Community-owned farms (COFs) provide a novel opportunity for people to purchase a stake in an agricultural enterprise. COFs usually operate a form of crowd funding where, in return for a modest financial contribution, supporters receive a share of the land and, according to some scholars, a number of other benefits. However, evidence for these potential benefits often hinges on anecdotal evidence and rarely evaluates long-term outcomes. The current paper reviews the opinions of 419 supporters of a crowd-funded COF in the English Midlands, 10 years after the initiative's inception. The findings indicate many long-term benefits for supporters of the farm, including feelings of empowerment and a sense of belonging to a wider community. The findings also offer reason for measured optimism regarding the wider societal benefits of crowd-funded COFs, such as supporters initiating or increasing their involvement with other similar organizations and supporters becoming more locally involved in their own community because of their involvement with a COF. Key Words: Community-owned farms—Crowd funding—Spillover effects—Community-supported agriculture.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BermanM. G., JonidesJ., & KaplanS. (2008). The cognitive benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19, 1207–1212.
2.
BraunV., & ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
3.
BurtchG., GhoseA., & WattalS. (2011, December). An empirical examination of the antecedents of contribution patterns in crowdfunded markets. Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2011), Shanghai, China.
4.
FrantzC. M., MayerF. S., PetersonJ., ShamminR., & BentH. (2011, November). Conveying real time feedback on resource use through empathetic gauges. Paper presented at ACEEE Behaviour, Energy, and Climate Change Conference, Washington, DC.
5.
GerberE. M., & HuiJ. (2013). Crowdfunding: Motivations and deterrents for participation. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20, doi:10.1145/2530540.
6.
GompersP. A., & LernerJ. (2004). The venture capital cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
GormanM., & SahlmanW. A. (1989). What do venture capitalists do?. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 231–248.
8.
GoslingE., & WilliamsK. J. (2010). Connectedness to nature, place attachment and conservation behaviour: Testing connectedness theory among farmers. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30, 298–304.
9.
HarperD. (2007). Community land trusts: Protecting the land commons. Green Living: A School of Living Publication, 64, 1–2.
10.
HegartyJ. R. (2007). How to be a care-farmer for €73: A shareholder survey of the Fordhall Community Land Initiative (UK). In GallisC. (Ed.), Green care in agriculture: Health effects, economics and policies (pp. 97–121). Thessaloniki, Greece: University Studio Press.
11.
HollinsB., & HollinsC. (2007). The fight for Fordhall Farm. London: Hodder and Stoughton.
12.
LanziniP., & ThøgersenJ. (2014). Behavioural spillover in the environmental domain: An intervention study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 381–390.
LeckC. (2013). The impact of care farming in the UK (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Worcester, Worcester, UK.
15.
LeckC., UptonD., & EvansN. (2015). Growing well-beings: The positive experience of care farms. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 745–762.
16.
LuckG. W., DavidsonP., BoxallD., & SmallboneL. (2011). Relations between urban bird and plant communities and human well-being and connection to nature. Conservation Biology, 25, 816–826.
17.
MaasJ., VerheijR. A., de VriesS., SpreeuwenbergP., SchellevisF. G., & GroenewegenP. P. (2009). Morbidity is related to a green living environment. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63, 967–973.
18.
MitchellR., & PophamF. (2008). Effect of exposure to natural environment on health inequalities: An observational population study. The Lancet, 372, 1655–1660.
19.
MollickE. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 1–16.
20.
NisbetE. K., ZelenskiJ. M., & MurphyS. A. (2008). The nature relatedness scale: Linking individuals' connection with nature to environmental concern and behavior. Environment and Behavior, 41, 715–740.
21.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Publications.
22.
PoortingaW., WhitmarshL., & SuffolkC. (2013). The introduction of a single-use carrier bag charge in Wales: Attitude change and behavioural spillover effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36, 240–247.
TamK., LeeS., & ChaoM. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 514–521.
25.
TaylorA. F., & KuoF. E. (2009). Children with attention deficits concentrate better after a walk in the park. Journal of Attention Disorders, 12, 402–409.
26.
ThøgersenJ., & ÖlanderF. (2003). Spillover of environment-friendly consumer behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 225–236.
Van DillenS. M., de VriesS., GroenewegenP. P., & SpreeuwenbergP. (2012). Greenspace in urban neighbourhoods and residents' health: Adding quality to quantity. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, doi:10.1136/jech.2009.104695.
29.
WalkerG., HunterS., Devine-WrightP., EvansB., & FayH. (2007). Harnessing community energies: Explaining and evaluating community-based localism in renewable energy policy in the UK. Global Environmental Politics, 7, 64–82.
