NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences最新文献

{"title":"Residents’ and farmers’ perspectives on risks and benefits of intensive livestock farming","authors":"V. Eijrond, L. Claassen, D. Timmermans","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2022.2089601","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2022.2089601","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Currently, there is a societal debate in the Netherlands about the future of intensive livestock farming and the current risks for human health and the environment. These risks could be described as systemic risks, which call for a deliberative approach to risk governance, including risk communication. However, stakeholders often have different perspectives towards intensive livestock farming and related risks which pose a challenge for communication. To support two-way communication, it is essential to identify the perspectives of residents and farmers who are directly affected by livestock farming. Using the mental models approach, we explored the current perspectives of the risks and benefits towards intensive livestock farming, in particular, on human health. Interviews were held with in total 44 farmers, residents and other stakeholders. We found that residents tend to view intensive livestock farming from the perspective of the quality of the living environment, which may clarify their overall focus on the risks to their well-being, whereas farmers tend to view intensive livestock farming from the perspective of their livelihood, which explains their focus on the (economic) benefits of intensive livestock farming. For experts as well as policy-makers, it is important to acknowledge the differences in risk perception when giving information about epidemiological health risks and communicating about policy measures.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130365840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Advancing towards an understanding of the relationship between culture and agrobiodiversity. A case study in Mapuche territory, southern Chile","authors":"F. Spirito, Lorena Vieli, René Montalba","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2022.2083987","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2022.2083987","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Biocultural diversity embraces the dynamic, place-based and complex relationship between biological and cultural diversity. Several studies describe a direct, positive relationship between biological and cultural diversity; however, this relationship is usually entwined within a particular socio-ecological context. We explored the relationship between cultural diversity and agrobiodiversity in smallholder farming systems in a rural landscape in south-central Chile considered as Indigenous Mapuche ancestral territory. We hypothesized a positive correlation between cultural diversity and agrobiodiversity in this context. We estimated three levels of agrobiodiversity: (i) subsystems (vegetable garden, orchard, chacra, annual crops and natural places), (ii) plant species and (iii) plant landraces. In our study area, smallholders form three distinctive groups based on their cultural origin: (i) Indigenous Mapuche, (ii) Chileans and (iii) foreigners. Using diversity indices, we explored patterns across 15 focal landscapes (3.14 km2). Contrary to our hypothesis, we found a negative correlation between cultural diversity and agrobiodiversity, as while Mapuche farms presented the highest agrobiodiversity and were dominant in most focal landscapes, Chilean and foreign-owned farms were mostly dominated by monocultures. This negative link highlights the need to further study this relationship considering different socio-ecological aspects from a historical perspective, as well as from a socio-political point of view. Understanding the complex interactions between culture and biodiversity could help us in facing current challenges such as biodiversity loss, cultural homogenization and reducing conventional agriculture impacts.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"207 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122417212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Co-innovation and Integration and Implementation Sciences: Measuring their research impact - examination of five New Zealand primary sector case studies","authors":"B. Small, Melissa Robson-Williams, Penny R. Payne, J. Turner, Roger Robson-Williams, A. Horita","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2021.1957267","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2021.1957267","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The Primary Innovation programme investigated co-innovation to solve complex agricultural problems in five New Zealand primary sector projects. The projects engaged diverse stakeholders using a collaborative, integrative process to co-define problems, and co-create and implement solutions. Each project included a Reflexive Monitor, who facilitated group relationships, encouraged a systems perspective, and integration of multiple disciplinary and stakeholder knowledges. Reflexive Monitors also encouraged reflexive practice and adaptive project management, while helping the team pursue the project ambition for change. This paper, with respect to the five projects, seeks to address the following research question: Is co-innovation an effective research approach for achieving societal impact from innovations? To address this question, we describe attempts to operationalise and measure co-innovation through 1) five behavioural principles of co-innovation, 2) Reflexive Monitors’ focus on each principle, and 3) the presence or absence of elements of the Integration and Implementation Sciences Framework (i2S) for enhancing research impact. We evaluate the relationship between these three process measures and project success, measured by outputs and two proxy impact measures: participants’ subjective comparisons with the counterfactual and anticipated achievement of desired long-term impacts. Results indicated that the five principles of co-innovation and the presence or absence of elements defined in the i2S framework were positively related to the three success measures. This suggests validity of these measurement tools, and of using a co-innovation approach and/or systematic attention to the elements of the i2S framework to enhance the processes, outcomes and impacts of projects tackling complex real-world problems.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115118777","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Farmers and scientists in AR4D: Looking at a watershed management project through an STS lens","authors":"B. Habermann, C. Vogl, Kindu Mekonnen, Kassahun Bekele, U. Felt","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2021.1993095","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2021.1993095","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Agricultural Research for Development (AR4D) provides the interface for the meeting of farmers and scientists. This is a meeting of different social worlds, contesting agendas, cultures of cooperation and networks of actors. Like in other disciplines, scientists in AR4D have developed their own culture of science. However, the role of their culture of science in the negotiations and encounters with farmers’ social worlds is rarely discussed. Analysing AR4D with a theoretical framework based on Science and Technology Studies (STS) helps us to highlight important issues of power and access in AR4D. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the introduction of certain technologies has interacted with the lives of people in an AR4D project in Ethiopia, and to highlight the potential and limitations of applying STS to AR4D. We interviewed farmers, scientists, extensionists, policy makers and donors associated with an AR4D project in the Ethiopian Highlands using qualitative social research approaches. Akrich’s theory on scripts provided the theoretical framework for analysis. Our findings provide examples for the re-inscription of technology and access in an AR4D project, leading to trade-offs and shifting of power between different actors. We conclude that understanding AR4D as part of a network of actors with its own culture of science provides an essential learning ground. We recommend STS to be applied more widely in AR4D to explore the nature of these networks to highlight what makes technology work for users in the long term.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134476212","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A sustainable future for an interdisciplinary journal","authors":"J. Stoorvogel, S. Vellema","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2021.1956222","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2021.1956222","url":null,"abstract":"With its 60th anniversary in 2023 approaching, the future of the interdisciplinary journal NJAS looks promising. The founder of the journal, the Royal Netherlands Society for Agricultural Sciences (Koninklijke Landbouwkundige Vereniging, KLV), dissolved in 2020 after 134 years (De Groot & van Kasteren, 2020). Fortunately, Taylor & Francis recognised the value of an interdisciplinary journal in the domains of the agricultural and life sciences. With Taylor & Francis as the new owner and publishing house, we, as editors-in-chief, are confident that we will be able to sustain and expand the journal’s role as platform for integrative research that addresses major agricultural and societal challenges. In this editorial, we outline our view on the journal, which is also reflected in the aims and scope of NJAS. The importance of agricultural and life sciences is rapidly increasing as displayed in the increasing attention for e.g., global and local food production, the conservation of our natural resources and the attention to climate change. Although basic scientific research remains highly relevant, there is an increasing call to truly make the next step and show the (potential) impact of our research efforts on, for example, sustainable development goals. This requires more integrative research and additional attention in reporting the broader context of the research. This new emphasis is reflected in the new sub-title of NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122343843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Typification, characterization, and differentiation of sheep production systems in the Brazilian semiarid region","authors":"Robson Mateus Freitas Silveira, Angela Maria de Vasconcelos, V. J. da Silva, Wilder Hernando Ortiz Vega, P. Toro-Mujica, J. Ferreira","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2021.1956220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2021.1956220","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The complexity of livestock production systems implies the interrelation of physical, technical, social, environmental, and animal factors. This study aimed (i) to classify and characterize farms in representative typologies and (ii) to point out the main factors responsible for the differences between the sheep farm typologies in Brazilian semiarid region. A structured questionnaire with 29 variables related to social, physical, livestock, technological, herd management, and productive indicators was applied to 65 sheep farmers. The farms typology was classified, characterized, and differentiated using several techniques of multivariate analysis. Three sheep production systems were identified: Emerging (16 farms): young adults farmers, medium farms and herds, intensive management, intermediate technological level, and high meat production; Conventional (40 farms): adult farmers, smallholder farms, small herds, low technological level, and low meat production; and traditional (09 farms): mature farmers, large farms and herds, extensive management, low technological level, and high meat production. Social, physical, livestock, herd management, technological, and productive factors showed discriminatory power (P < 0.05) to differentiate typologies. The family-based productive system still represents the primary sheep production system. Sheep farming in the Brazilian semiarid region is characterized as extensive, heavily dependent on natural resources, and susceptible to seasonal variations. Some common characteristics among the farms studied were the use of family labour and the predominance of extensive breeding with low stocking density. The emerging system is expanding and may represent the future of sheep farms. It is believed that the traditional system can intensify its management and migrate to the emerging system in the future. It is recommended to direct public policies that encourage the efficient succession of workers in sheep farming, adoption of technologies, and training of know-how professionals. The insertion of young farmers was considered a determining factor in the future of the sheep production system in the Brazilian semiarid region.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"14 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132954248","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A comparison of explicit and implicit attitudes towards crop protection methods in Costa Rica and Germany","authors":"H. Schaak, Ulf Römer, O. Musshoff, Mercedes Montero Vega","doi":"10.1080/27685241.2021.1999180","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/27685241.2021.1999180","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Crop protection technologies and their usage are critically discussed issues, both in the public discourse and within the agricultural sector. However, attitudes towards different methods of crop protection have been primarily investigated through surveys thus far. Thus, explicit attitudes can be biased. Furthermore, they can differ between countries. The study aims to contribute to the understanding of explicit and implicit attitudes of two crop protection methods (chemical and genetically modified crop protection) in Costa Rica and Germany. The implicit attitude was measured by a single-category implicit association test. The test was conducted with a total of 441 agricultural students: 208 from Costa Rica and 233 from Germany. The results argue for regional heterogeneity in attitudes towards crop protection methods as genetically modified crop protection is perceived more positive in Costa Rica than in Germany. This might impact the regional acceptance of multilateral policies. The results also highlight the importance of the method selection for the elicitation of attitudes.","PeriodicalId":211218,"journal":{"name":"NJAS: Impact in Agricultural and Life Sciences","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115096945","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}