/ne185/global.html>.

Larimer 123

Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, and Karl H. Mller. "Advancing Socio-Economics: An Institutionalist Perspective Part III On Social Systems of Production-and Beyond."History Department, University of Wisconsin. Rowman & Littleeld Publishers, Inc., 2003. Web. 06 Mar. 2011. <http://history.wisc.edu/hollingsworth/ Advancing_Socioeconomics_Intro_to_Part3_On_Social_Systems_of_Production.htm>. Hollingsworth, J. Rogers., and Robert Boyer. Contemporary Capitalism: The Embeddedness of Institutions. Ed. J. Rogers Hollingsworth and Robert Boyer. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Google Books. 6 Mar. 2011. Howard, Philip H. Visualizing Consolidation in the Global Seed Industry: 19962008. Sustainability. 2009; 1(4):1266-1287. (Online: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/4/1266/ pdf ). Ikerd, John. "Healthy Food, Local Food." Web log post. The Contrary Farmer. 15 Feb. 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://thecontraryfarmer.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/healthy-foodlocal-food/>. Javier, Luzi A. "Wheat Rises on Russian Export Ban; Mozambique Riots for Bread." Bloomberg.com. 3 Sept. 2010. Web. 26 Nov. 2010. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/ 2010-09-03/wheat-in-chicago-gains-as-russian-extends-export-ban-as-much-as-11months.html>. King, Shawn, and Gail Feenstra. Placer County Foodshed Report. Rep. UC Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program, 3 Oct. 2001. Web. 4 May 2010. <http:// www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/CDPP/Report/placerreport.pdf>.The Placer County Foodshed Report is one of three assessments of California counties by students from UC Davis, as part of a national 18-university research project titled Consumers, Commodities and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment (NE-185).

Larimer 124

Luhmann, Niklas. Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Google Books. 9 Mar. 2011. Macher, Ron. Making Your Small Farm Protable. North Adams, MA: Storey Publ., 1999. Print. Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market. "Farmers and Vendors." The Mainstreet Statesboro Farmers Market. Statesboro Convention and Visitors Bureau. Web. 27 Mar. 2011. <http://www.mainstreetstatesborofarmersmarket.com/pdf/FarmersandVendors.pdf>. Masters, Jeff. "Causes of the Russian heat wave and Pakistani oods" Weather Underground. 13 Aug. 2010. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2010. <http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/ comment.html?entrynum=1576>. Maturana, Humberto R., Autopoiesis: A Theory of Living Organization. New York, 1981, quoted in Luhmann, Niklas. Essays on Self-Reference. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Google Books. 9 Mar. 2011. Maturana, Humberto R., and Francisco J. Varela. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel Pub., 1980. Print. MSNBC. "Midwest 'wind Machine' Heads to Northeast." MSNBC.com. 26 Oct. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39847201/ns/weather>. Nord, Mark, Alisha Coleman-Jensen, Margaret Andrews, and Steven Carlson. Household Food Security in the United States, 2009. ERR-108, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Econ. Res. Serv. November 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR108/ERR108.pdf>. Normann, Richard. Reframing Business When the Map Changes the Landscape. Chichester: J. Wiley & Sons, 2001. Print. Orton, J. D., and Karl E. Weick. "Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization." The Academy of Management Review 15.2 (1990): 203-23. JSTOR. Web. 24 Nov. 2010. Osterwalder, Alexander, and Yves Pigneur. Business Model Generation. Ed. Tim Clark. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2010. Print.

Larimer 125

Pretty, Jules. Agroecological Approaches to Agricultural Development. Rep. Rimisp-Latin American Center for Rural Development, Nov. 2006. Web. 11 Nov. 2010. <http:// www.rimisp.org/getdoc.php?docid=6440>. Pirog, Rich, and Andrew Benjamin. Checking the Food Odometer: Comparing Food Miles for Local versus Conventional Produce Sales to Iowa Institutions. Rep. Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, July 2003. Web. 8 May 2010. <http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/ pubs/staff/les/food_travel072103.pdf>. Roberts, Paul. The End of Food. Boston: Mariner, 2009. Print. Rogers, Everett M. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free, 2003. Print. Saefong, Myra P. "Oil Demand May Be a Victim of Its Own Success." MarketWatch: Commodities Corner. 2 July 2008. Web. 25 Jan. 2010. <http://www.marketwatch.com/ story/oil-demand-may-be-a-victim-of-its-own-success>. Salatin, Joel. You Can Farm: the Entrepreneur's Guide to Start and Succeed in a Farm Enterprise. Swoope, VA: Polyface, 1998. Print. Sawyer, Keith. Group Genius: The Creative Power of Collaboration. New York, N.Y.: Basic, 2007. Print. Schwartz, Peter. The Art of the Long View: Planning for the Future in an Uncertain World. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1996. Print. Spotts, Pete. "How an Alaskan Front Became the Midwest Megastorm." The Christian Science Monitor. 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2010. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/ 2010/1027/How-an-Alaskan-front-became-the-Midwest-megastorm>. Tapscott, Don, and Anthony D. Williams. Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Expanded ed. New York: Portfolio, 2008. Print.

Larimer 126

T. Crews et al., "Legume versus Fertilizer Source of Nitrogen: Ecological Tradeoffs and Human Needs," Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 102 (2004), 27997; cited in Roberts, Paul. The End of Food. Boston: Mariner, 2009. Print. United Nations. The World at Six Billion. Rep. 1999. Web. USDA Economic Research Service. "ERS/USDA Brieng Room - Irrigation and Water Use."USDA Economic Research Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 22 Nov. 2004. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/brieng/wateruse/>. USDA, National Agricultural Library. "A Focus on Agricultural Biotechnology." Food Safety Research Information Ofce. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 23 June 2003. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://fsrio.nal.usda.gov/document_fsheet.php?product_id=131>. USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Rep. no. AC-07-SS-2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 10 Feb. 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/ Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Organics/ORGANICS.pdf>. ---,---. Acreage. Agricultural Statistics Board. 30 June 2010. Web. 31 Jan. 2010. <http:// usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Acre/Acre-06-30-2010.pdf>. USDA-OCE. USDA Agricultural Projections to 2019. Rep. NTIS No. OCE-2010-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 11 Feb. 2010. Web. 9 May 2010. <http://www.usda.gov/oce/ commodity/archive_projections/USDAAgriculturalProjections2019.pdf>. Van der Heijden, Kees. Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, 2005. Print. Wenger, Etienne. Communities of Practice: Learning,meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. Print. WHO. Protecting Our Health from Climate Change: a Training Course for Public Health Professionals Chapter13: Food Security and Malnutrition. World Health Organization: Regional Ofce of South-East Asia, 2008. PPT.

Larimer 127

Whole Foods Market. 2005. Nearly Two-Thirds of Americans Have Tried Organic Foods and Beverages. www.wholefoodsmarket.com; cited in Dimitri, Carolyn, and Lydia Oberholtzer. Marketing U.S. Organic Foods: Recent Trends From Farms to Consumers. Rep. no. (EIB-58). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 30 Sept. 2009. Web. 10 May 2010. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB58/EIB58.pdf>. Wikipedia contributors. "2010 Pakistan oods." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 26 Nov. 2010. Web. 27 Nov. 2010.

Larimer 128

About the Author

Dustin Larimer is a practitioner-scholar of Design Management, an architect of web goodness, an entrepreneur and a world-wanderer. His work explores a wide range of domains such as the dynamics of collaboration and emergent creativity, organizational strategy and innovation, scenario development, social network analysis, methods of contextual research and business model innovation. These topics are not applied in isolation, but are blended together to shape a powerful approach to discovering original, human-centric solutions to the big nasty problems in the world. Prior to joining SCAD, Dustin spent several years in web design, development and multimedia, working for rms that ranged from small startups to the Fortune 100. Now he aspires to leverage the full scope of his experiences to build frameworks that catalyze creative potential to help communities grow stronger.