Category: Specialty Topics

Broadband access has increasingly become a basic utility, but it is still out of reach for many rural communities. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claims that broadband internet is not available to 24.7 million people in the United States, data from Microsoft indicated that 162.8 million (almost half the population of the United States) do not use internet at broadband speeds. Digital Divide Index provides an overview of the disparity across the United States. COVID-19 pandemic further emphasized the need for broadband as schools and businesses shifted to virtual mode. The digital divide can be addressed by:

1. Reducing Municipal broadband restrictions: As of 2021, municipal broadband was restricted in eighteen states across the United States. Some states have allowed electric co-operatives to provide broadband in their service territories.
2. Providing Incentives for Internet Service Providers: Population density in rural areas is much lower than urban areas, thereby increasing the relative cost of installing fiber-optic cable. Providing incentives for internet service providers would help reduce the costs of providing internet to rural areas.
3. Reducing the Burden on Right-of-way and Easements: Obtaining permissions for right-of-way and easements to lay fiber-optic cable are often difficult and slow. A public-private partnership that can reduce the costs and time delays in obtaining right-of-way and easement will expedite the process.
4. Improving Adoption and affordability: Lower-income residents experience a higher economic burden due to lack of devices and affordable broadband subscription plans. Programs such as Emergency Broadband Benefit and the new Affordable Connectivity Program can help improve adoption of broadband. Further, demand-side management programs if offered through internet service providers can improve access to broadband.
5. Supporting Broadband Programs: Library mobile hotspot lending programs, downtown wi-fi programs have been widely successful A public-private partnership promoting these programs will improve education, business development, healthcare, tourism and recreation opportunities across communities.

Upendram, Sreedhar. “Digital Divide in Rural Communities“. Southern Ag Today 2(12.5). March 18, 2022. Permalink

As a result of COVID-19 grocery store shortages, federal and state governments are investing in local food systems with meat processing high on the list. However, once local meat processing bottlenecks have been relieved, additional obstacles will need to be overcome. Clemson surveys of consumers and restaurants in 2020 and 2021 reveal that additional obstacles for increasing local meat sales are availability, price, and inconsistent quality¹.

A lack of availability points out that there are not enough sales outlets for local meats and purchasing local meats is often inconvenient for potential customers. For instance, most local meat consumers visit a farmers’ market once a month² yet shop at a grocery store 2-3 times per week³. Even the most dedicated local food consumer sources less than 50% of their groceries from local producers⁴. For local meats to grow long-term, producers must work together to supply grocery stores and restaurants while addressing the remaining issues of quality inconsistency and price.

One of the best ways for farmers to work together is to form a cooperative or similar collaborative business arrangement. Through collaborative business arrangements, local meat producers can adopt quality guidelines, provide a consistent supply to more sales outlets, and operate at a more efficient scale (possibly becoming more price-competitive). In short, business collaborations will give local meat producers a shot at gaining and maintaining a competitive position in the market.

For more information about cooperatives and collaborative business formation, contact a land grant university or cooperative development center in your region. Contact information for USDA rural cooperative development centers can be found at this link:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cooperative_development_centers_february2022.xlsx

References

1. Richards, S. (2021). National Restaurant Buyer Survey Results. Clemson University (Unpublished report). Copy in possession of the first author.
2. Richards, S. (2020). Local Meat Consumer Survey Results. Clemson University (Unpublished report for Berkeley Electric Cooperative and the South Carolina Cattlemens’ Association). Copy in possession of the first author.
3. Ver Ploeg, M., Larimore, E., & Wilde, P. (2017). The Influence of Food Store Access on Grocery Shopping and Food Spending. ers.usda.gov
4. Cicatiello, C. (2020). Alternative food shoppers and the “quantity dilemma”: a study on the determinants of their purchases at alternative markets. Agricultural and Food Economics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00160-6

Richards, Steve. “Locally Raised Meats: Cooperatives Needed“. Southern Ag Today 2(11.5). March 11, 2022. Permalink

One of the biggest trends in land use law is an increasing number of court cases and legislative battles over agritourism. The first issue surrounds the question of what activities qualify as agritourism. Second, courts, state legislatures, and local planning boards struggle to harmonize agritourism with other land uses.

 One generally thinks of agritourism as pick-your-own, hayrides, corn mazes, small farm stands, and maybe even apple cannons and punkin’ chunkers. Depending on where you live, the courts or state legislature may have determined that weddings, paintball, shooting ranges, rodeos, concerts, festivals, movies, and even skydiving constitute agritourism. Agritourism activities should also be connected to production activities on that farm.

 Most communities support agritourism as a way to help agricultural operations supplement their incomes. However, as agritourism activities increasingly involve large numbers of people and cars, increased noise, parking and traffic issues and attendees wandering onto neighboring properties, conflicts between agritourism operators and their neighbors have increased. Some of the complaining neighbors are producers that find that the cars, people and noise interfere with their production activities.

 Weddings are a prime example of a contentious agritourism activity today. Courts have struggled to determine when a wedding is sufficiently connected to the farm’s production activities to be considered “agrtourism”. Courts increasingly consult several different factors in a complex analysis to make legal decisions. Is the farm setting integral to the wedding ceremony? Are farm products such as flowers or food items used in the wedding or reception? Perhaps the wedding is agritourism, but the reception should be held elsewhere?

Take these questions and concerns and expand them to the myriad of activities that may be considered agritourism and the difficulties are obvious. Land use impacts of production agriculture and intensive agritourism activities are very different and neighbors react accordingly. As always, agritourism operators should think about impacts to neighbors when developing new activities. Neighbors should be consulted prior to commencing the new activity. In addition, design activities to minimize impacts on nearby landowners. Agritourism operations that result in angry neighbors not only cause negative publicity for that operation, but for agritourism as a whole.

Richardson, Jesse J.. “Agritourism and Land Use- Happily Ever After?”. Southern Ag Today 2(10.5). March 4, 2022. Permalink

The COVID-19 pandemic affected how consumers buy ornamental plants. Consumer demand for ornamental plants increased during the pandemic as they were spending more time at home and sought safe outdoor activities (e.g., gardening). Their use of online information sources increased as well. Google Trends (2021) demonstrates U.S. consumers’ garden and landscape search behavior over the past 5 years. The waves indicate the seasonality of gardening and landscaping purchases where peak interest occurs during spring and early summer and interest wains during fall and winter. In 2020, there is a “COVID bump” where U.S. consumer online inquiries drastically increased over the previous three years. In 2021, there was an echo of this bump indicating increased interest (when compared to 2019 and earlier) but not to the extent observed in 2020. Two key implications of these trends are 1) Relevant, up-to-date information should be available online for consumers prior to the growing season; and, 2) Consumers are actively seeking gardening and landscaping information online, meaning online tools present an opportunity to effectively reach audiences with pertinent information.

Rihn, Alicia L. . “The COVID Effect and Search Behavior for Plants Online“. Southern Ag Today 2(9.5). February 25, 2022. Permalink

Carbon markets are increasingly viewed as a way to combat climate change and supplement farm and forest landowner income. However, carbon markets differ from most other product markets in meaningful ways. First, buyers in carbon markets will generally be unable to determine product quality, as measured in terms of actual reductions in carbon emissions or increases in sequestration. When buyers in other markets cannot readily observe product quality, they often rely on third parties to provide that information. Governments sometimes play the role of information providers when the quality under consideration has wider social benefits. Examples include automobile fuel efficiency and household appliance energy efficiency.

Carbon markets also differ from other markets in that both buyers and sellers in carbon markets have an incentive to overstate quality, i.e., the amount of reduction or sequestration that occurs. In voluntary markets, buyers participate to generate goodwill amongst consumers, investors, and policymakers. In regulatory markets, buyers participate to satisfy a regulatory requirement. Thus, buyers are motivated – not by actual emissions reduction or sequestration – but by the “credit” they receive from governmental regulators or the public. 

Because of these differences, regulators and the public will be unlikely to extend this credit without third-party monitoring and verification. However, thorough but burdensome monitoring and verification will increase transaction costs and discourage market participation. On the other hand, lax monitoring and verification will erode trust in the market. Balancing these two will be critical for market success. Similarly, successful participation by landowners will require balancing potential revenue gains against the implementation, opportunity, and transaction costs of participation.

Clark, Christopher D. . “Carbon Markets Are Not Like Other Markets“. Southern Ag Today 2(6.5). February 4, 2022. Permalink