Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

Through literature, interviews, and one stakeholder workshop we explored aspects of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in German alternative food networks (AFNs). Examining community-supported agriculture, food policy councils, and consumer cooperatives, we started our inquiry with topics of gender and found that a broader, intersectional perspective was needed. This aligned with a common perspective that women were better represented in AFNs compared with conventional food systems, but that groups may be disproportionately white and higher-class. Flatter hierarchies and a general openness to participation are supposed prerequisites to food justice intentions, but do not guarantee that traditional gender roles, passive exclusion, or social barriers are averted. Involvement, norms, and power demonstrate what sets AFNs apart from other systems and give overlapping themes to understand DEI. Opportunities were identified to enhance DEI through (inter-)personal awareness-raising, critical reflection, organizational and networking initiatives, and enhancing resources like information and funding.

There has been increased research on the so-called “rise” of the women farmer in the US in terms of who they are and how they identify themselves. While work has demonstrated that women have multiple, shifting roles on the farm that shape their farmer ‘identity’, little research has investigated how farmer identity relates to off-farm work or perceived self-efficacy in farming despite these domains being theoretically salient. This lack of attention of off-farm roles and self-efficacy is a problem because farmer identity research has implications for the way the US Census of Agriculture counts both farms and farmers. This paper makes two contributions to address these research problems. First, we quantitatively characterize a representative sample of women farmers in Iowa and use cluster-based analysis to examine how Iowa women’s on and off farm activities, along with their attitudes towards farming, relate to them claiming a farmer identity. Second, we use these results to reflect on how the USDA and the Census of Agriculture might more precisely and accurately enumerate women’s engagement in agriculture. Our cluster-based analysis of responses from a mailout survey reveals that women’s attitudes and perceived self-efficacy in farming are more strongly related to their farming identity than their material engagements on the farm, which may reflect how Iowa agriculture is dominated by multigenerational “legacy” farms. We conclude with suggestions for how the CoA might inclusively “count” small farms and diverse on- and off-farm labor roles while also facilitating a more accurate statistical picture of agriculture as an economic sector.

This article examines the way in which Japanese regulatory authorities discursively construct legitimacy and stabilize the dominant sociotechnical imaginaries in the governance of genome-edited foods. Drawing on a discourse analysis of regulatory documents, expert committee reports, and public consultation materials produced between 2018 and 2024, the study identifies three recurring response patterns: selective incorporation, technocratic reinterpretation, and deferral, which systematically depoliticize societal concerns. Through these strategies, regulators present governance as scientifically sound and procedurally transparent, while sidestepping broader critiques of accountability, value pluralism, and democratic participation. Public submissions, however, articulate competing imaginaries grounded in precautionary principles, social inclusion, and consumer rights, revealing persistent tensions between innovation imperatives and demands for legitimacy. The Japanese case shows that imaginaries are not only envisioned but actively stabilized through discursive practices, and that this stabilization remains fragile and contested. The article advances imaginaries scholarship by demonstrating how depoliticization operates within regulatory discourse and by arguing for a more inclusive governance capable of engaging diverse visions of food system futures.

In rural West Africa, land is a fundamental asset for well-being, livelihood, and food security. It is also a region where human mobility and migration affects how different cultural groups interact in everyday land-based practices, including farming. In Ghana’s forest-savanna transition zone; a region vital for agrarian development, the arrival of migrants from the north has made communities more socially and culturally pluralistic, with different ethnic groups, land tenure arrangements, farming practices, and social norms in circulation. This can create both frictions and synergies in how land is governed, accessed, and used; yet the degree to which it alters land-based relations is not well understood. Using ethnographic data from three agrarian communities – Afefreso, Kokofu, and Densi – located in Atebubu traditional territory, we investigate these dynamics guided by a multi-theoretical lens that draws on political ecology, political economy (of land), and social practice. We find that land tenure arrangements, ethnicity, social organizing, and farmer-to-farmer observations set the stage for how migrant and local farmers interact and relate to one another, which in turn affect patterns of land use and the application of farming knowledge. In particular, migrants and locals are finding ways to circumvent customary tenure arrangements that would typically restrict access to land (for migrants), changing the landscape of tenure politics and power dynamics in the process. Based on these findings, we discuss how change triggered by rural-to-rural migration presents an opportunity to analyze and debate how agrarian societies, and their relationship to land, might themselves shift as different cultures, practices, and knowledge systems converge.

There is increasing demand for food systems reform that regenerates environmental health, fosters positive animal welfare, and ensures global food security for current and future generations. This exemplifies the One Welfare framework, which explores interconnections between human, animal, and environmental wellbeing. Behavioural sciences can provide valuable insights into farmers’ behavioural determinants, informing ways to promote sustainable shifts in production practices. To analyse the current research landscape this scoping review asked: “how have previous researchers used Human Behaviour Change (HBC) science to design and/or assess interventions aimed at improving livestock farmers’ behaviours in relation to any component of the One Welfare framework?”. Of 9799 peer-reviewed publications, 21 met inclusion criteria. Most investigated behavioural intentions rather than actioned behaviour change. Of the studies that used HBC science to assess interventions, most interventions had not been designed using HBC science. Methodologies were typically underpinned by theoretical frameworks that are suboptimal for intervention design, and there was a lack of diverse representation across existing research efforts. Our findings highlight a missed opportunity to optimally leverage HBC science to catalyse real-world change. As such, any hesitation among farmers to shift production may reflect a failure of interventions to effectively address the barriers they experience. We recommend that upstream actors, including researchers and policymakers, onboard behavioural sciences to inform the development of interventions to support, rather than pressure, livestock farmers. This will aid the mobilisation of food systems reform, safeguarding a habitable planet where human- and non-human animals can thrive, now and into the future.

As nature conservation objectives are becoming increasingly integrated in the management of farming systems, agricultural advisors play a crucial role in facilitating this transition. However, although the literature on farmers’ values and social norms is well established, the role of advisors’ perspectives and how these shape farmers’ engagement with nature conservation remains under-explored. To address this gap, this study applies the “good farmer” conceptual tool, grounded in Bourdieu’s ideas of habitus, capital, and field, to analyse in-depth interviews with 20 Slovenian agricultural advisors. The findings reveal advisors’ embeddedness in a production-oriented habitus, which, together with their institutional role as policy intermediaries, appears to limit their capacity to act as facilitators of change. Advisors often adopt pragmatic strategies to reconcile tensions between top-down nature conservation policies and their position within closely-knit farming communities, where conservation practices are frequently perceived as external to the dominant cultural framework. This study advances the “good farmer” literature by introducing a novel actor group and geographical context – Central and Eastern Europe. We highlight the importance of aligning conservation strategies with locally embedded values, strengthening participatory approaches, and supporting advisors through education and collaboration to foster meaningful sustainability transitions in agriculture.

There is growing enthusiasm in the literature on digital agriculture regarding the benefits that new and emerging technologies could have for sustainability outcomes such as biodiversity and habitat conservation. However, the extent to which these digital agriculture technologies are adopted and then lead to biodiversity benefits in practice is less clear. Through a systematic literature review we analyse existing studies on digital agriculture to explore the claims being made regarding how technology adoption could improve biodiversity outcomes on or surrounding farm environments, and evidence of these benefits taking place. We identified 426 items that mention both digital agriculture and biodiversity with 54 records selected for analysis due to mention of biodiversity in their abstract. However, none of the articles analysed provide evidence of the ongoing application or uptake of digital agriculture for improved biodiversity outcomes, and the literature reviewed could be largely described as techno-optimist in its outlook. There is also a lack of consideration regarding how farmer values or worldviews may influence technology uptake or use in improving biodiversity outcomes on farm. We conclude that a significant research gap remains in terms of demonstrating the efficacy and utility of digital agriculture technologies for enhancing biodiversity, and the ways it is adopted by farmers, or what motivates this adoption and use.