Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics最新文献

Animal ethics has often been criticized for an overreliance on "ideal" or even "utopian" theorizing. In this article, I recognize this problem, but argue that the "nonideal theory" which critics have offered in response is still insufficient to make animal ethics action-guiding. I argue that in order for animal ethics to be action-guiding, it must consider agent-centered theories of change detailing how an ideally just human-animal coexistence can and should be brought about. I lay out desiderata that such a theory of change should suffice so as to be helpful in guiding action. Specifically, a theory of change should determine (1) who needs to do what in order for ideal justice to be achieved in the long run, (2) who should be expected to refuse compliance and how they should be moved to comply, and (3) why specific intermediate steps are necessary. I show how previous "nonideal" contributions, though helpful in other ways, are insufficiently determinate on these points and I sketch a (still somewhat utopian) theory of change for one specific context. This brings animal ethics a crucial step closer to being action-guiding in the real world.

Robots are widely expected-and pushed-to transform open-field agriculture, but these visions remain wedded to optimizing monocultural farming systems. Meanwhile there is little pull for automation from ecology-based, diversified farming realms. Noting this gap, we here explore the potential for robots to foster an agroecological approach to crop production. The research was situated in The Netherlands within the case of pixel cropping, a nascent farming method in which multiple food and service crops are planted together in diverse assemblages employing agroecological practices such as intercropping and biological pest control. Around this case we engaged with a variety of specialists in discussion groups, workshops, and design challenges to explore the potential of field robots to meet the multifaceted demands of highly diverse agroecological cropping systems. This generated a spectrum of imaginations for how automated tools might-or might not-be appropriately used, ranging from fully automated visions, to collaborative scenarios, to fully analogue prototypes. We found that automating agroecological cropping systems requires finding ways to imbue the ethos of agroecology into designed tools, thereby seeking to overcome tensions between production aims and other forms of social and ecological care. We conclude that a rethinking of automation is necessary for agroecological contexts: not as a blueprint for replacing humans, but making room for analogue and hybrid forms of agricultural work. These findings highlight a need for design processes which include a diversity of actors, involve iterative design cycles, and incorporate feedback between designers, practitioners, tools, and cropping systems.

This study examines the influence of environmental values on consumer intentions to participate in agritourism through the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) and value-belief-norm (VBN) theory. It proposes an integrative model by adding two variables, i.e., environmental benefits and the human-nature coordination concept, to the TPB. The study employs a questionnaire survey method and a sample of 640, which was statistically analysed through structural equation modeling (SEM). The results reveal that the "environmental values-attitudes-behavioural intentions" framework has scientific applicability in agritourism. Environmental values, measured through the variables environmental benefits and the human-nature coordination concept, are positively correlated directly or indirectly with agritourism consumption intentions, while attitudes and subjective norms serve as mediators. However, the mediating effect of perceived behavioural control is not statistically significant, indicating making efforts to influence attitudes and subjective norms is more useful for and effective in stimulating the public's intentions towards agritourism. As this study tests the hypotheses with empirical data, it provides practical implications for policy-makers and programme managers.

The United Nations (UN) Food Systems Summit held in September 2021 has left the world with a jumble of ideas and no clear path forward for transforming the world's food systems. The Summit was touted as the ultimate place to provide the world with solutions - but it never clarified the problems with the dominant food systems leaving participants with no coherent or cohesive framework. Most distressingly, the Food Systems Summit did not put the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing food crisis anywhere on its agenda. In this Policy Perspective, the author, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, provides his first-hand account of the effects of the Summit not focusing on people's immediate needs during a food crisis. The author briefly touches upon the Summit's role in the global debate around meat consumption. This debate exemplifies how the Summit did very little to change the substance of global food debates. Instead, the Summit can be understood as an inter-corporate contest that did not have any substantive regard for social justice or human rights.