https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1998-4410
Figures
Abstract
Agricultural production is simultaneously vulnerable to climate change and a major producer of greenhouse gas emissions responsible for climate change. Interest in climate-smart agriculture – practices that help farmers both adapt to and mitigate their contributions towards climate change – continues to grow, yet in the U.S. small-scale vegetable producers remain understudied and underserved by evidence-based practices relevant to their business model and scale. To address this gap, we interviewed owner/operators of small vegetable farms selling at farmers markets in King County, Washington about their farm priorities, production practices, available resources, and marketing strategies. Farmers in this study often oriented their business priorities around values of environmental stewardship and community food access. They were aware of climate risks and adaptation measures and largely confident in their abilities to adapt. With few exceptions, participants expressed uncertainty about how farms might be contributing to climate change or what practices they could implement to help mitigate climate change but were interested in resources and education. Participants did not view potential price premiums as a compelling incentive to adopt new practices, instead emphasizing the importance of their farm businesses’ overarching narrative in customer relationships and marketing. These results expand the knowledge base on how different agricultural sectors are thinking about climate change and can be used to motivate research on tailored mitigation practices as well as educational and marketing resources to support sales and consumer demand for climate-smart produce.
Citation: Webb KR, Ismach A, Spiker ML, Rabotyagov S, Collier SM (2026) Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation. PLOS Clim 5(2): e0000647. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000647
Editor: Giuseppina Migliore, Università degli Studi di Palermo Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Forestali: Universita degli Studi di Palermo Dipartimento di Scienze Agrarie e Forestali, ITALY
Received: May 5, 2025; Accepted: January 19, 2026; Published: February 17, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Webb et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data supporting the findings of this study is available at https://doi.org/10.3886/E244894V1.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
The high degree of regional specificity involved in adapting agricultural systems to a changing climate is widely acknowledged, as is the importance of curtailing agriculture’s overall contributions to climate change (CC) through mitigation measures [1–3]. Globally, there is increasing interest in policy measures which incentivize the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) among smallholders [4,5]. The term CSA is a less frequently used term in the U.S. [6,7] but interest in these principles is increasing: a recent and significant example is the $3.1 billion investment in Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2022 [8]. This program targets essentially all commodities and scales of production to incentivize adoption of practices which reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, enhance carbon sequestration, and support market development for climate-smart products. Efforts such as these also align with the increasing importance of carbon footprint tracking and reporting within the food and agriculture sector [9,10].
Despite the increasing attention to CSA, not all segments of agriculture are equally well-studied or well-supported in this respect. Existing research in the U.S. primarily addresses large-scale production of field crops and animal products and tends to emphasize adaptation over mitigation [11]. Vegetable production systems, which must expand to support transitions to more sustainable diets that promote both planetary and human health [12,13], differ from other cropping systems in their relatively heavy need for fertilizer, irrigation, and tillage, creating distinct challenges for managing soil health and implementing certain climate-smart practices [14–16]. Reduced tillage, for instance, while important for building soil health and sequestering carbon, creates challenges for bed preparation and weed suppression [17,18]. In their systematic review of the topic, Norris and Congreves [19] identified a spectrum of alternative management practices that can improve soil health in vegetable cropping systems but noted that this is an understudied area in which some solutions remain impractical.
In reviewing U.S. agricultural stakeholder views on CC, Chatrchyan et al. [11] found that farmers are generally more willing to implement adaptation than mitigation measures, with mitigation posing a higher bar due to multiple forms of resistance, including lack of awareness of the linkages between practices and impacts and lack of belief in CC. This is expected from economic theory: adaptation is typically a private good delivering immediate benefits to farmers, whereas mitigation benefits are diffuse and typically do not justify the costs from the on-farm perspective [20]. The Pacific Northwest (PNW) is notably underrepresented compared to other regions of the U.S. in the current literature on this topic as evident in Chatrchyan et al. [11], and the limited number of studies that include small-scale producers of specialty crops focus primarily on adaptation rather than mitigation strategies [21–24]. To support small farms in adopting CSA practices that benefit both the farm and society, it is important to understand their unique experiences and perceptions of CC and tailor solutions that align with their priorities and business models [6]. To our knowledge, no current research has explored the value of CC mitigation strategies to small vegetable farms selling in the direct-to-consumer (DTC) market.
As the climate changes, the Northwest region, which includes Washington State, will very likely experience changes in precipitation, drought, heatwaves and wildfires, with extreme events occurring more frequently and with greater intensity [25]. Increased climate variability could exacerbate both drought and extreme precipitation and flooding [26]. Recent trends show reduced summer precipitation combined with increased spring and winter precipitation, increasingly in the form of rain rather than snow. Warmer temperatures have reduced snowpack and prompted earlier spring snowmelt, which affects water availability during the increasingly hot and dry summer season [25,26]. These climatic changes are predicted to have mixed effects on agriculture. Expected negative impacts include increased pest-pressure, increased crop failure, decreased yields, and cosmetic defects that reduce marketability. In some instances, increasing temperatures may provide new opportunities, such as longer growing seasons, to support crops that have historically not done well in the region [25]. Effects on productivity are crop specific and depend on local microclimate and conditions in addition to adaptive practices implemented by farmers [25].
Roughly three quarters of the more than 2,000 vegetable farms in Washington State operate at a relatively small scale, grossing less than $250K annually or farming less than 15 acres [27]. While these farms constitute a smaller proportion of total sales value and area farmed compared to larger operations [27], small farms also play a vital role in providing household income to farming families, supporting rural economies, developing new business enterprises, and protecting natural resources [28,29]. Much of the sales from small farms occur in DTC channels such as farmers markets (FM), which provide a consistent yet flexible platform for small businesses to promote themselves and facilitate producer responsiveness to consumer feedback, but also require an investment of time and skill from the farmer to be responsible for the marketing, sales and distribution of the produce [29–31]. Washington has lost both farms and farmland between 2014 and 2023 with small and moderately-sized farms experiencing the brunt of the loss [32]. These farms often have fewer resources and economic buffers to protect themselves from potential losses [33], and vegetables are especially vulnerable to the effects of climatic variability due to shallow root systems and specific tolerances for moisture and temperature ranges [34]. In addition to reducing yields, suboptimal conditions can result in changes to flavor, texture, nutritional content, and visual appeal, which reduce the market value [35].
Apart from their potential vulnerability to CC, small vegetable farms also have a role to play in mitigation. This may involve both carbon sequestration and reductions in the direct emissions of GHG. The primary source of GHG emissions in vegetable cropping systems are nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions from soil management activities including fertilizer use, irrigation, and tillage, with other activities such as fossil fuel use in farm equipment and land use contributing comparatively less [36,37]. Management practices that reduce N2O emissions without reducing yields are of great value for CC mitigation. Soil organic carbon (SOC) is important for soil health and productivity, but most agricultural soils are depleted in SOC from intensive management practices and biomass harvest [38], thus making agricultural soil an important reservoir for carbon sequestration in the pursuit of net zero emissions [2,3,38], while enhancing resilience through improved soil health and improved yields [39,40].
Here, we address the current gap in knowledge about small-scale vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate-smart practices through a series of in-depth interviews with farmers selling in FMs serving the Seattle metropolitan area in King County, Washington. Our findings reveal both confidence and uncertainty in farmers’ relationships with CSA in terms of both perceptions and practices and shed light on how adaptation and mitigation align with other farm priorities and the significance of CSA for business identity, customer communications, and marketing.
2. Methods
2.1. Aims and overview
The aim of this study was to explore the previously un-studied relationship of DTC vegetable farmers in the study area to CSA. Qualitative interviews using a semi-structured interview guide were employed to support development of a rich understanding of the diversity and nuance of participants’ perspectives related to the relative importance of CSA in light of competing demands and priorities and to allow for emerging topics within the context of individual experience, which is a strength of the method [41].
2.2. Participants
Participant inclusion criteria were designed to limit the study to small-scale farmers that rely on customer relationships as a key element of their business. Eligible participants were over 18 years old and owned or operated a farm business with ≤$250,000 in gross annual sales selling vegetables DTC via FMs in King County. Producers who had additional products and market channels were asked to respond based only on the DTC vegetable aspects of their operation. Participants were recruited through FMs in King County, Washington, between March 25th and June 11th, 2024, to provide ample recruitment opportunity even among seasonal FMs that open in late May. FMs were identified using the Washington State Farmers Market Directory [42]. Market websites (n = 35) were reviewed for vendor lists and market manager contact information. Emails were sent to market managers to describe study aims and request that they distribute recruitment information to their vendors. In-person recruitment was also conducted at two FMs. Farms on market vendor lists with publicly available email addresses were also contacted directly, with multiple rounds of email recruitment over the course of the spring. Recruitment materials were provided in both English and Spanish.
2.3. Data collection
Interviews (n = 17) were conducted between April 4, 2024, and June 26, 2024. One member of the study team conducted all interviews, with a second team member present for notetaking and follow-up questions. Interviews were conducted over Zoom or phone. Interviews lasted 45–75 minutes and followed a semi-structured interview guide (S1 Appendix). After receiving a brief overview of the interview, consenting to audio recording, and confirming eligibility, participants were asked about their farm priorities and mission; general thoughts on CC related to their farm; activities, resources and gaps related to CC adaptation; activities, resources, and gaps related to CC mitigation; and customer relationships and priorities. Participants were given brief definitions for adaptation (“strategies that enhance resilience or reduce the risk of lost productivity from a changing climate”) and mitigation (“practices that limit agriculture’s contribution towards climate change”) upon introduction of the concepts. Sixteen interviews were conducted in English and one was conducted in Spanish with a professional interpreter. Interviews were recorded for transcription and analysis. Interviewers wrote memos to document important points and impressions following each interview. Each participant received a $100 gift card after completion of the interview.
2.4. Data analysis
One interview was excluded from the final dataset (n = 16) because the farm did not meet inclusion criteria (grew specialty crops but not vegetables). Interview recordings were processed using the Microsoft Word transcribe feature and manually edited for accuracy and to remove identifying information. Cleaned transcripts were uploaded to Dedoose for qualitative analysis. We conducted first pass attribute and structural coding [43] focused on pre-determined research questions. We then created a codebook (S2 Appendix), which was iteratively refined during and after a second round of line-by-line coding in which we looked for emergent codes. The final codebook contains both pre-determined and emergent codes which were applied to the transcripts [44]. Our analysis of codes, categories, and themes followed principles of thematic analysis [45]. Throughout the analytic process we held team discussions of the data and evolving interpretation.
Where semi-quantitative descriptions are provided (e.g., “some,” “many”), these are not intended to be inferences about the prevalence or distribution of phenomena outside the sample, but rather they are intended to describe patterns within the data as is typical in qualitative research [46]. For some topics, including farm ethos and reasons for implementing adaptation practices, it was helpful to categorize participant responses. In these cases, the associated research questions were part of the interview guide, but categories emerged during analysis. For example, we asked participants about their business ethos but did not refer to or probe for specific categories (S1 Appendix). Similarly, categories for how and why farmers decided to implement mitigation practices – proactively, reactively, or having considered but not implemented the practice – are categories which emerged from the analysis of participants’ discussions of the topic.
2.5. Ethics
The research plan was submitted to the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (HSD) and deemed exempt. HSD does not review consent plans for exempt research. All participants were informed their participation was voluntary and that they could skip a question or terminate the interview at any time. Participants were informed that interviews would be recorded and asked whether they consented to the interview and recording. All participants provided verbal consent to the interview and recording. Once consent was given, the recording was started and participants were asked to once again confirm their consent to recording. No participants chose to terminate the interview early without responding to all questions.
3. Results
Study participants were demographically diverse and represented a spectrum of farm sizes and farming experience (Table 1). All grew vegetables commercially, with some running diversified operations that also included animals, grains, fruits, herbs, or flowers. All farms were in Washington State and sold produce commercially through at least one King County FM, with some also operating additional DTC market channels (e.g., community-supported agriculture boxes) or selling into wholesale channels such as food hubs or direct-to-restaurant.
Interviewees expressed a variety of personal motivations for farming, from “farming is really fun for me: I like it, and I want to eat” (P1015) to disillusionment with a corporate career or a desire to make a difference in food access, food sovereignty, and “how we treat the land … and the people who are working the land” (P1004). When asked about their farm’s overall ethos or mission, responses fell into the broad categories of environment-, community-, or business-focused statements, with some noting priorities across multiple categories (Fig 1). Interviewees often expressed tensions between running a viable business and prioritizing environmental or community-oriented values:
Three categories emerged in participant descriptions of their farm’s overall ethos or mission. Commonly mentioned attributes for each category are listed under the category heading. Numbers indicate the number of participants who mentioned priorities relating to each category when describing their overall farm ethos or mission. Participants who mentioned priorities fitting a single category are shown within that circle only, while participants who mentioned priorities across multiple categories are shown at the intersection of those categories (n = 16). For example, a total of five participants mentioned business-focused priorities, but only two of those mentioned only business-focused priorities while the other three also mentioned environment- and community-focused priorities.
I believe in the tenants [of regenerative agriculture]. And so that is what I’m ALWAYS looking for. What am I doing that is distracting from those goals? And what am I doing that is improving those goals? And then balancing that with the fact that this is a running business and so there are some places – I call them my ecological loss leaders – where we’re going to do this because it gets us to a point… where we can then make a more stable, better system. (P1001)
3.1. General views on climate change
No participants expressed lack of concern or disbelief in CC, although a few did not distinguish between CC and other anthropogenic environmental harms such as pollution. When asked what comes to mind when thinking about CC and their farm, interviewees expressed a mix of sentiments primarily comprised of concerns, although some also mentioned opportunities. Participants worried about impacts on crops, ecosystems, and human health, and spoke about increasing unpredictability of weather or weather-related challenges in farming including droughts, floods, high winds, heat waves, and late or unseasonal cold snaps.
In describing direct impacts of severe or extreme weather on crops, water-related concerns were prominent. Many expressed concerns about water availability in terms of either supply or cost. Irrigation sources among participants reflected the diversity of water access methods in the region [47], and included municipal systems, irrigation canals, rights for river withdrawal, and groundwater withdrawal. A few lacked access to irrigation water and relied exclusively on rainfall and rainwater collection. In Western Washington several prime farming regions exist along river flood plains, and farmers in these areas also mentioned the impacts of unseasonable flooding. Due to the seasonal nature of precipitation and streamflow, some participants who worried about flooding also worried about drought or rising water costs. Concerns with water availability were particularly prominent for interviewees located in Eastern Washington who had already experienced water shortages.
Ecosystem-related concerns included changes to natural systems that could have negative impacts on crop productivity including declining health or abundance of pollinators and other native species, increased pest pressure, and overall biodiversity loss. Human health concerns included the impact of working in hot or smoky conditions. Despite concerns, several participants also noted that CC meant they were increasingly able to take advantage of longer and warmer shoulder seasons for earlier spring and later fall plantings and to experiment with crops that were previously not feasible to grow in the PNW (melons were given as an example).
Participants felt that small farms are on the front lines of CC both physically and socioeconomically:
I think in general climate change is going to affect people that grow food the most. We’re the ones that are going to have to endure the high temperatures, the low temperatures, the extreme flooding. And it’s gonna affect our pocketbooks before it affects the end consumer, because they can go buy food from Mexico, California. It gets shipped to them, to their neighborhood grocery store, but we can’t [benefit from that]. (P1014)
3.2. Perspectives on adaptation
All participants were familiar with the idea of adaptation to CC, and many had examples of ways in which they had modified practices over time.
3.2.1. Lived experience and perceived risks.
Many mentioned unpredictable or unseasonable weather patterns among their top concerns and prioritized adapting to unpredictability. Several interviewees referenced the Northwest heat dome of June 2021, a multi-week event when many locations hit all-time record high temperatures [48], and noted that that was the first time they had dealt with extreme heat of such magnitude and duration, particularly early in the season. Many felt that extreme events would become more common, and it was noted that in some ways they had not yet been thoroughly tested by CC or pushed to adapt, so living through extreme events provided a preview of what was to come and motivation to implement adaptation measures:
I think it’s hard when we’re thinking about this kind of a topic that feels both imminent, but we haven’t really been tested yet for a lot of things, and we haven’t really been pushed to adapt, probably in a way that would be beneficial. (P1008)
Farmers described adaptations that could be categorized as those undertaken proactively in anticipation of future challenges, those undertaken reactively to minimize negative impacts in the moment, and those that had been contemplated for potential future implementation (Table 2). Proactive adaptations were often described as aligning with overall business goals and not conflicting with other farm priorities. Reactive adaptations, on the other hand, were often described as disruptive to daily operations and in conflict with the farms’ ethos. For example, several farms increased their irrigation during the heat dome in an effort to cool at-risk crops, but voiced concerns over the long-term sustainability of this solution. Another response to extreme heat was to immediately harvest sensitive crops, which diverts labor from other farm needs and can lead to challenges with keeping products fresh until market days.
3.2.2. Synergies with other priorities.
In addition to reducing risk, many adaptations were also described as synergistic with business expansion, diversification, or mission. For example, adaptations such as high tunnels and greenhouses that help stabilize production during unpredictable weather also allow extension of production into expanding shoulder seasons. Some interviewees also mentioned modifying their high tunnels to allow them to be fully ventilated in the heat, thus making them more practical for a variety of extremes. In describing incorporating CC into their business model, one participant said:
At our elevation, the slightly warmer temperatures have actually given us a little bit longer season. … We’ve actually been able to get our biggest cash crops, which are cucumbers and tomatoes, in earlier than we have in the past. … So that’s not a negative as far as running a farm is concerned. (P1002)
Crop selection was also important, and many described switching to more drought-tolerant varieties, shorter season varieties that would be ready for harvest faster, or cool weather varieties that could be planted earlier in the spring or later in the fall to take advantage of the shoulder season when issues with heat and water scarcity are less likely. Only a few farmers brought up microgreens as an adaptive technique, but the polarization of views on this practice provides interesting insight into the diversity of perspectives and priorities: Those who produced microgreens described them as climate-friendly due to their low water demands, and an adaptation to climate variability and source of year-round income because they are grown under controlled conditions. Some others saw microgreens as problematic and impractical due to their high energy requirements.
3.2.3. Barriers to adaptation.
In describing potentially beneficial but unimplemented adaptations, participants noted a variety of barriers. Many mentioned cost, for instance: “we would like to have a greenhouse … to do our starts, so that we are able to start planting earlier. But they’re quite expensive” (P1010). Participants were also aware of possible adaptations but felt that conditions had not yet reached the point where change was necessary or that the adaptations were too difficult or disruptive to be implemented unless unavoidable.
Even after describing unimplemented adaptation strategies, no participants expressed concern that adaptation was simply not possible or that CC was going to put them out of business. Concerns related to business longevity tended to stem from finances or personal physical capacity rather than climate. Many noted that adaptation was inevitable or unavoidable if they wished to continue farming: “I don’t think you can resist it. I think it has to be something you’re willing to work with if you want to be able to continue to grow food” (P1016).
3.2.4. Resources for adaptation.
Among those who mentioned cost as a barrier, some noted that existing financial resources such as grants and loans were helpful, while others found them difficult to navigate or misaligned with their capacity. Reimbursement programs that required out-of-pocket spending first, for example, were mentioned as not realistic for small businesses.
In terms of information resources to support adaptation, interviewees felt that they had a general template for adaptation in mind or had ideas of where to turn to for insights and ideas, while acknowledging that more information is always welcome. Many relied on neighboring farms and farmer friends for information, others preferred impersonal resources such as websites, videos, books, and magazines, and some used a combination of approaches. Classes from extension offices and farm support organizations were also valuable to several participants. The collective wisdom of the farming community both locally and further away was especially important during times of acute stress. Of navigating the 2021 heat dome, one interviewee said:
You know, having 114° out here—that’s not something you expect in the Pacific Northwest. [It’s] not something that we historically have knowledge of, [or that] me personally as a farmer—[I] had never had to farm in that kind of heat. So we were all talking to other each other like: What are you going to do? How are you going to make sure everything doesn’t die? And [we were] calling our friends in California being like: What do you guys do? (P1004)
Participants described looking to regions with more extreme climates than the PNW as a source of adaptation guidance. Several mentioned Californian farms as examples of how to grow in a warmer, drier climate, and a participant who had previously farmed in California felt that it helped them to farm in the PNW under a changing climate.
3.2.5. Attributes facilitating adaptation.
The types of adaptation that interviewees felt were needed or feasible varied based on both the climate stresses they were exposed to and the unique features of each farm. Diversity in suitable adaptation measures—even among small farms producing similar crops in a single region—is exemplified by rain barrels: some farmers operating at a very small scale in terms of acreage mentioned collecting rainwater as an important adaptation to longer dry periods, while for other farms operating across larger spatial scales, this would be entirely impractical.
Interviewees noted the inherent flexibility of a small farm with a DTC business model as a significant factor in their approach to climate adaptation:
So we stay very flexible, and I think that’s another reason why… I’m not as worried about climate change affecting the business model here. [If it gets] to a point where all I can grow is salad mix and watermelons, well my land can grow that, and I can sell that. I’d be really sad to not grow my kales and radicchios and sprouting broccolis and things like that. But from a business standpoint, I can pivot, and I can pivot every single year. (P1001)
Many also felt that small farms had an adaptive advantage over larger farms because they could implement changes more quickly, without being bound to investments in existing infrastructure or market contracts. Participants valued the flexibility of being able to sell new products or varieties in the DTC market more easily than the wholesale market. In describing the resilience of small farms, a farmer compared the climate resilience of small farms to that experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic:
I would hope that people realize like they did in the pandemic that food is a really sensitive area. Farmers are hanging on just by a little bit, and our whole food system is so sensitive … folks really realized that in 2020. … Maybe everybody’s going back to their normal lives, but I would think that’s still in people’s minds how valuable small farms are, and [how important it is] having that food security around. … I mean, the pandemic was pretty much like climate change [as a threat to the food system], but climate change is just more drawn out. (P1014)
3.3. Perspectives on mitigation
In contrast to adaptation, about which participant views were well-developed and comparatively homogenous, participants varied greatly in their discussion of CC mitigation. Farmers described a variety of CC-mitigating and generally beneficial practices, often expressing uncertainty about the connections between farming practices and CC mitigation, while also explaining reasons for not implementing certain practices.
3.3.1. Knowledge and uncertainty.
No participants stated that they did not believe in or care about CC, but their knowledge of the subject and their views on the role of small farms varied greatly. Some were well-informed and able to articulate the relationship between their farming practices and CC mitigation, though they did not necessarily feel that they fully understood the biogeochemical mechanisms at work. For instance, one such farmer ended their description of building soil carbon with “there is a benefit to that and I’m just not good at actually scientifically describing why that is” (P1008). Others were less clear on what mitigation meant (beyond the brief definition provided) or were unsure how their farming practices might contribute to CC and why mitigation might be relevant to them: “What kind of footprint is [agriculture] producing that we would need to reduce?” (P1012).
Despite uncertainty about CC specifically, all participants articulated interest in caring for the environment and using practices that limited environmental damage or that were environmentally beneficial. Among both mitigation-knowledgeable and mitigation-uncertain farmers there was a tendency to conflate practices that are generally environmentally friendly with those that directly mitigate CC (Table 3). While discussing their mitigation activities, some participants began listing all of the environmentally beneficial practices they utilized—possibly due both to uncertainty over what specifically constitutes mitigation: “I don’t even know if this would be considered part of climate change, but … [we make] good compost fertilization to put back [on the] farm” (P1007), as well as a desire to make clear that environmental considerations are important to them despite their uncertainty on this particular topic: “[my farming partner] has always been the type of person who knows that he has to work with Mother Nature in order for his produce to grow” (P1007). Avoidance of “toxins” or “chemicals”—words used in reference to synthetic herbicides and pesticides—was mentioned by many participants when discussing mitigation, as were water conservation efforts and measures to attract beneficial insects (Table 3).
“Keeping the soil covered” was another practice participants implemented and often mentioned as a mitigation measure, although the specific methods of covering the soil varied greatly. Use of plastic silage tarps was common, as were mulches and cover crops. Only a few interviewees mentioned the tensions between the practical benefits of tarps and the potential negative environmental impacts of widespread plastic use: “plasticulture is … incredibly necessary, but it’s also incredibly destructive and polluting” (P1001). Apart from the few participants noting tradeoffs with plastic, participants tended to refer to the various strategies for keeping the soil covered interchangeably or to alternate between them: “[Covered soil is] either it’s got something growing in it, it’s got mulch on top of it, or it’s got a tarp covering it. So it’s not bare” (P1008).
3.3.2. Motivations for mitigation.
Among mitigation-knowledgeable farmers who had implemented practices deliberately focused on mitigation, the desire to implement such practices tended to arise from personal or business values. This was especially true if the practice involved additional effort or expense, with one farmer explaining: “We understand that each person, as much as they can, should do their best to … help reduce the effects of climate change. So I think we take that as part of our responsibility too” (P1010). However, unlike adaptation practices which some farmers implemented even if they were disruptive, interviewees did not describe having implemented any mitigation practices that were disruptive to other operational priorities. Some mitigation activities also had co-benefits, such as labor-savings, that provided motivation to start or continue the practice. Others saw mitigation practices as a natural outgrowth of practices that “made sense” for the environment and can help give the farm a competitive edge and boost productivity:
It’s helped me be more productive. Growing things that work with the environment… it just helps the community as a whole because I’m able to get produce out to them, and I’m able to be sustainable by growing the perennials and pollinator plants that help the bees. So it’s beneficial in that way. (P1009)
3.3.3. Limiting factors for mitigation.
Knowledgeability, however, was not synonymous with having implemented mitigation practices. Some knowledgeable interviewees expressed the sentiment that mitigation was either not the responsibility of small-scale farms or that key mitigation practices such as reduced tillage were incompatible with vegetable production (Table 4). Mitigation-knowledgeable interviewees provided reasoned arguments for why they had implemented some practices over others, or why they had decided to forego or discontinue certain mitigation practices (Table 4). Another common sentiment was the idea of trying to limit harm or offset damage from another practice, acknowledging that “if you’re growing agriculture, you’re doing some kind of damage often” (P1003).
Participants expressed strong opinions on no-till practices. Farmers practicing no-till, minimum till, or conventional tillage offered a range of justifications for their choices. Some felt that no-till increased labor while others felt that it decreased labor, with labor frequently cited as a priority decision-making factor. Some farmers felt strongly that no-till was an important step they could take towards mitigation:
I think no-till is the answer for climate change. Building living soil as a result. This not only helps Mother Nature by creating a very intense soil structure, and as a result, sequestering carbon at a much faster rate, but also on the human side of things [it leads to] longer shelf life, better flavor, better quality and more nutrient dense produce. … So on half an acre my yield is [equivalent to] five acres-worth of food [from] a traditional farm. (P1011)
Others felt that tilling was essential for bed preparation in vegetable cultivation, and some saw no-till as an aspirational but perhaps unattainable practice due to the specific characteristics of their land or operation and resources. Farmers working in clay soils or in river flood plains also found no-till to be impractical:
I switched away from [no-till] for a couple reasons. … It’s really labor intensive: like I was … broad forking every bed [by hand], filling up [many] wheelbarrow[s] with compost … It was a lot of work physically which takes up time and also it’s really hard on your body, and farming is hard enough on your body already. … I felt like we were still getting a weed bank from the floods and we were also losing some of that mulch every winter with the floods and it felt like it was sort of an investment that was not necessarily paying off in the way I had [hoped] or the way that I think it can in a different scenario. (P1004)
3.3.4. Resources for mitigation.
Unlike adaptation, for which farmers were generally comfortable with available information resources and felt that there were examples to follow, they expressed more uncertainty about resources to support mitigation. Interviewees listed similar categories of information sources for mitigation as for adaptation, with social media, mainly blogs and videos, being a commonly listed source of information on mitigation. Local nonprofit organizations were also mentioned as important hubs for mitigation resource and idea sharing among farmers. Some participants were unaware of mitigation resources, had not looked for mitigation resources, or stated they did not know enough to identify any gaps in resources. Whereas participants mentioned looking to other geographies for adaptation guidance, participants expressed the need for very local mitigation resources tailored to the unique circumstances of PNW or even to their farm’s specific soil type.
Unsurprisingly, those who were more mitigation-knowledgeable had much more to say about where they look for mitigation resources. One interviewee who was highly aware of mitigation resources provided a detailed list of organizations and the relevance of their advice. Several farmers mentioned notable individuals in the regenerative agriculture movement. Participants who were more uncertain about CC mitigation had less awareness of mitigation-specific resources. Like the practices themselves, some of the resources were geared towards organic farming methods or other environmentally beneficial practices. Farmers unanimously expressed interest in more resources on climate mitigation.
3.4. Outlook on small-scale solutions
When discussing the future of farming in a changing climate, participants expressed a delicate balance between innovation and a return to traditional ways. Expensive, automated, or highly technological solutions were only mentioned by a few farmers who thought they were impractical or financially infeasible for small farms. In contrast, many farmers brought up ideas of returning to historical or traditional knowledge and practices to improve the care of the land: “I find a lot of things that I was taught by my grandmother help” (P1009). Others expressed optimism about research to provide small-scale vegetable growers with new tools, such as alternative mulches to replace plastic tarps or new machinery to reduce the manual labor associated with small-scale operation:
Up until the last maybe 10 years there wasn’t any new machinery for small farmers, and now there [are] companies … reproducing some of these older style cultivating tractors, or the finger weeding tools, basket weeders, flame weeding. There [are] all these new tools being … made, and that’s really exciting and it drives the organic sector and encourages young farmers to farm this way, because these tools are more available. (P1014)
3.5. Perspectives on customers and marketing
Interviewees collectively described their customers as a cross section of the Seattle/ King County population that spanned age, socio-economic status, and cultural backgrounds. Many included food access in their values and expressed appreciation for the several federal, state, and local programs that exist to support access to fresh produce for low-income and food-insecure residents [50,51]. Some farms focused on providing culturally relevant produce to different groups including the area’s Asian, Eastern European, and East African populations.
3.5.1. Climate awareness among customers.
Many farmers felt that their customers cared about the environment, but whether this was based on inference or first-hand knowledge varied. Some said they assumed the environment was simply an important cause people would care about. Others said they had never heard their customers talk about the environment. Some interviewees hypothesized that climate concerns were part of their customers’ general desire to protect the environment, but felt that those customers may not explicitly link food production or their purchasing choices to CC, or that they did not associate climate concerns with small-scale production:
I don’t think maybe the mainstream folks or our customers are concerned with how farmers like myself are contributing to climate change... In general, I feel like more people are concerned with big corporations, automobiles, the big energy sector and how they’re contributing to climate change. (P1014)
Several participants noted that people shopping at a FM may attribute environmental or social virtue to that act, and believe that supporting a small farm is one way that they can contribute to combating climate issues—either making the link directly or through associating attributes of small, local, or organic farms with general environmental benefit:
[There’s] a lot of interest [among our customers] in regenerative. But also not a lot of clarity over what that actually means. … A lot of the questions we get are very focused on that [and] I think if someone’s asking us about regenerative agriculture, what they’re really trying to ask is more around climate change mitigation and adaptation. (P1013)
Some farmers felt that customer concern about farming and CC stemmed more from individuals’ concern about their continued ability to find the products they want at consistent prices and were less related to concerns about farmer’s livelihood or the environment. Other farmers felt that their customers did express broader or more altruistic concerns regarding the farmer’s wellbeing and overall sustainability in the face of CC. A few noted that an opportunity exists to help customers connect their existing environmental concerns to farming and climate through issues that are familiar and specific to them: “I think that if there was a way to help them connect climate change and [the availability of their favorite product] … I think that they will be more proactive with worrying about climate change” (P1007).
3.5.2. Market niches.
Many participants used organic methods, mostly without certification, and described their avoidance of chemicals as a major selling point among their customers. Multiple participants also felt that freshness, flavor, and health were important attributes that kept their customers coming back, with statements like “they like the freshness” (P1012), and “the quality of your produce brings people back” (P1007). Several farmers spoke about having developed a niche and become known for certain specialty products, often in response to customer requests for crops or varieties not frequently sold in U.S. grocery stores, such as bitter melon, shark fin melon, various Asian greens, and varieties of lettuce, beans, and corn better-known in other countries.
Many interviewees emphasized the importance of communicating their overall farm ethos, rather than specific practices (except for organic practices), in marketing their products to customers: “What we market is more like the story or the narrative rather than the produce itself” (P1013). Several farmers did describe weaving various farming practices into their overall narrative about environmental stewardship, with one participant stating that new practices were not worth implementing unless they could contribute to a compelling story for the customer. Practices mentioned as contributing to the farms’ narrative were regenerative agriculture, dry farming, and no-till, but interviewees stressed that these were more important as part of the overall feel of the farm than as stand-alone practices:
I think there are people who have come up to our booth and they’ve been like: “No-till: that’s amazing! Thank you so much for doing what you’re doing.” But I can count those people on one hand. It’s not the thing that’s out there and well known. But I do think there is this sort of green energy of shopping at a farmers market that people like to engage with. (P1016)
Several farmers also noted that their customers felt that by supporting small farms, they were doing their part to support environmental causes including CC, with statements like “they care that I care” and “[through supporting] a small, new farm like ours … they feel like they’re contributing something positive for the earth” (P1011). Again, sentiments such as this linked back to the farm’s overall ethos of environmental stewardship.
3.5.3. Farmers as a trusted resource.
Interviewees also noted that the trust they had built with their customers was an integral component of both their marketing and their ability to educate and raise awareness of important topics:
One of the reasons I like being at the market [is] because a lot of the people at the market are looking for that connection with their farmer. They want to know who grows their food; they want to talk about how they’re gardening, or … if their balcony is going to have enough light to grow this tomato start that I’m selling them, or how to use this basil, you know? They just want that human connection with their food. (P1005)
Farmers mentioned giving customers cooking and gardening tips, talking with them about environmental stewardship, recommending new varieties they might like, and that “they’re more willing to take those suggestions that you offer them because they know you’re not just trying to sell them something—your suggestion is really for their benefit, and they know [it]” (P1007). Some said they published brochures or newsletters with updates about their farm and their practices. A subset of these expressed doubts about customer interest in reading and understanding this information, while others felt that it “creates a deeper understanding of why our style of farming is necessary and so important” (P1016). Several noted that small farms were important in raising awareness and helping to move the needle on system change:
Yes, there are things we can do on a small farm, and yes, there are things you can do as an individual consumer. But also continuing to build that awareness around the sort of systemic issues of it all. That feels really important because … we need to be doing things individually, but then how are we going to actually shift this as a whole? (P1004)
3.5.4. Tensions with pricing.
Many farmers spoke about the tension between making a living wage for themselves, paying workers fairly, and maintaining reasonable prices for customers, especially considering the community and food access values shared by many participants. Many participants reluctantly agreed that if their operating costs were to rise, they would have to pass that expense on to customers, but at the same time they felt it was their responsibility to be as conservative as possible in making any changes that would result in price increases. A few stated flatly that they would not raise prices or that people should not or would not pay more for food:
With [the cost of] inputs going up, machinery going up, growing supplies … everything’s going up. [The cost of] food is the last thing to go up, which really affects farming, really affects the farmer’s bottom line. I don’t think people will pay more for food. I honestly don’t. I think they’ll start eating SpaghettiOs and Ritz crackers before they pay $16 a pound for salad mix. (P1014)
Declining to pursue the Organic label was an example of participants emphasizing their overall storytelling over rigid practice-based certification. Farmers felt that their DTC relationship allowed them to receive the highest prices reasonable or possible, and that Organic certification would not result in higher sales prices and was therefore not worth the extra expense and hassle, although one participant did state that the price premium of Organic was important to their business model. Similarly, interviewees did not see a price premium specific to climate-smart produce as something either they or their consumers were likely to support. Instead, they pointed to the opportunity to raise awareness and drive demand for climate-smart produce through helping farmers to develop a story around CSA that their customers can relate to.
4. Discussion
4.1. Climate change belief and interpretation
Many participants in this study readily attributed CC to anthropogenic causes, unprompted by the interviewer, including those who were uncertain whether or how their farming practices contributed to CC (Section 3.1). Across the U.S., farmers as a whole express more skepticism about anthropogenic CC (ACC) than the general public [11], although a study of Oregon specialty crop farmers selling in the DTC market found that this group was more likely than others to believe in ACC and feel that mitigation is necessary [23]. The widespread acceptance of ACC among participants in the present study is consistent with those findings from a neighboring state, and contributes to closing the gap in knowledge related to CC perceptions among farmers in the PNW [11].
In discussing CC, interviewees focused heavily on weather variability and attributed a variety of conditions including extreme cold to CC, with only a few emphasizing longer-term changes to seasonal average conditions (Section 3.2.1). Although increased variability is expected with CC, the tendency of interviewees to focus there aligns with previous studies which have found that neither farmers nor the general public are particularly adept at distinguishing long-term trends in CC from short-term changes in climate variability [52,53]. Individuals are likely to interpret bizarre or unusual weather events in ways that confirm their existing belief structure regarding CC, whereas true climatic change (incremental changes in the annual average temperature) is taking place on a time scale incongruent with human perception of change [53].
4.2. Adaptation confidence, synergies, and conflicts
Rather than seeing CC as a proximate and existential threat to their farms’ viability, participants felt confident in their ability to adapt their cropping systems and viewed CC as a distant risk more likely to threaten their economic sustainability through increasing costs than to directly threaten crop production (Sections 3.1, 3.2.3). This aligns with the findings of Prokopy et al. that across locations, CC belief is higher than perceived risk and many farmers do not believe CC is a risk to local agriculture. However, Prokopy also warns that many farms may be under-prepared to fully cope with the realities of CC-related loss, and it is therefore critical to support not only continued cropping system adaptation but also practices that preserve and increase financial sustainability. The tension between maintaining reasonable prices while earning adequate income was a real concern for farmers in the present study (Section 3.5.4). As one participant hyperbolically noted (mentioning Ritz crackers and SpaghettiOs), consumers have other options. If the price of local produce exceeds consumer willingness to pay, small farms will struggle further as people turn to alternative, less expensive products. Resources that amplify farmers’ ability to connect with their customers on the environmental value of their farming practices, raising consumer awareness and demand for local agriculture, thus hold potential value for farmers from both environmental and economic perspectives.
Another reason participants in this study may not have felt imminently threatened by CC in terms of the viability of their production systems has to do with the availability of other regions that can serve as a roadmap for what is to come in the PNW (e.g., looking to peers in California to understand how to farm in extreme heat) (Section 3.2.4). In ecology, this is known as space-for-time substitution [54], and refers to the assumption that future variation in one location can be inferred using existing spatial variation. Looking to other areas can be both a motivator to adapt proactively (i.e., “we know our climate is going to become more extreme, so let’s look to more extreme areas and how they have historically farmed”) as well as a template for reactive adaptation (i.e., “we’re currently experiencing something unprecedented, so let’s look to a place where it’s not unprecedented”). In the first scenario geography is substituted for lived experience in motivating adaptation, and in the second it serves as a template for adaptation response. While on the one hand CC impacts on PNW farming are unique and require locally tailored solutions, on the other hand, the long history of farming across different climatic conditions globally provides insight into the types of practices that might be beneficial under changing regional conditions. Our findings suggest that the ability to draw on this broad knowledge base contributes to farmers’ confidence in their capacity to adapt to CC.
Where tensions arose between adaptation and other farm priorities, it was in the context of reactive adaptations enacted to respond to imminently harmful situations, often in ways that felt disruptive (Section 3.2.1, Table 2). Proactive adaptions had more in common with mitigation measures farmers had taken, in that they were both described as natural outgrowths of farm values and were not undertaken if disruptive. For example, several farmers noted synergies between exploring new crop varieties based on consumer interest, growing their market niche, and enhancing the climate resilience of their cropping plan (Section 3.2.2). That this is a segment of farmers who tend to embrace crop diversity and experimentation, and thrive on a mutual exchange of information and interests with their customers [31,55], leads to myriad opportunities to incorporate climate-smart practices and crops into both cropping systems and business models. Alternatively, farmers’ responsiveness to customer demands (e.g., for certain crops or varieties) could also lead to conflicting priorities, for instance, if certain crops are not well-adapted to the changing climate yet are in high demand among customers. Several interviewees referred to such challenges related to cool-season crops. Thus, well-tailored support for this segment of farmers should focus both on opportunities to synergize as well as to mitigate conflicts at the interface of cropping system adaptation and customer relationships.
4.3. Questioning the relevance and feasibility of mitigation practices
As with proactive adaptation, mitigation practices were only implemented if they fit within a farm’s production and business models (Section 3.3.2). Prior studies have noted that while adaptation activities among farmers can occur regardless of beliefs, mitigation activities are more closely motivated by personal ACC beliefs [11]. However, even when personal belief and knowledge of ACC existed in our study participants, other factors related to practical considerations of vegetable production and the resource limitations of small-scale farming constrained mitigation action (Section 3.3.3). This aligns with previous observations [19] and highlights both the lesser relative importance of mitigation compared to other priorities among this subset of farmers, as well as the need for mitigation tools better-tailored to small-scale vegetable farming systems.
Interviewees cited uncertainty about the impact of practices as a factor limiting their mitigation activities (Section 3.3.3). Both mitigation-knowledgeable and mitigation-uncertain farmers mentioned interest in better information on quantifiable benefits or tradeoffs to understand the impact of current or potential future practices. Life cycle assessment research can support decision-making, strengthen communication around climate mitigation practices, and help to quantify tradeoffs between implementation cost, crop yields, and climatological and ecological impacts. While broadly relevant assessments do exist [10,37,56], there remains a need for information tailored to this segment of producers that addresses question: “does it even make a difference at my scale?”
Small farms account for approximately 28% of the 14 million acres of farmland in Washington state [32]. Frameworks promoting SOC increases for CC mitigation emphasize the benefit of even small increases in SOC across all land use types [2], and published estimates of the mitigation potential from soil carbon sequestration often assume close to full adoption of best management practices across land use types [38]. Like the collective power of individual choices to reduce personal environmental footprints, every bit helps, and collectively small farms have much to contribute to mitigation efforts. Yet farmers in this study also noted many constraints—both informational and logistical (Table 4)—to implementing mitigation measures. This is a subset of farmers that tends to be highly interested in environmental causes, and whose customer base tends to already attribute environmental virtue to small local farms (Sections 3.3.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3). Without mitigation resources tailored to their unique questions and challenges, however, small-scale DTC vegetable farmers such as the participants in this study are left out of fully engaging in this matter of societal importance.
4.4. Towards mitigation synergies
Interestingly, there was substantial overlap between practices that farmers considered adaptive and mitigating (Tables 2 and 3). The co-benefits of many mitigation practices, particularly those focused increasing SOC, are well-established and include improvements to soil health, water retention, wildlife and pollinator habitat, crop productivity, and overall increases in ecosystem health and system resilience to extreme conditions [2,38,39]. Arguably, increased resilience also lessens the extent to which reactive adaptation is necessary. Quantifying the mitigation benefits of existing adaptive practices and highlighting benefits to system resilience from mitigation practices can help farmers to capitalize on potentially under-appreciated synergies, and to leverage familiar adaptation practices to propel the implementation of mitigation measures. A particularly compelling argument for implementing synergistic mitigation practices may be the resultant enhanced resilience which can potentially reduce the strain, labor costs, and tradeoffs associated with reactive adaptation.
When asked about the intersection of CSA and marketing, participants pushed back on the idea of price increases as a way to support the implementation of costly or troublesome practices, instead stressing the importance of narrative in their customer relationships and marketing and explaining that new practices must fit within the overall story of their farm (Section 3.5.4). This highlights the importance of farmers’ familiarity with CSA in order to both implement and communicate the benefit of practices. Participants often talked about their role as an educational resource for customers (Section 3.5.3), and those with more climate knowledge were more likely to include climate messaging in their marketing. Despite acceptance of ACC and strong principles of environmental stewardship, participants nonetheless had a degree of uncertainty regarding both the methods and relevance of mitigation (Section 3.3.1). Efforts intended to support adoption of mitigation practices should therefore combine information on the relevance of mitigation efforts by small-scale farms with practices that are practical for small-scale, DTC vegetable production, in a way that aligns with farms’ overarching values.
Empowering this segment of farmers to build a compelling story around those mitigation practices they already employ—or choose to implement as the result of resources tailored to their type of operation—has the potential to increase interest and demand for products grown in climate-friendly ways and help to raise awareness and consumer engagement with CSA more broadly. When a customer learns something new from a producer at the FM, they are more likely to make an immediate purchase, which can lead to changed preferences and long-term purchasing behavior; and increased availability of information aids consumers in making purchases that align with their values [31]. Thus, research and educational resources supporting evidence-based and well-tailored mitigation practices synergistic with other farm priorities are valuable for furthering the dialogue between farmers and their customers, enabling both to more fully engage with the CC through their business and purchasing choices.
4.5. Strengths and limitations
To our knowledge, this is the first study of its kind to focus on the perceptions of small-scale DTC vegetable farmers in the PNW, a group with a unique relationship to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The inclusion of mitigation perceptions and the interface between CSA and customer relationships, in particular, is novel for this type and scale of production. The sample was operationally and demographically diverse, spanning a breadth of experience and opinions, but there is potential that not every perspective was represented. Research team members who aided in development of the research questions, data collection, and analysis have expertise across multiple dimensions of food systems and economics, and methodological rigor ensured interpretation was not based on a single perspective. Participants knew before the interview that we were interested in their perceptions on climate issues. This knowledge could have introduced bias by appealing to those with the strongest opinions (positive or negative) resulting in selection bias, or it could have potentiated participants to think about climate more than they naturally do, thus inducing a response bias, although the interview guide was reviewed for question cleanliness to minimize the risk of bias [57]. The abstract nature of CC may also have been more difficult to articulate, such that some participant uncertainty could have been due to cultural differences or comfort with oral communication rather than or in addition to level of knowledge.
We utilized qualitative interviews to explore the diversity of opinions and perspectives of small-scale DTC vegetable farmers, which were of primary interest for the present study. Future research could include larger farms that still primarily operate in the specialty crop DTC market and utilize additional approaches such as quantitative or mixed methods surveys to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the extent to which sentiments are shared across this agricultural sector.
5. Conclusion
Empowering farms of every type and size to fight CC is important for both global goals and regional food system stability. Small-scale DTC vegetable farmers in the PNW are aware of CC and potential risks to their operations. Participants felt reasonably confident about adaptation and comfortable with the resources available to them, and while some did have concerns about the long-term viability of their farms, they did not view CC as an existential threat to their continued ability to farm. Although climate and environmental stewardship were important values for many, they often lacked familiarity with specific mitigation practices or expressed uncertainty about their relevance. Many farmers included community food access in their business values and did not see price premiums as a motivating factor to adopt mitigation practices. Efforts geared towards promoting uptake of mitigation practices within this segment of farming should instead focus on synergies with other farm priorities and on quantifying the ecological benefits and impact of adoption at small scales. With many customers already attributing environmental benefits to farms of this type, resources that help farmers meaningfully incorporate CSA into both their practices and their overarching story can help increase consumer awareness of the linkages between farming and climate, better leveraging the social energy and relationships on which DTC markets thrive.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Interview guide.
Interview guide for semi-structured interviews.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000647.s001
(PDF)
S2 Appendix. Code book.
Final code book including predetermined and emergent codes.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000647.s002
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the farmers who provided their insights through interviews, and market managers who facilitated farmer contacts.
References
- 1. Howden SM, Soussana J-F, Tubiello FN, Chhetri N, Dunlop M, Meinke H. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(50):19691–6. pmid:18077402
- 2. Amelung W, Bossio D, de Vries W, Kögel-Knabner I, Lehmann J, Amundson R, et al. Towards a global-scale soil climate mitigation strategy. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):5427. pmid:33110065
- 3.
Shukla PR, Skea J, Reisinger A, Slade R, Fradera R, Pathak M, et al. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Slade R, Al Khourdajie A, van Diemen R, McCollum D, et al., editors. IPCC 2022: Summary for Policy Makers. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press; 2022. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157926.001
- 4. Lipper L, Thornton P, Campbell BM, Baedeker T, Braimoh A, Bwalya M, et al. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nature Clim Change. 2014;4(12):1068–72.
- 5. van Asseldonk M, Girvetz E, Pamuk H, Wattel C, Ruben R. Policy incentives for smallholder adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Front Polit Sci. 2023;5.
- 6. Fusco G, Melgiovanni M, Porrini D, Ricciardo TM. How to improve the diffusion of climate-smart agriculture: what the literature tells us. Sustainability. 2020;12(12):5168.
- 7. Li J, Ma W, Zhu H. A systematic literature review of factors influencing the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. 2023;29(1).
- 8. USDA. Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Project Summaries. [cited 31 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/general-information/priorities/climate-solutions/climate-smart-commodities/partnerships-climate-smart-commodities-project-summaries
- 9. Lal R. Reducing carbon footprints of agriculture and food systems. Carbon Footprints. 2022;1(1):3.
- 10. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, et al. Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod. 2015;104:23–39.
- 11. Chatrchyan AM, Erlebacher RC, Chaopricha NT, Chan J, Tobin D, Allred SB. United States agricultural stakeholder views and decisions on climate change. WIREs Climate Change. 2017;8(5).
- 12. Willett W, Rockström J, Loken B, Springmann M, Lang T, Vermeulen S, et al. Food in the anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet. 2019;393(10170):447–92. pmid:30660336
- 13. Mason-D’Croz D, Bogard JR, Sulser TB, Cenacchi N, Dunston S, Herrero M, et al. Gaps between fruit and vegetable production, demand, and recommended consumption at global and national levels: an integrated modelling study. Lancet Planet Health. 2019;3(7):e318–29. pmid:31326072
- 14. Willekens K, Vandecasteele B, Buchan D, De Neve S. Soil quality is positively affected by reduced tillage and compost in an intensive vegetable cropping system. Appl Soil Ecol. 2014;82:61–71.
- 15. Jackson LE, Ramirez I, Yokota R, Fennimore SA, Koike ST, Henderson DM, et al. On-farm assessment of organic matter and tillage management on vegetable yield, soil, weeds, pests, and economics in California. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2004;103(3):443–63.
- 16. Congreves KA, Van Eerd LL. Nitrogen cycling and management in intensive horticultural systems. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 2015;102(3):299–318.
- 17. Brainard DC, Peachey RE, Haramoto ER, Luna JM, Rangarajan A. Weed Ecology and nonchemical management under strip-tillage: implications for Northern U.S. Vegetable Cropping Systems. Weed technol. 2013;27(1):218–30.
- 18. Pieper JR, Brown RN, Amador JA. Effects of three conservation tillage strategies on yields and soil health in a mixed vegetable production system. HortScience. 2015;50(12):1770–6.
- 19. Norris CE, Congreves KA. Alternative management practices improve soil health indices in intensive vegetable cropping systems: a review. Front Environ Sci. 2018;6.
- 20.
Olson M. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1965.
- 21. Lane D, Chatrchyan A, Tobin D, Thorn K, Allred S, Radhakrishna R. Climate change and agriculture in New York and Pennsylvania: risk perceptions, vulnerability and adaptation among farmers. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2018;33(3):197–205.
- 22. Takahashi B, Burnham M, Terracina-Hartman C, Sopchak AR, Selfa T. Climate change perceptions of NY State farmers: the role of risk perceptions and adaptive capacity. Environ Manage. 2016;58(6):946–57. pmid:27658682
- 23. Roesch-McNally G, Garrett A, Fery M. Assessing perceptions of climate risk and adaptation among small farmers in Oregon’s Willamette Valley. Renew Agric Food Syst. 2019;35(6):626–30.
- 24. Linder J, Campbell-Arvai V. Uncertainty in the “New Normal”: understanding the role of climate change beliefs and risk perceptions in michigan tree fruit growers’ adaptation behaviors. Weather Clim Soc. 2021;13(3):409–22.
- 25.
Chang M, Erikson L, Araújo K, Asinas EN, Chisholm Hatfield S, Crozier LG, et al. Ch. 27. Northwest. In: Crimmins AR, Avery CW, Easterling DR, Kunkel KE, Stewart BC, Maycock TK, editor. Fifth National Climate Assessment. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2023. https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA5.2023.CH27
- 26. USDA Climate Hubs. Climate Change Impacts in the Northwest. [cited 24 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/climate-change-impacts-northwest
- 27. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. NASS - Quick Stats. 2022 Census of Agriculture. 2024. Available from: https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/
- 28. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Small and Family Farms. [cited 24 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/topics/small-family-farms
- 29. Ostrom M, Donovan C. Profile of small farms in Washington State agriculture. Washington State University Extension; 2013. Available from: https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/2056/2014/01/Profile-of-Small-Farms-in-Washington-State-Agriculture.pdf
- 30. WSDA. Direct marketing in Washington State. In: Handbook for small and direct marketing farms [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://cms.agr.wa.gov/WSDAKentico/Documents/DO/RM/RM/11_DirectMarketingInWaState.pdf
- 31. Carson RA, Hamel Z, Giarrocco K, Baylor R, Mathews LG. Buying in: the influence of interactions at farmers’ markets. Agric Hum Values. 2015;33(4):861–75.
- 32. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Northwest Regional Field Office. 2024 Washington Annual Statistical Bulletin. 2024. Available: from https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Washington/Publications/Annual_Statistical_Bulletin/2024/WA_ANN_2024.pdf
- 33. Hoppe RA, MacDonald JM, Korb P. Small Farms in the United States: Persistence Under Pressure. USDA Economic Research Service; 2010. Available from: https://ers.usda.gov/sites/default/files/_laserfiche/publications/44460/8727_eib63_1_.pdf
- 34. Kistner E, Kellner O, Andresen J, Todey D, Morton LW. Vulnerability of specialty crops to short-term climatic variability and adaptation strategies in the Midwestern USA. Clim Change. 2017;146(1–2):145–58.
- 35. Ahmed S, Stepp JR. Beyond yields: Climate change effects on specialty crop quality and agroecological management. Elementa: Sci Anthropocene. 2016;4.
- 36. EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2022. 2024. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-04/us-ghg-inventory-2024-main-text_04-18-2024.pdf
- 37. Li L, Hong M, Zhang Y, Paustian K. Soil N2 O emissions from specialty crop systems: a global estimation and meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol. 2024;30(3):e17233. pmid:38469991
- 38. Paustian K, Larson E, Kent J, Marx E, Swan A. Soil C Sequestration as a Biological Negative Emission Strategy. Front Clim. 2019;1.
- 39. Lal R. Soil health and carbon management. Food Energy Sec. 2016;5(4):212–22.
- 40. Soussana J-F, Lutfalla S, Ehrhardt F, Rosenstock T, Lamanna C, Havlík P, et al. Matching policy and science: Rationale for the ‘4 per 1000 - soils for food security and climate’ initiative. Soil Tillage Res. 2019;188:3–15.
- 41.
Mason J. Qualitative Researching. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2002.
- 42. Washington State Farmers Market Association. Find a Farmers Market. [cited 11 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://wafarmersmarkets.org/washingtonfarmersmarketdirectory/
- 43.
Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. 2 ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publishing; 2013.
- 44.
Webb KR, Ismach A, Spiker ML, Rabotyagov S, Collier SM. Data from: Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. 2026. https://doi.org/10.3886/E244894V1
- 45. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant. 2021;56(3):1391–412.
- 46. Neale J, Miller P, West R. Reporting quantitative information in qualitative research: guidance for authors and reviewers. Addiction. 2014;109(2):175–6. pmid:24422609
- 47. Washington State University Extension. Washington Irrigation. In: Irrigation in the Pacific Northwest [Internet]. [cited 4 Mar 2025]. Available from: http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Washington-Irrigation.php
- 48. USDA Climate Hubs. 2021 Northwest Heat Dome: Causes, Impacts and Future Outlook. [cited 3 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://www.climatehubs.usda.gov/hubs/northwest/topic/2021-northwest-heat-dome-causes-impacts-and-future-outlook
- 49. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Climate-Smart Mitigation Activities. [cited 27 Mar 2025]. Available from: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/conservation-basics/natural-resource-concerns/climate/climate-smart-mitigation-activities
- 50. Washington State Farmers Market Association. Food Access at Washington Farmers Markets. [cited 2 Feb 2025]. Available from: https://wafarmersmarkets.org/food-access-2/
- 51. Seattle Office of Sustainability & Environment. Fresh Bucks. [cited 2 Feb 2025]. Available from: https://www.seattle.gov/environment/food-policy-and-programs/fresh-bucks
- 52. Capstick SB, Pidgeon NF. Public perception of cold weather events as evidence for and against climate change. Clim Change. 2014;122(4):695–708.
- 53. Maas A, Wardropper C, Roesch-McNally G, Abatzoglou J. A (mis)alignment of farmer experience and perceptions of climate change in the U.S. inland Pacific Northwest. Climatic Change. 2020;162(3):1011–29.
- 54. Blois JL, Williams JW, Fitzpatrick MC, Jackson ST, Ferrier S. Space can substitute for time in predicting climate-change effects on biodiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(23):9374–9. pmid:23690569
- 55. Dodds R, Holmes M, Arunsopha V, Chin N, Le T, Maung S, et al. Consumer choice and farmers’ markets. J Agric Environ Ethics. 2013;27(3):397–416.
- 56. Perrin A, Basset-Mens C, Gabrielle B. Life cycle assessment of vegetable products: a review focusing on cropping systems diversity and the estimation of field emissions. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2014;19(6):1247–63.
- 57. Cairns-Lee H, Lawley J, Tosey P. Enhancing researcher reflexivity about the influence of leading questions in interviews. J Appl Behav Sci. 2021;58(1):164–88.