Exploring the Combination of
Community Supported Agriculture
and Permaculture
A research into the how, the why and the (dis)advantages
Name: Caya van der Sluis, 12425974
Supervisor: Crelis Rammelt
Abstract
Within the global capitalist society, industrial agriculture is a significant contributor to multiple ecological problems, such as the pollution of fresh water resources, biodiversity loss, soil erosion and the production of greenhouse gas emissions. Besides ecological crises, the agricultural sector in the Netherlands faces social challenges for both the farmers and consumers, such as an aging farmers population and unhealthy diets. A combination of permaculture and Community Supported
Agriculture (CSA), which are two alternative approaches to the food and agricultural sector, can prove to be a solution to both the ecological and social problems stated above. In this research,
semi-structured interviews with eight Dutch permaculture CSAs has looked into the how and why of the combination of CSA and permaculture. In general, all eight of the studied farms implement both a lot of the CSA principles and a lot of the permaculture principles, but agree on the fact that these should be more of a guideline than a list that should be strictly implemented one by one. The three most occurring reasons for combining CSA and permaculture are: similar ideas, they complement each other, and practical or personal considerations like finances or inspiration. Although the research suggests that there are more disadvantages than advantages, the farmers stated to be happy with the combination.
Abstract ... 3
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical Framework ... 2
2.1 Definition of Permaculture and Community Supported Agriculture ... 2
2.2 Combining Community Supported Agriculture and Permaculture ... 3
2.3 Linking Degrowth ... 4
2.4 Conceptual framework ... 4
3. Methodology ... 6
4. Results ... 7
4.1 Practical implementation of CSA and permaculture ... 8
4.1.1 CSA principles ... 8
4.1.2 Permaculture Principles ... 9
4.2 Reasons to combine CSA and permaculture... 9
4.3 Advantages and disadvantages ... 10
4.3.1 Disadvantages ... 10
4.3.2 Advantages... 11
5. Analysis and Discussion ... 12
6. Conclusion ... 13
7. Acknowledgements ... 13
8. Bibliography/References ... 14
C.Y. van der Sluis
1
1. Introduction
“All the world’s problems can be solved in a garden”
Lawton (2008) in Ferguson and Lovell (2014)
Within the global capitalist society, industrial agriculture is a significant contributor to multiple ecological problems, such as the exhaustion and pollution of fresh water resources, biodiversity loss, soil erosion and the production of greenhouse gas emissions (Hathaway, 2015; Krebs & Bach, 2018). Specifically in the Netherlands, which is the world’s seconds largest exporter of agricultural products, industrial agriculture has great impacts on the environment (Erisman, 2021). From the 1980s onwards, the Netherlands has been a nitrogen hotspot, and at this moment is experiencing a nitrogen crisis, to which agriculture is the main contributor (Erisman, 2021). This vast nitrogen surplus not only has significant ecological impacts, such as threatening biodiversity, but it influences other sectors as well, for example by blocking housing and industrial projects (Erisman, 2021).
Besides ecological crises, the agricultural sector in the Netherlands faces social challenges for both the farmers and consumers. The farmer population is aging, while finding a successor becomes harder and harder (Buitenhuis, 2018). For successors of farms, the needed funds to take over the farm are hard to accumulate (Teffer, 2020; Paramitha, 2018). For young farmers not in line of succession, the chances are even slimmer (Teffer, 2020). Although subsidies exist, they often prove insufficient to gain the needed funds to take over a farm (Teffer, 2020) At the same time, the capitalist nature of industrial agriculture is focused solely on efficiency and productivity and forces farmers to produce ever-more food at an ever-faster rate through endless competition (European CSA Research Group, 2016), leading to pressure on the farmers (Blättel-Mink et al., 2017) and growing detachment to food for the consumer (Blättel-Mink et al., 2017; European CSA Research Group, 2016). In addition, obesity and overweight in the Netherlands are steadily increasing (de Mutsert er al., 2013) and in 2016, approximately 20.4% of Dutch adults suffered from obesity (WHO, 2017). Simultaneously, a study of the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (Dutch: RIVM)
(Schuurman, Beukers and Van Rossum, 2020) reports that, between 2012 and 2016, only 5% of Dutch citizens between 1 and 79 consumed the recommended daily amount of vegetables and only 12% of the population between 1 and 79 consumed the recommended daily amount of fruits.
Furthermore, the COVID-19 crisis has shown us how vulnerable the current food system is – by causing food insecurity for many more families than before – and how strong the link is between human, animal and ecological health (Altieri & Nicholls, 2020).
A combination of permaculture and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), which are two alternative approaches to the food and agricultural sector, can prove to be a solution to both the ecological and social problems stated above. Permaculture is an example of agroecology and is defined as “consciously designed landscapes, which mimic the patterns and relationships found in nature, while yielding an abundance of food, fibre, and energy for provision of local needs” by its co-founder David Holmgren (Krebs & Bach, 2018, p. 5). This alternative form of agriculture, that aims to simulate mature ecosystems, can counter a vast array of ecological problems caused by industrial agriculture (Hathaway, 2015). For example, it can increase productivity and biodiversity while reducing water and energy use and chemical and biological pollution, sequester carbon in soils, and reduce rural poverty (Hathaway, 2015). In addition, agroecology can offer the principles to design a new agricultural system that can cope with future challenges and crises like “pest outbreaks,
pandemics, climate disruptions, or financial meltdowns” (Altieri & Nicholls, 2020, p. 881).
CSA, on the other hand, presents an opportunity to bring back the direct link between farmer and consumer by starting a contract between the two where consumers pay a fee at the start of the season in exchange for a portion of the harvest (European CSA Research Group, 2016). In the Netherlands specifically, CSA started as an initiative from farmers to increase solidarity between farmers and consumers while supporting the organic farming movement (European CSA Research Group, 2016). The 2008 financial crisis and growing discontent about the Dutch agricultural systems have made the Dutch CSA movement grow (European CSA Research Group, 2016). Although individual initiatives differ greatly, the main idea of CSA, as presented by the European CSA
Research Group (2016), is to create a system where consumers have access to fresh, local, healthy and sustainable produce, while farmers can gain a higher income and share the financial risks. Although no extensive research is done, in several studies CSA members have reported an increase in the
consumption of fruits and vegetables and changes in meal patterns (Vasquez, Sherwood, Larson & Story, 2017), making CSA a potential strategy in fighting unhealthy diets and obesity. At the same time, CSA can decrease the barriers for young people to start an agricultural career by, among others, improving access to land and offering a guaranteed market (Paramitha, 2018), which might offer a solution to the aging farmers population.
In addition, the basic underlying principles of CSA (Bloemmen, Bobulescu, Le & Vitari, 2015) and the three ethical principles of Permaculture (Holmgren, 2002) fit well within the degrowth paradigm of focussing on social well-being and equity (Asara, Otero, Demaria & Corbera, 2015), making CSA Permaculture farms a possible alternative within a degrowth agricultural system.
Altogether, the potential benefits from both CSA and Permaculture make the combination of the two an interesting option for the Dutch agricultural system. As will be presented in Section 2.2, some studies hint at the overlap in underlying principles and the possible complementation, but research into the specific combination of Permaculture and CSA has not been found. Moreover, research into CSA and permaculture separately is only just emerging in the Netherlands.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate the specific link between CSA and Permaculture in the Netherlands by conducted semi-structured interviews with farmers and/or founders from Dutch Permaculture-CSAs. The goal of these interviews was to investigate why the choice was made to combine CSA and Permaculture, how the two formats are executed in practice and what they believe to be the disadvantages and advantages.
By looking into these questions, this research can offer a contribution to a small, but
increasingly important academic field, while simultaneously investigating if the combination of CSA and Permaculture could indeed offer a possibility for a larger group of farmers in the Netherlands.
By researching current farms that are combining the two, and investigating why and how the formats are combined, this research can offer new insights for different groups of farmers. Farmers that are currently focusing on either of the two frameworks (CSA or Permaculture), could learn how and why to combine the two, and with that improve their own situation and that of the community and ecology around them. At the same time, young farmers that might currently be intimidated by the idea of starting their own farm without access to any land, might come to recognize permaculture CSAs as a feasible option. At the same time, the research can be used by new initiatives to help gain credibility among, for example, consumers and municipalities.
This study proceeds with outlining the theoretical and conceptual framework, followed by the methodology. Section 4 offers the results of the study, which are discussed in section 5. The study ends with a conclusion in section 6.
2. Theoretical Framework
2.1 Definition of Permaculture and Community Supported Agriculture
Although agroecology is widely represented in academic literature, permaculture – which is just one example of agroecology – is not (Krebs & Bach, 2018). As Hathaway (2015) states, this lack of scientific literature does not match the increasing general interest in and practice of permaculture. However, in the small amount of existing literature, permaculture is mentioned as a good solution to both ecological and social problems (Hathaway, 2015; Krebs & Bach, 2018; Ferguson & Lovell, 2017).
According to Holmgren (2002, p. vii), permaculture is, in its core, a “holistic approach to landscape design”. By prioritizing the rebuilding of natural capital and decreasing the use of fossil fuels, permaculture aims to reserve wealth for future generations (Holmgren, 2002). In practice, this results in the creation of landscapes that simulate natural ecosystems and uses “perennial or self-perpetuating plants and animal species useful to man” (Holmgren, 2002, p. xix). Permaculture started strictly as an approach to landscape design, but over time it has involved into more of an ethical design system that involves not only land use and agriculture, but the development of communities as well
(King, 2008). By offering three simple points of ethics, permaculture aims to care for the Earth, care for people and share everything fairly (Hathaway, 2015). As stated in the Introduction (section 1), the widespread implementation of permaculture principles can offer a solution to a myriad of ecological and social problems (Hathaway, 2015).
In particular in the VS, permaculture farms and its diversity have been investigated, for example by Ferguson and Lovell (2017). In the Netherlands, however, this is not the case.
As with permaculture, CSA is not yet a hot topic in academics, but is increasingly being noticed by scholars (European CSA Research Group, 2016). Although very diverse, the CSA format aims to create an alternative food system that is beneficial for both farmers and consumers (Paul, 2019). In essence, a CSA design asks its members (local consumers) to pay in advance of the harvest season in return for a share of the harvest when it is available. This way, the farmer is insured of an income and the risks of a failed harvest are shared between the farmer and his members (Cox et al., 2008). The shares are often vegetables, but they can also consist of fruit, eggs, meat or other produce that the farmer offers. In addition, many CSAs offer the opportunities of community building among members, organizing social events and education (Cox et al., 2008; Vitari & Whittingham, 2018).
Espelt (2020) recognizes three main types of CSAs. The first type is a Shareholder CSA, which is formed by a group of members who then hire a farmer to do the work. The second type is that of a Subscription CSA which is initiated by the farmer instead of the members, and illustrates a construction where the farmer keeps ownership over the operation throughout its existence. Lastly, there is the Non-profit CSA where all decisions are made by a collaboration of a board of directors, volunteers and, possibly, paid staff. In addition, Espelt (2020) mentions that the CSAs models differ slightly per territory, and different countries can have different typologies.
Furthermore, the CSA format encourages agroecological forms of farming to create
sustainable, long-term livelihoods for farmers (Paul, 2019; European CSA Research Group, 2016). In the US, there are multiple examples of extensive case studies (Paul, 2019; Lass, 2003; Vitari & Whittingham, 2018), and Blättel-Mink et al. (2017) have investigated CSAs in Germany. However, next to an international research into CSA in Europe by the European CSA Research Group (2016), the academic literature about CSA in the Netherlands comes from theses (Paramitha, 2018; Van Oers, 2017).
2.2 Combining Community Supported Agriculture and Permaculture
As mentioned in section 1, research into the specific combination of CSA and permaculture is slim. Nevertheless, the main ideas and principles of the two formats, as explained in Section 2.1, already show some overlap and mutual promotion. Whereas permaculture initially started as an agricultural alternative, its three ethical principles make it clear that the permaculture practice is not solely meant to help the environment, but people and society as a whole (Holmgren, 2002; Hathaway, 2015). The same idea is applicable to CSA: although the movement is mainly seen as socio-cultural (European CSA Research Group, 2016), it also focuses on ecological problems and promotes solutions such as agroecology (Paul, 2019; European CSA Research Group, 2016).
Espelt (2020) states that CSAs “spread the consumption of agroecology food … promote local and fairer food consumption, … [and] become active nodes for agroecology prosumption”. King (2008) mentions both CSA and permaculture as examples of agri-ecological systems, which are “alternative agricultural systems that emphasize ecological and community resilience”, underlining the fact that CSA and permaculture both focus on the ecological and the community aspects of food and agriculture. The research of Vitari and Whittingham (2018) shows that CSA farmers fairly
consistently prioritize ecological sustainability by using biodynamic, permaculture or organic farming methods. The farmers perceive themselves to be stewards of the land for future generations, while sustainably produced food is a motivation for the members to join a CSA (Vitari and Whittingham, 2018). In addition, Vitari and Whittingham (2018) state that CSA is unique in its perception to put the environment first, while sharing the responsibility for the environment among farmer and consumer. According to Flores (2018, p.11), “Community supported agriculture (CSA) is one of the largest manifestations of permaculture design in practice”.
Although all these studies show an overlap between CSA and permaculture, both in their underlying principles and their implementation, a study into the specific combination between CSA
and permaculture has not been found. By explicitly investigating farms that identify with both the CSA and the permaculture movement, this research can offer a new perspective on the possibilities for the agricultural sector. Instead of merely hinting at the overlap and mutual benefits, the actual merging of the two can be explored.
2.3 Linking Degrowth
In the current socio-economic system, of which the agricultural system is a part, “the ‘growth’ paradigm is largely accepted as an unquestioned imperative and naturalized need” (Asara, Otero, Demaria & Corbera, 2015, p. 375). The degrowth paradigm on the other hand offers an alternative pathway by voluntarily downscaling the resource throughput of the global economy (Asara, Otero, Demaria & Corbera, 2015; Kallis et al., 2018). Within a degrowth system, the focus is on improving social well-being and equity, instead of an increasing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Asara, Otero, Demaria & Corbera, 2015).
According to Bloemmen, Bobulescu, Le & Vitari (2015), CSA fits well within the degrowth paradigm because of the relationship that emerges between farmer and consumer. This relationship is “trustful, cooperative and participative” in the way that they co-produce the food and share the risks (Bloemmen, Bobulescu, Le & Vitari, 2015, p. 114). In addition, Nelson & Edwards (2020) state that the basic principles of CSA share similar ground with those of degrowth by “promoting equitable wealth, democratic relationships and protection of ecosystems”.
At the same time, permaculture fully agrees to the ideas of degrowth, as Holmgren (2002, p. xxix) states: “Permaculture is a whole-hearted adaptation to the ecological realities of decline, which are as natural and creative as those of growth. … The real issue of our age is how we make a graceful and ethical descent.” The principles of degrowth as mentioned by Nelson & Edwards (2020) –
equitable wealth, democratic relationships and protection of ecosystems – can be seen in permaculture as well, in the three ethical principles: Care for the Earth, Care for People and Redistribute Surplus (Holmgren, 2002).
By combining CSA and permaculture, they could offer a possible alternative agricultural system that fits within a degrowth society.
2.4 Conceptual framework
Besides the three ethical principles of Permaculture mentioned before, co-founders of Permaculture David Holmgren (2002) and Bill Mollison (1991) have created, respectively, a framework of twelve design principles and ten permaculture principles (Table 1). According to Krebs & Bach (2018), implementing the twelve principles of Holmgren will lead to a society that operates within ecological boundaries. The principles are more a framework to evaluate existing practices rather than concrete techniques that can be applied, making it a flexible framework that can be implemented (Hathaway, 2015). Varying from “observe and interact” to “use small and slow solutions”, the principles must be seen as one to balance the system (Krebs & Bach, 2018). The ten Permaculture principles of Mollison (1991) (Table 1) are partly different, but have a lot in common with those of Holmgren, for example the focus on biodiversity, small-scale solutions and edge-effects.
Within the CSA movement, there is not really an exact definition with complementary principles. The whole idea is to create a flexible concept that can be implemented in different ways that match each individual context (European CSA Research Group, 2016). However, the movement does have some principles that are roughly applied around the world (European CSA Research Group, 2016), which can be seen in Table 2.
The combination of the design principles of permaculture and the six underlying principles of CSA initiatives offer a clear framework to explore how both formats are being implemented and combined by farmers in the Netherlands. Table 1 and 2 offer clarification and practical examples of the different principles.
Table 1: The 3 ethical principles, the 12 design principles of David Holmgren and the 10 Permaculture principles of Bill Mollison including clarification and practical examples. Adapted from Holmgren (2002), Mollison (1991) and Krebs & Bach (2018).
No. Principle Practical Examples/ Clarification
Ethical Principles
1 Care for the Earth Care for living soil, the land, all diverse lifeforms and all
individual living things
2 Care for people Care for yourself and your community, focus on
non-material values and benefits 3 Set Limits to consumption and reproduction,
and redistribute surplus
Exercise self-restraint, focus on what is appropriate to do and share surplus resources
Holmgren’s Design Principles
1 Observe and Interact Observe your surroundings, recognize patterns and act
accordingly
2 Catch and Store Energy Organic mulch application
Rainwater harvesting measures Woody elements in agriculture
3 Obtain a Yield Have a holistic view on yield. Not just economic, but
ecological and social as well.
4 Apply Self-Regulation and Accept Feedback Enhancement of regulating ecosystem services Create natural habitats
Wildflower strips
5 Use and Value Renewable Resources and
Services
Legumes and animal manure as nutrient source Mycorrhizal fungi
6 Produce no Waste Animal Manure
Waste products as animal feed
7 Design from Patterns to Details Imitating natural ecosystems
8 Integrate Rather than Segregate Polyculture (crops)
9 Use Small and Slow Solutions Use agroforestry systems
10 Use and Value Diversity Plant species diversity
Pollinator diversity Habitat diversity
Diversified farming systems
11 Use Edges and Value the Marginal Consciously use the edges of agricultural land
Use edges as borders
12 Creatively Use and Respond to Change Decision-making under uncertainty
Increase ecological resilience Directed natural succession Mollison’s
Permaculture Principles
1 Relative Location Conscious placement to make elements support each
other
2 Each Element Performs Many Functions Try to give each element at least three different functions 3 Each Important Function is Supported by
Many Elements
Try to have at least three elements with the same function
4 Efficient Energy Planning Zone planning
Sector planning
5 Using Biological Resources Animal tractors
Natural pest control Animal manure fertilization
6 Energy Cycling Recycle, catch, store and use energy (sun, water, wind,
manure)
7 Small-Scale Intensive Systems The site is under control
Plant stacking Time stacking
8 Accelerating Succession and Evolution Use what is already growing
Raise organic levels with mulch, green manure crops, compost or other fertilizers
9 Diversity Polyculture
Diversity of useful species to create a productive, interactive system
10 Edge Effects Edge cropping
Table 2: The basic, underlying principles of CSA initiatives around the world, as stated by the European CSA Research Group (2016, p.5). Clarification from Wezel et al.,
2018.
No. Principle Clarification
1 Mutual assistance and solidarity Direct connections and shared risk between farmers
and the people who eat their food
2 Agroecological farming Farming methods that focus on sustainable use of
renewable resources, use of biodiversity, providing ecosystems services and resilience.
3 Biodiversity and no Genetically Modified Organisms
4 High quality, safe food that is accessible to as many people as possible with prices that are negotiated and fair to producer and consumer
5 Popular education about the realities of farming
6 Continual improvement
3. Methodology
To gain insight into the reasons behind and opinions on the choice for the CSA and permaculture combination, and to learn how the ideas are practically implemented, a qualitative research strategy has been followed. The data analysis consisted of three different phases, namely identifying the right initiatives, collecting data about the initiatives through semi-structured interviews and analysing the data gained from the interviews.
The first step of the research was to find a sample of Dutch farms that combine the permaculture and CSA format. To find and select these farms, the Dutch network of CSAs (CSA
Netwerk) was used. This network has a list of registered CSAs on their website, including links to the
website of each of them (CSA Netwerk, 2021). It is important to note however, that the map of the network does not solely contain CSAs, but also food cooperations and initiatives called
‘Herenboeren’. These last two groups were filtered out immediately, since they do not fit the
definition of a CSA according to the European CSA Research Group (2016). From all the CSAs on the map, the permaculture farms were selected when they explicitly stated on their own website that they are a permaculture farm, or apply the permaculture principles. Besides the list from the CSA Netwerk, the theses from Van Oers (2017) and Paramitha (2018) and the overview article about Dutch CSAs from the European CSA Research Group (2016) were used to find more CSA initiatives which were then checked for the use of permaculture principles. In addition, the snowball sampling method (Bryman, 2012) was used at the end of the interviews to gain contact information of farms that were missed during the initial selection process.
All farms that matched the CSA permaculture criteria have been contacted and asked to participate in an interview. In the end, farmers from eight different farms agreed to participate (Appendix I). The interviews were semi-structured, as described by Bryman (2012). The interviewer did have an interview guide with a list of key questions for reference, but during the interviews, the sequence of the questions differed and the flow of the conversations determined whether additional questions were asked or not. When, after the first few interviews, it became clear that very specific questions about the implemented permaculture principles were difficult to answer since the
interviewees did not “apply them dogmatically”, those questions slightly changed and became more open by letting the interviewees talk about the implemented principles from the top of their heads. Afterwards, during the coding stage, the practical implementations mentioned by the interviewees were categorized according to the different design and ethical principles (Table 1). The same way of doing things has been used for the principles of CSA, which were also mostly unknown and could therefore be categorized afterwards. With permission of the interviewees, the audio of all the interviews was recorded.
During the third phase, the acquired data from the interviews has been analysed. This, again, happened in three steps: (1) transcribing the interviews, (2) coding the data by using Atlas.ti, and (3) drawing conclusions from the coded data. The coding of the data was done in three steps: first, all interviews were coded openly, then axially and lastly selective. All open coding was done in three consecutive days, to minimize the difference in coding, followed by two days of coding axially and two days of coding selectively. The selective coding was firstly done in Atlas.ti, after which all themes were analogously transferred to memo sheets to create a visual overview and simplify the drawing of conclusions.
As stated above, the interviews were semi-structured. On the one hand, the flexibility of this type of interview can be an advantage for the interviewer to respond to different situations such as with the asking after principles (Bryman, 2012), but at the same time this led to an evolvement of the interviews; meaning that the questions slightly changed in the course of the research. This way, the questions did fit the research better, but some useful information from the first interviews may be missed. Moreover, initially the interviewees were asked only after the implementation of the twelve design principles of David Holmgren (Table 1), since those are the most recently updated and most extensive. However, after several interviewees indicated that they were more familiar with the principles of Mollison and with the three ethical principles, those were mentioned during the interviews as well and were used to categorize the practical implementation as well.
Another limitation of the research was the very short available time window. In combination with the start of the season for the CSAs, a few farmers did not have time for an interview in this specific period, and the other farmers were very busy, meaning that it was not always possible to make the interview as extensive as desired. With more time, it would have been interesting to also research farms that are solely a CSA or solely a permaculture farm, which would make it able to investigate the advantage of the combination of the two formats more extensively.
In addition, the CSA-permaculture combination is still very uncommon in the Netherlands. In total, only eleven farms were identified that fit both formats, and eight of them were interviewed. Although this is a small sample on which to base conclusions, since the total population of permaculture CSAs is also very small in the Netherlands, it is more likely that the conclusions are significant for the whole population.
4. Results
Appendix I lists all eight farms that were studied for this research, including the interviewees and their function at the farm. One of the farms (Interview 1, 2021) has already stopped, due to a
pre-determined temporarily use of the garden space. Another farm (Interview 6, 2021) is only starting this year with its first official CSA season, while the farmers have been working on getting the farm ready for the past three years. When looking at the way that the CSA part is organized, the farms differ quite a bit. Some farms let their members cut their own vegetables (Interview 5 & 7, 2021), while others put everything cut and washed on a market stall for the members to be collected (Interview 3 & 8, 2021) or hand out pre-packaged bags (Interview 2, 2021). This also means a difference in the freedom of the consumer: at some farms, the consumers can take home only the vegetables they like in the quantities they need, while with other CSAs, both the choice in vegetables and quantities are set.
As explained in section 2.1, Espelt (2020) distinguishes three different types of CSAs: Shareholder CSAs, Subscription CSAs and Non-profit CSAs. In this research, only one farm belongs to the third category of Non-profit CSAs (Interview 1, 2021), while all the other farms belong to the second category of Subscription CSAs (Interview 2 – 8, 2021). Within the second group, however, the perception on the relationship between farm and consumer differs. Whereas one farmer said to
essentially be employed by his customers (Interview 3, 2021) – which sounds like a first-type CSA even though he initiated the farm without a group of members, another farmer explicitly mentioned that she likes the fact that she is not employed by a group of consumers and can develop the way she wants by being an entrepreneur (Interview 7, 2021). The eighth farm only offers eggs and chicken meat, and collaborates with two other farms where the chickens live. Therefore, the farmer has less influence on the application of permaculture principles (Interview 8, 2021). All other farms have their own piece of land where they cultivate a diversity of fruits and vegetables. Some farms work together
with other farmers to offer their customers dairy products and meat (Interview 3, 6), and some farms have chickens and ducks in addition to their plant-based cultivation (Interview 3, 6). An interesting notion is that all farmers rely on volunteers to help work the farm (Interview 1-8, 2021).
The following section elaborates on the different results from the interviews in three different steps: by looking at the implemented principles, the section first elaborates on how CSA and
permaculture are combined, followed by the reasons of the farmers to choose for this combination in the first place and concluded with their perceived disadvantages and advantages. All quotes from the interviews are directly translated from Dutch.
4.1 Practical implementation of CSA and permaculture
One of the strongest results from the interviews is that all farmers seemed to agree, although in slightly different terms, on the fact that the principles should not be implemented rigidly or
dogmatically. Instead of looking at the lists of three, six, ten, or twelve principles, we should see the principles as “the glasses we put on” through which we look at the world (Interview 1, 2021). Every situation is different, and you should look at the principles to see what works for your specific situation (Interview 1, 3, 4 & 7; 2021) and which of the principles have additional value (Interview 3, 2021). By remaining open-minded, the combination of CSA and permaculture will have more chance to grow into a bigger movement and thus into a serious option to change the current food system (Interview 4, 2021).
In addition to the two formats discussed – CSA and permaculture – most farms also used ideas from other alternative agriculture movements, such as biodynamic agriculture (Interview 2, 3 & 5; 2021), no dig gardening (Interview 2 & 6, 2021) and organic farming (Interview 2, 5, 7 & 8; 2021). However, several farmers stated that the principles from different movements already overlap extensively and that they are growing towards each other even more (Interview 2, 5 & 6; 2021).
All farms (except farm number 1) show that they have been and are still developing over time. The longer the farms exist, the more and ‘deeper’ they are implementing principles from both the CSA and the permaculture formats.
4.1.1 CSA principles
As explained in the methodology (section 3), the farms have been assessed on the
implementation of the CSA and permaculture principles mentioned in section 2.4. Table 3 shows the implementation for the CSA principles for all of the farms. It should be noted that the CSA principles were mostly unknown by the participants (Interview 1, 4, 6, 7 & 8; 2021). Although the participants did recognize the ideas behind the principles (Interview 6 & 8, 2021), they had never seen them presented as such (Interview 4, 6 & 8; 2021).
As can be seen in Table 3, all farms have created a direct connection between the farmer and their consumers. Interviewee 2 (2021) did mention that there is a difference between members who collect their produce at the garden and those who collect their produce at another location in the city, since the connection with the latter group is a lot weaker. For farms 1 and 2, it is unclear whether they share the risks between farmer and consumer (Interview 1 & 2, 2021), and the farmer of farm 8 mentioned that the shared risk leads to a higher pressure to produce enough (Interview 8, 2021).
Since all of the studied farms use both the CSA and permaculture format, CSA principles 2 and 3 are automatically fulfilled. The permaculture way of farming is one example of agroecological farming that pays a lot of attention to biodiversity (Holmgren, 2002; Mollison, 1991) and does not use Genetically Modified Organisms (Holmgren, 2002).
The fourth CSA principle consists of two different parts: producing safe food of high quality and offering the food at prices that are negotiated and fair to producer and consumer. Most
interviewees emphasize that, because of the way they cultivate the food, it is of very high quality (Interview 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7; 2021). When looking at the price, however, the farmers stress that they are not the result of negotiations between farmer and consumer, but rather a price that is fair to them (Interview 3, 7 & 8; 2021), contrary to the low prices offered at supermarkets (Interview 6 & 7, 2021). One of the farmers did mention that they want to give members inside into all the books in the future, so that they can see the real cost of their food (Interview 6, 2021).
Education is a big part of the CSAs. The farms either already offer education to multiple groups, have offered it or will offer it in the (near) future. Only farm number 8 seems to be an exception (Interview 1-8, 2021). As one of the interviewees from Interview 6 (2021) mentions: “I
think that is actually the underlying aim for a lot of CSAs. Making people understand … how [their] food [is] made … and … how does food come to be?”
The last principle, Continual improvement, is implemented by every farm. They are always looking for ideas to improve their soil, their produce or their yield, or ways to further implement the ideas behind CSA (Interview 1-8, 2021).
4.1.2 Permaculture Principles
As explained in section 2.3, the permaculture movement has multiple sets of principles that are being implemented around the world. Although different, the sets of principles have a lot in common, such as the focus on biodiversity, small-scale solutions and edge effects (section 2.4). Table 4 shows the implementation of the different sets of principles for all eight farms.
In general, the farmers were more familiar with the ethical principles (Interview 4, 6 & 7, 2021) and the permaculture principles of Bill Mollison (Interview 1, 6 & 8, 2021) than they were with the design principles of David Holmgren. Nevertheless, even though the farmers did not know the principles by heart or implement all of them consciously, Table Y shows that most of the principles were still executed.
The ethical principles were by far the most popular ones, with number one and two being implemented at all farms (Interview 1-8, 2021). Care for the Earth, the first principle, is mostly
applied by nourishing the soil, embracing diversity, and respecting all life forms (for example by using natural pest control instead of insecticides). The second principle, Care for people, can be seen in the CSA-side of the farms, where the farmers connect with and care for their community. The third ethical principle is, according to Holmgren (section 2.4) about setting limits and redistributing surplus, but the farmers mostly translated this as ‘fair sharing’ (‘eerlijk delen’) (Interview 3, 4 & 6, 2021). Another aspect of sharing is restoring and improving the soil for future generations. Five farmers explicitly said to work to improve the soil (Interview 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8, 2021), while all farms take one or multiple actions towards a better soil (Interviews 1-8, 2021).
As mentioned above, none of the farmers actively executed the design principles of David Holmgren, but, as can be seen in Table 4, a lot of the farms do implement most of them. Especially the ideas of slow solutions, being mindful with energy and renewable resources, and improving
biodiversity were mentioned often (Interview 1-8, 2021).
For the Permaculture Principles of Mollison, the same notions apply. In general, the principles of using energy and natural resources consciously, improving biodiversity and using small-scale solutions were often (un)intentional implemented (Interview 1-8, 2021). In addition, the second principle of giving elements multiple functions was explicitly mentioned (Interview 1 & 8, 2021), while the eighth principle about natural succession is often executed by taking care of the soil (Interview 1-7, 2021). None of the farms has designed the different permaculture zones as explained by Mollison (Section 2.4), but farmer 3 and 4 did mention that they do not agree with the rigid thinking about the zones (Interview 3 and 4, 2021).
4.2 Reasons to combine CSA and permaculture
In general, the farmers gave three types of reasons to use a combination of permaculture and CSA for their farm: (1) because the two formats have a lot in common, (2) because the two formats
complement each other, or (3) because of personal or practical reasons.
Five out of 8 farmers (Interview 1, 3, 4, 6 & 8; 2021) stated that CSA and permaculture are a good combination because they have a lot of similarities. A recurring theme was the ethical principles of showing solidarity with each other and sharing everything (Interview 4 & 6, 2021). Another important factor is the ‘social part’ of both concepts. Interviewee 3 (2021) stated that the social aspect is not only important for the CSA-part of the farm, but it is also very important in permaculture. In addition, one of the interviewees (Interview 8, 2021) stated that the members are the part where CSA and permaculture meet: members who are interested in the involvement that belong to CSA are also
people who are more invested in the sustainable nature of permaculture. As interviewee 1 (2021) stated: “CSA and permaculture are simply both a good approach to future farming”.
Another important aspect of the ‘why’ question, is the fact that CSA and permaculture
complement each other, instead of offering similar principles. Three farmers (Interview 1, 3 & 7;
2021) agreed on the fact that CSA and permaculture both look at different aspects of farming: whereas permaculture is the design of the garden and the way of growing food, CSA is about how you organize the relationship between farmer and consumer. Interviewee 3 and 4 (2021) said that the combination is simply beautiful and that both sides can reinforce each other. Interviewee 4 (2021) said: "The CSA way
of selling makes sustainable agriculture possible", which is very similar to what one of the
interviewees from interview 6 (2021) stated: “And they [members of the CSA] also make things, ....
People from the CSA actually make it possible to practice permaculture.” Since permaculture is a lot
of (hand) work, and the farm from interview 6 covers an area of 12 hectares, the members are crucial in operating the farm, both by offering their time to finish projects and by helping the farmers keep an eye on things. Interviewee 5 (2021) mentioned that the CSA makes it possible to share the beautiful side of sustainable agriculture with other people.
In addition to the similarities and complementation of the principles and basic ideas of CSA and permaculture, most farmers also mentioned practical considerations and personal preferences in the choice to combine both formats. These arguments vary widely, but a few examples are the
financial aspect where CSA was a necessity to start the farm (Interview 2 &3, 2021), inspiration from other farmers that lead to the choice of CSA (Interview 2 & 4, 2021) and simple coincidence because of a cooperation with another farm that was already combining CSA with agroecology (Interview 8, 2021).
4.3 Advantages and disadvantages
4.3.1 Disadvantages
When asked about the disadvantages of the permaculture-and-CSA-combination, the interviewees mostly mention three recurring themes: the image of permaculture, the amount of work, and the rigidness of principles. In addition, the financial aspect of CSA was identified as an obstacle.
Firstly, multiple interviewees mention that the image of permaculture is, undeservedly, not very good (Interview 1, 6 & 7, 2021). By the general public, it is perceived as ‘chaotic’ or something that is only suitable for ‘geitenwollensokkentypes’ [which is a kind of degrading notion for ‘tree-hugging types’] (Interview 4, 6, 7 & 8, 2021). In academics, permaculture is often not taken seriously, since it was purposefully taken out of the academic world, giving it the image of being more of a ‘hobby’ (Interview 6, 2021). At the same time, permaculture has proven to be a fairly difficult term and concept to explain to (potential) members (Interview 1, 6 & 7, 2021). This has led to discussions about not using the term and coming up with alternative terms like ‘natural vegetable gardening’ [‘natuurlijk moestuinieren’] (Interview 1 & 7, 2021). Altogether, the negative image and hard-to-grasp concepts can make permaculture an obstacle for a CSA by repelling potential new members. However, as Interviewee 7 (2021) mentions: “Once they’re in, they love it!”
Another often-mentioned difficulty about the permaculture-CSA farm is the very large amount of work. Founders of a CSA are a jack-of-all-trades who have to do all the jobs from marketing to cultivating to harvesting to administration (Interview 3, 2021). At the same time, when using the permaculture way of cultivating, the largest part of the work is done by hand instead of machine, and the land is often very intensively used, making the combination a lot of hard work, asking for a lot of time and attention (Interview 3, 4, 5 and 6, 2021). At the same time, the farmers also state that there is nothing wrong with working hard and that they can live with that (Interview 3 & 5, 2021).
A third obstacle is the fact that the principles of CSA and permaculture can clash when you want to implement them too rigidly. For example, permaculture aims to create a permanent, more or less self-sufficient agricultural system, while the CSAs mostly produce vegetables that are annual crops for their members (Interview 3, 2021). When being dogmatic about permaculture, it would appear that vegetable cultivation does not fit within permaculture, but when looking at it from a wider perspective, you can see that the two can complement each other and, over time, more perennial crops can be introduced into the system (Interview 3 & 4, 2021). This means, however, that the farmers
themselves do not have any problems with this, but they could see how “diehard permaculturists” would not agree with this point of view (Interview 3 & 4, 2021).
Something that was not explicitly said, but became apparent during the coding of the
interviews, is the fact that it takes a while before the farms generate enough income for the farmers to be able to live off of it. Two farmers were only this year able to earn enough income to quit their job/not rely on their spouse anymore (Interview 2 & 3, 202), while one mentioned that she had to “keep her head above water” first, before she could implement other aspects of the CSA more extensively (Interview 5, 2021).
Most farmers, however, mention that they do see either one or a few disadvantages for themselves (like the image or the hard work), but in general, they don’t mind (Interview 3, 5 & 7, 2021).
4.3.2 Advantages
The farmers mention two big advantages of combining CSA and permaculture: the fact that they complement each other so well (overlaps with section 4.2 on why they chose to combine CSA and permaculture in the first place), and the member aspect.
Multiple farmers mention that CSA and permaculture together creates a beautiful combination (Interview 3, 4 & 7, 2021). Because CSA offers a business format to sell produce, and permaculture is an Earth friendly way of cultivating, the two offer “the best possible combination” (Interview 7, 2021). Implementation of the principles of both movements can reinforce both of them by, for example, offering a way to explain and communicate to your customers why certain vegetables look different or are a bit late, without that leading to a decrease in customers or income (Interview 3, 2021). Interviewee 8 (2021) mentioned a ‘synergy’ between CSA and permaculture, were
permaculture gives the farm a unique selling point to attract CSA members and the CSA provides the farm with committed members who help maintain the farm. As stated in section 4.2, the farmers also mentioned that the CSA aspect makes it possible to run a permaculture farm (Interview 3 & 4, 2021).
Another big advantage is the social aspect of the members. By using the CSA format, members feel very much connected to the farm and their food, and therefore see it as ‘their’ farm as well (Interview 6 & 7, 2021). This makes that they easily help out at the farm (Interview 6 & 7, 2021), that they get a better connection with each other and with their environment (Interview 5, 2021) and that they come up with creative ideas for events and projects on the farm (Interview 3, 2021). As one farmer stated: “I only see advantages” (Interview 5, 2021).
Table 3: Implementation of the CSA principles for every farm
No. Principle Farms that implement the principles
1 Mutual assistance and solidarity Direct connection: All farms
Shared Risk: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
2 Agroecological farming methods All farms
3 Biodiversity and no Genetically Modified Organisms All farms
4 High quality, safe food that is accessible to as many people as possible with prices that are negotiated and fair to producer and consumer
Quality: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 Negotiated prices: 6*
5 Popular education about the realities of farming 1, 2, 3, 4, 5*, 6*, 7
6 Continual improvement All farms
*Farms that are still working to implement that principle or want to implement it in the future.
Table 4: Implementation of the different permaculture principles for every farm
No. Principle Farms that implement the
Ethical Principles 1 Care for the Earth All farms
2 Care for people All farms
3 Set Limits to consumption and reproduction, and redistribute surplus
Sharing: 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 Soil improvement: All farms
Holmgren’s Design Principles
1 Observe and Interact All farms
2 Catch and Store Energy 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
3 Obtain a Yield All farms
4 Apply Self-Regulation and Accept Feedback 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
5 Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
6 Produce no Waste 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
7 Design from Patterns to Details 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
8 Integrate Rather than Segregate 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
9 Use Small and Slow Solutions All farms
10 Use and Value Diversity 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
11 Use Edges and Value the Marginal 1, 3, 6, 7
12 Creatively Use and Respond to Change 1, 3, 6, 7
Mollison’s Permaculture Principles
1 Relative Location 3, 7, 8
2 Each Element Performs Many Functions 1, 3, 5, 7, 8
3 Each Important Function is Supported by Many Elements 1, 5, 8
4 Efficient Energy Planning 3, 4
5 Using Biological Resources All farms
6 Energy Cycling 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8
7 Small-Scale Intensive Systems All farms
8 Accelerating Succession and Evolution 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
9 Diversity 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
10 Edge Effects 1, 3, 6, 7
5. Analysis and Discussion
As explained in section 4.1, one of the biggest recurring aspects was that the farmers agree on the fact that the principles from both movements should not be implemented rigidly. In his book, Holmgren (2002, p. xxv) agrees with this statement for the permaculture principles by stating that the principles “can be remembered as a checklist” and that the practical implementation may vary greatly in different places. Vitari & Whittingham (2018) on the other hand, state that, when one does not implement all aspects of a CSA, important aspects are lost. Whereas two farmers (Interview 4 & 8, 2020) stated that according to them, a CSA could also be a conventional farmer selling his produce directly to the consumer, Vitari & Whittingham (2018) stress the fact that the care for the environment in
combination with community building and risk sharing is exactly what makes CSA special and a good
alternative for the food system.
Whether the CSA-permaculture format can become a big enough alternative to replace the conventional agricultural system is still a matter of debate. According to one of the farmers, that’s what it’s all about – creating a food transition (Interview 4, 2021) – and Bobulescu, Lê, Vitari & Whittingham (2018) do mention that CSA has some transitional features, but Vitari & Whittingham (2018) state that CSA will never replace conventional agriculture.
As for what was said about the image of permaculture being a bit of a ‘hobby’ because that is not taken seriously by the academic world, is confirmed by Holmgren (2002, p. xxii) as well.
One of the advantages of the combination was said to be the unique selling point of permaculture that was needed for the CSA (Interview 8, 2021). Cox et al., (2008) agree with this statement, writing that concern for the environment is one of the motivations for members to join a CSA.
Further research into the combination of CSA and permaculture is necessary to conclude whether it can grow into a stronger movement. When conducting a research with more time and resources, the combination between CSA and permaculture could be studied in other countries than the Netherlands, or permaculture CSAs could be compared to farms that implement only one of two formats to see whether the combination offers additional value.
6. Conclusion
- In general, all eight of the studied farms implement both a lot of the CSA principles and a lot of the permaculture principles, but agree on the fact that these should be more of a guideline than a list that should be strictly implemented one by one.
- The permaculture principles of Bill Mollison and the ethical principles of permaculture were better known than the design principles of David Holmgren and the six CSA principles of the European CSA Research Group.
- The three most occurring reasons for combining CSA and permaculture are: similar ideas, they complement each other, and practical or personal considerations like finances or inspiration.
- Four disadvantages of the combination are: the image of permaculture, the amount of work, the clashing of principles when applied to rigidly and earning a high enough income.
However, the farmers also stressed that working hard was not really a problem and they didn’t mind not applying the principles rigidly.
- Two big advantages of the combination of CSA and permaculture are the fact that they complement each other well and that the social aspect of the CSA is very important. - Although the research suggests that there are more disadvantages, the farmers stated to be
happy with the combination.
7. Acknowledgements
I would like to thank everyone who has made this research possible. First of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Crelis Rammelt, for being very enthusiastic from the beginning about every turn this research has taken and came up with great ideas for improvement.
Secondly, I would like to thank both Katinka Wijsman and Jordy Willems for their help in gaining research skills and endless tips for every step of the road.
Obviously, this research would not have been possible without the cooperation of Esmeralda, Jeanette, Joël, Michel, Yvonne, Ank, Vincent, Valérie and Eva, who have answered all my questions and gave me great insights into the workings of permaculture CSAs. Thank you!
Lastly, I will thank my friends, family members, and fellow students for sticking with me, even in my many moments of stress. I would like to thank Loes and Maarten for their feedback on early versions and Lianne, Manuka and Wytze for the opportunity to stress out together in the Whatsapp group.
I have enjoyed (most of the time) conducting and writing this research and I hope it can be an inspiration for everyone interested in alternative, small-scale ways of farming.
8. Bibliography/References
Altieri, M. A., & Nicholls, C. I. (2020). Agroecology and the reconstruction of a
post-COVID-19 agriculture. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(5), 881-898.
Asara, V., Otero, I., Demaria, F., & Corbera, E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a
social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability. Sustainability
Science, 10(3), 375-384.
Blättel‐Mink, B., Boddenberg, M., Gunkel, L., Schmitz, S., & Vaessen, F. (2017). Beyond the
market—New practices of supply in times of crisis: The example community‐
supported agriculture. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 41(4), 415-421.
Bloemmen, M., Bobulescu, R., Le, N. T., & Vitari, C. (2015). Microeconomic degrowth: the
case of community supported agriculture. Ecological Economics, 112, 110-115.
Bobulescu, R., Lê, N. T., Vitari, C., & Whittingham, E. (2018). Socio-economic and
ecological transition in community supported agriculture: from the'transitional'to
the'ideal'CSA. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and
Ecology, 14(2), 122-137.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford university press, New York.
Buitenhuis, Y. (2018). Assessing how policies enable or constrain the resilience of the
intensive arable farming system in De Veenkoloniën–Oldambt, the Netherlands: An
application of the Resilience Assessment Tool (ResAT), SURE-Farm Project,
Deliverable T4. 2. SURE Farm.
Cox, R., Holloway, L., Venn, L., Dowler, L., Hein, J. R., Kneafsey, M., & Tuomainen, H.
(2008). Common ground? Motivations for participation in a community-supported
agriculture scheme. Local environment, 13(3), 203-218.
CSA Netwerk. (2021). Zoek een CSA bij jou in de buurt. Retrieved 17 March 2021, from
https://csanetwerk.nl/kaart/
de Mutsert, R., Den Heijer, M., Rabelink, T. J., Smit, J. W. A., Romijn, J. A., Jukema, J. W.,
... & Rosendaal, F. R. (2013). The Netherlands Epidemiology of Obesity (NEO) study:
study design and data collection. European journal of epidemiology, 28(6), 513-523.
Erisman, J. W. (2021). Setting ambitious goals for agriculture to meet environmental targets.
One Earth, 4(1), 15-18.
Espelt, R. (2020). Agroecology prosumption: The role of CSA networks. Journal of Rural
Studies, 79, 269-275.
Espelt, R. (2020). Agroecology prosumption: The role of CSA networks. Journal of Rural
Studies, 79, 269-275.
European CSA Research Group. (2016, May). Overview of community supported agriculture
in Europe. Retrieved from
https://www.accesstoland.eu/Overview-of-Community-Supported-Agriculture-in-Europe
Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement,
practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2),
251-274.
Flores, J. J. M. (2018). Designing Food Security: The Applications of Permaculture in
Sustainable Agriculture— Case Studies in the Philippines. [Proposal Doctoral
Dissertation]. University of the Philippines Los Banos. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324728136_Designing_Food_Security_The_
Applications_of_Permaculture_in_Sustainable_Agriculture-_Case_Studies_in_the_Philippines
Hathaway, M. D. (2016). Agroecology and permaculture: addressing key ecological problems
by rethinking and redesigning agricultural systems. Journal of Environmental Studies
and Sciences, 6(2), 239-250.
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture. Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability.
Holmgren Design Services, Hepburn, Victoria.
Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture. Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability.
Holmgren Design Services, Hepburn, Victoria.
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018).
Research on degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 291-316.
King, C. A. (2008). Community resilience and contemporary agri‐ecological systems:
reconnecting people and food, and people with people. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems
Research, 25(1), 111-124.
Krebs, J., & Bach, S. (2018). Permaculture—Scientific evidence of principles for the
agroecological design of farming systems. Sustainability, 10(9), 3218.
Lawton, G (2008) Establishing a food forest the permaculture way. Eco Films Australia
Mollison, B. & Slay, R. M. (1991). Introduction to permaculture. Tyalgum,, Australia: Tagari
Publications.
Nelson, A., & Edwards, F. (Eds.). (2020). Food for Degrowth: Perspectives and Practices.
Routledge.
Paramitha, S. S. (2018). Community supported agriculture in The Netherlands: The influence
of organization form in increasing the entrepreneurial behaviour of potential future
farmers (MSc Thesis). Retrieved from https://edepot.wur.nl/456294
Schuurman, R. W. C., Beukers, M. H., & van Rossum, C. T. M. (2020). Eet en drinkt
Nederland volgens de Richtlijnen Schijf van Vijf?: Resultaten van de
voedselconsumptiepeiling 2012–2016 (RIVM-rapport 2020–0082). Retrieved from
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2020-0082.pdf
Teffer, P. (2020, January 25). De aanwas van jonge boeren daalt, miljardensteun ten spijt.
Retrieved 18 March 2021, from
https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/aanwas-jonge-boeren-daalt
Vitari, C., & Whittingham, E. (2018). Tackling Conventional Agriculture: The
Institutionalization of Community Supported Agriculture’s (CSA) Principles.
Research & Degrowth conference, 2018, Malmo, Sweden. halshs-01923789
Wezel, A., Goette, J., Lagneaux, E., Passuello, G., Reisman, E., Rodier, C., & Turpin, G.
(2018). Agroecology in Europe: Research, education, collective action networks, and
alternative food systems. Sustainability, 10(4), 1214.
WHO. (2017). Prevalence of obesity among adults [BMI >= 30 (age-standardized estimate)
(%)]. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/indicators/indicator-
details/GHO/prevalence-of-obesity-among-adults-bmi-=-30-(age-standardized-estimate)-(-)
9. Appendix I – List of studied farms
Nr. Name (horticultural)farm
Location Interviewee Role Founded in Notes
1 De Delftse PROEFtuin
(project of Stichting
Groenkracht)
Delft Esmeralda van
Tuinen
Founder and project manager
2014 The garden closed
after 2,5 years
2 De Mijmering Arnhem Jeannette
Oppedijk van Veen
Founder, owner and gardener
2017
3 Yn’e Sinne Farm Jirnsum Joël van den
Broek Founder, owner and gardener 2017 4 Ús Hôf Sibranda-buorren
Michel Pauluis Co-founder, co-owner, business manager and gardener
2013 Helped found CSA
netwerk Nederland
5 Pluktuin Uden Uden Yvonne Ree Founder, owner
and gardener
2020
6 Natuurboerderij
Wittenhorst
Stokkum Ank van
Maanen en Vincent Wittenhorst
Founders, owners and farmers
2021 This year will be the
first official CSA season, but Ank and Vincent own the farm since 2018
7 Permacultuurtuinderij De
Veldhof
Joppe Valérie van
Dijck
Owner, manager and gardener
2015
8 KipEigen (project of Eva
Vos Agro-ecologisch ontwerp & advies)
Loosdrecht Eva Vos Founder, owner,
manager and farmer
