Assessing sustainability of different forms of farm organization: adaptation of IDEA method to rubber family farms in Thailand

C. Biret, Céline Buttard, Michaël Farny, Damien Lisbona, P. Janekarnkij, J. Barbier, B. Chambon
{"title":"Assessing sustainability of different forms of farm organization: adaptation of IDEA method to rubber family farms in Thailand","authors":"C. Biret, Céline Buttard, Michaël Farny, Damien Lisbona, P. Janekarnkij, J. Barbier, B. Chambon","doi":"10.25518/1780-4507.17622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Description of the subject. With increasing concerns on the sustainability of agricultural systems, many tools have been developed to assess farm sustainability. Objectives. The main objective of this study was to assess and compare the sustainability of different forms of family farm organization. A second objective was to test the relevance of the IDEA method (Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles or Farm Sustainability Indicators) to compare tree-crop-based family farms in tropical areas. Method. Percentages of sustainability were calculated based on individual interviews conducted with 25 rubber farmers representing three different types of farm (typology based on the labor used for farming activities), using three scales and 10 components. Results. The socio-territorial scale was the weak point of the rubber farms. In contrast, the economic scale was relatively the best asset on all farms. The factor that most differentiated the three types of farm was the agro-ecological scale followed by the socio-territorial scale. The economic scale did not discriminate. Moreover, only the diversity of production and efficiency components showed a notable difference between the different types of farm. Conclusions. Overall, the three types of farm with contrasting forms of farm organization were not much different in terms of sustainability performance. Family business farms with managerial family labor appeared to be the least sustainable. Thus, as family business farms are becoming more and more important in Thai agriculture, if these results are confirmed on a broader scale, this represents an issue for the sustainability of the Thai rubber sector that would require government intervention.","PeriodicalId":87455,"journal":{"name":"Skull base surgery","volume":"62 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Skull base surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25518/1780-4507.17622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Description of the subject. With increasing concerns on the sustainability of agricultural systems, many tools have been developed to assess farm sustainability. Objectives. The main objective of this study was to assess and compare the sustainability of different forms of family farm organization. A second objective was to test the relevance of the IDEA method (Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles or Farm Sustainability Indicators) to compare tree-crop-based family farms in tropical areas. Method. Percentages of sustainability were calculated based on individual interviews conducted with 25 rubber farmers representing three different types of farm (typology based on the labor used for farming activities), using three scales and 10 components. Results. The socio-territorial scale was the weak point of the rubber farms. In contrast, the economic scale was relatively the best asset on all farms. The factor that most differentiated the three types of farm was the agro-ecological scale followed by the socio-territorial scale. The economic scale did not discriminate. Moreover, only the diversity of production and efficiency components showed a notable difference between the different types of farm. Conclusions. Overall, the three types of farm with contrasting forms of farm organization were not much different in terms of sustainability performance. Family business farms with managerial family labor appeared to be the least sustainable. Thus, as family business farms are becoming more and more important in Thai agriculture, if these results are confirmed on a broader scale, this represents an issue for the sustainability of the Thai rubber sector that would require government intervention.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估不同形式农场组织的可持续性:IDEA方法在泰国橡胶家庭农场的应用
主题描述。随着对农业系统可持续性的日益关注,已经开发了许多工具来评估农场可持续性。目标。本研究的主要目的是评估和比较不同形式的家庭农场组织的可持续性。第二个目标是测试IDEA方法(农业开发持久性指标或农场可持续性指标)与比较热带地区以树木作物为基础的家庭农场的相关性。方法。可持续性百分比的计算是基于对代表三种不同农场类型的25名橡胶农民的个人访谈(类型基于农业活动所使用的劳动力),使用三个尺度和10个组成部分。结果。社会领土规模是橡胶农场的弱点。相比之下,经济规模在所有农场中都是相对最好的资产。最能区分三种类型农场的因素是农业生态规模,其次是社会领土规模。经济规模没有差别。此外,只有生产和效率成分的多样性在不同类型的农场之间表现出显著差异。结论。总体而言,三种不同农场组织形式的农场在可持续发展绩效方面没有太大差异。由家庭劳动力管理的家庭企业农场似乎是最不可持续的。因此,随着家庭企业农场在泰国农业中变得越来越重要,如果这些结果在更广泛的范围内得到证实,这代表了泰国橡胶部门的可持续性问题,需要政府干预。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Caractérisation des acteurs de l’agroforesterie pour une co-conception de plateformes d’innovation suivant le transect Koumbia Guéguéré Dano au Burkina Faso Impact of contrasted bioavailable silicon inputs in a hydroponic system on the development of maize plants (Zea mays L.) Technology of a novel conidia-tablet formulation and packaging type to increase Beauveria bassiana (Hypocreales: Ophiocordycipitaceae) shelf life at room temperature Fluctuation des populations et évaluation des dégâts des mouches de fruits (Diptera : Tephritidae) dans les parcs à karité de l’Ouest du Burkina Faso : cas du transect Koumbia-Dano Yield response of African leafy vegetables to combined manure and urea microdosing in West Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1