Preliminary results from service-learning projects on scaling up the supply chain in local and regional food systems, capacitating migrant workers to promote individual and public health, and working with street vendors to improve product marketability and local legislation.
1. IMPLEMENTING “PLANS”
FOR SERVICE LEARNING
ALFONSO MORALES, Associate Professor Urban and Regional Planning
Affiliate of: The Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, The Center for
Freight Infrastructure and Research, The School of Public Health, The
Nelson Institute, The Center for Non-Profits, The Collaborative Center for
Health Equity, Global Studies, The Center for Transportation Management
and Policy, Agroecology, and the Chican@/o Latin@/o Studies Program.
Currently PI or CoPI of grants on: Farm2School, Community and Regional
Food Systems, Food Distribution and Logistics,
2. An Integrated Approach - I
Service and Learning Imply Systems of Ideas and Behaviors.
Campus Research Partners include:
UW-Madison Community & Regional Food Systems Project
A 5-year USDA-funded research project working to identify the characteristics and
functions of a healthy community and regional food system and how they contribute
to increased community food security
Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS)
Conducts applied participatory research how integrated agri-food systems can contribute
to environmental, economic, social, and intergenerational sustainability.
Center for Freight Infrastructure Research & Education (CFIRE)
Conducts research, education, and outreach to advance technology and expertise in the
planning, design, construction & operation of sustainable freight transport systems.
3. An Integrated Approach - II
Systems imply conflict and cooperation; goals and habits.
Community and Professional Partners Include:
Migrant Workers;
Cultivate Kansas City;
City of Freeport, IL; Vandewalle and Associates (professional
planning firm, based in Madison, with a national footprint)
The Street Vendor Project of New York City, and etc.
4. Presentation overview
Multiple Projects…and Organizational Locations
• Professor as researcher. University Grant - Capacitating Migrant
Workers – Promoting Individual and Public Health:
Economic development, Sustainability, Healthy food access
• Morales, Alfonso. 2009. “A Social Currency Approach to Improving the Health Related Quality of Life for Migrant
Workers.” Journal of Southern Rural Sociology. 24(1): 92-112.
• Professor as teacher. URPL 711 Class Projects, (1) regional food
distribution system development and (2), teaching food systems
Economic development, Sustainability, Pedagogy of Service Learning
• Day Farnsworth, Lindsay and Alfonso Morales. 2011. Scaling up for Regional Food Distribution. Journal of
Agriculture, Food Systems and Community Development. 2(1): 1-21.
• Greenstein, Jacobson, Morales, and Coulson. R+R. Teaching Food Systems: Content and Pedagogy. Journal of
Planning Education and Research.
• Professor as consultant. URPL 912 work with Cultivate Kansas City,
NYC Street Vendor Project and preliminary work City of Freeport
Community economic development, Entrepreneurship,
• Covert, Mathew and Alfonso Morales, 2014. “Successful Social Movement Organizing and the Formalization of
Food Production.” In The Informal City: Settings, Strategies, Responses edited by Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris
and Vinit Mukhija, Cambridge, MIT Press.
• Davis, John and Alfonso Morales. 2012. Fining the Hand that Feeds You: Street Vendor Fines and Increasing
Revenues to New York City. University of Wisconsin – Urban and Regional Planning, Working Paper 2012-1.
5. P as R -- Migrant workers…key to agricultural
productivity, yet exploited sector of workforce
6. Poorest health outcomes of any occupational category,
disconnected from social support, problematic access
7. Mobilization and Interventions
• Partnered with Promotora Program, 15 previously
unrelated migrant households created Club Nuevos
Amigos
• Produced a variety of health-related benefits
• Increased access
• Improved mental health and
• Enhanced self-efficacy
8. P as T -- URPL 711
Regional Food Distribution: Challenges & Opportunities
Aggregation
• Sourcing from small-mid size farms requires new aggregation strategies to:
• Supply high-volume regional markets
• Diversify product lines
Transportation & logistics
• Inefficiencies associated with the “first and last mile”
• Transaction cost of product changing hands multiple times
• Variability of load size due to seasonality, production volume
• Strategic location decisions for food hubs and distribution centers
Transparency across the food supply chain
• Food safety
• Marketing value
• Consumers want to know where there food comes from
• Source-identified foods can capture premiums for farmers
9. Solutions
Aggregation
Food hubs
Food Innovation Districts
Transportation & Logistics
Physical infrastructure
• Research to identify hauling needs, capacity & economics
• Research to inform location decisions for food hubs & DCs
Building relationships
• Develop regional marketing organization
• Engage regional planning and intergovernmental organizations
Transparency across the supply chain
New approaches to supply chain governance
Technologies (e.g. RFID, QR Codes)
Telling the story of product – “food with a face”
10. Networking Across the Supply Chain
February 20-21, 2013
La Crosse, Wisconsin
Transportation Services Division
Agricultural Marketing Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
This Project is supported by Cooperative Agreement No. 12-25-
A-5639 between the Agricultural Marketing Service/USDA and
the Center for Integrated Agriculture at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
11. P as T – II
Community and Regional Food Systems – Teaching Service
Learning
14. P as Consultant – applications generating
opportunities – for research and service
• Grant reviewer for USDA led to relationship
with CKC…
• Which led to consulting on new urban
agriculture ordinances in KC
• Which led to mobilization and counter mobilization
• Which led to changes in ordinances
• Which led to book chapter
• Which led to pilot test new data collection
• Which led to NEW USDA proposal
• Which will lead to….
20. Thank You -- What We Have Learned
1. Desire to partner is
only the first step
2. Intersection of desire to
serve (capacity, etc),
and
3. Compatibility with
capacity (research),
4. Understanding of
circumstances from
perspective of served,
5. Interaction, not action
6. Builds mutually
adjusting relationships
that identify and
achieve goals
Notas do Editor
First, a bit of background on Maximizing Freight Movements in Local Food Markets Project - Collaboration of 2 applied research centers based at UW-Madison: CFIRE & CIAS - Their shared interest in focusing on distribution to - improve the sustainability of food transport - increase the economic impact of local food sys. led to a natural partnership- Now in 2nd phase of the project
First, a bit of background on Maximizing Freight Movements in Local Food Markets Project - Collaboration of 2 applied research centers based at UW-Madison: CFIRE & CIAS - Their shared interest in focusing on distribution to - improve the sustainability of food transport - increase the economic impact of local food sys. led to a natural partnership- Now in 2nd phase of the project
Before we get started, I just wanted to provide you with a quick overview of our presentation today:I’m going to start by providing some planning context for the more localized work that Michelle and Janice will discuss by highlighting the ways that developing sustainable regional food distribution systems can foster:-economic development- Sustainability- Healthy food accessMichelle will discuss work we’ve been doing in the Driftless Region of the Upper Midwest and finally,Janice will present some preliminary findings from research she is doing in conjunction with the Center for Freight and Infrastructure Reseach and Education and the WI DOT.
So there are a number of challenges and opportunities before us as we attempt to scale up regional food production and distribution while ensuring that it retain the values and characteristics that make local food attractive in the first place:Sustainability,the retention of local dollars, connection to the people and land that produce our foodREVIEW EACH ITEM
READ throughUnfortunately we don’t have time to go into all of these in this presentation, so if like to talk more about any of these items, please come up and see us after the presentationAnd now I’ll hand it over to Michelle
For the past 5 or so years at CIAS, we’ve focused a lot of attention on Tier 2 food distribution of its potential to promote:1. Sustainability2. Economic development3. Improved access to healthy food in both urban and regional areas I’ll take just a few minutes to go into more detail.
While direct farm sales data has been a useful way to identify national and regional local food hotspots, they are only telling part of the local food storyAnd this diagram, developed by several of my colleagues at CIAS, attempts to get at what we really mean by local and identify how those values and relationships change as food supply chain lengthen and become more anonymous:So for example, most of us wouldn’t be that excited if 1000 cow dairy farm moved in down the street from us, because its not just the geographic proximity that we’re after, it’s that that proximity is a proxy for other values associated with our food that really matter to us:Its better for the environmentIts better for our local economiesAnd its better for our healthSo just briefly, Tier 0 is personal food production – total transparency Tier 1 is really what most of us think of when we think local food—farmers markets, CSAs—other direct marketing outlets—transparency based on relationshipsTier 2 is the first Tier where the eat isn’t personally producing their own food or procuring it from the producer, but it still retains values we have come to associate with local because 1) it is sourced locally and regionally, 2) strategic partnerships across the supply chain balance risks and profits3) packaging/merchandising likely communicates the production store, TRANSPARENCYCharacteristic of retail food co-ops and producer co-ops, hybrid nonprofits businesses, etc.Tier 3 is large volume aggregation and distribution, product may still be associated with certain production practices such as organic or human raised but there is very little information about farm identity, transparency is less about strategic supply chain partnerships and depends on ecolabel or product claimsTier 4 is global anonymous food production, aggregation and distribution, and the such foods may be more along the lines of what Michael Pollen would call “food-like substances”
Over the first half of the last century we moved from food planning that was effectively just trying to keep up with feeding the nation’s growing cities to supply chain and cold storage innovations that made the nationalization of the food system possible.Then as our nations farms got big or got out of agriculture and consolidation across processors, distributors, and retailers combined with expanding international market opportunities paved the way for the globalization of food. But then in the late 90s and early 2000s, consumers started wanting to reconnect with their food and public health practitioners and allied professionals, including planners started expressing concerns about the impact of the globalized food system and the built environment on diet and diet-related disease.