Agriculture and Human Values最新文献

{"title":"Demonstration plots as assemblages: the political ecology of knowledge intensive agricultural futures in Tanzania","authors":"Saymore Ngonidzashe Kativu,&nbsp;Javier Revilla-Diez,&nbsp;Anna-Katharina Hornidge","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10900-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10900-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Demonstration plots (demo plots) are crucial for knowledge dissemination and knowledge production to and with smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa, making them important in rural development. Beyond their agricultural extension function considerations, their political and ecological dynamics remain undertheorized. Drawing on qualitative empirical data across Mbeya Region, Tanzania, we analyze the political ecology of different demonstration plots as assemblages deployed by private-sector actors, NGOs/grassroots organizations, and research institutions, to shape agricultural transformation. Our study reveals stark power asymmetries: private sector and research-led demo plots, strategically located and strongly resourced, dominate both physical and discursive landscapes. Their alliance building and branding practices territorialize monocultures, input-dependent farming as aspired futures. Conversely, the more conservation-oriented grassroots demo plots, despite retaining agroforestry socioecological systems, fostering local knowledge and diverse practices, are marginalized by resource constraints and limited institutional support, exposing their territories to constant erasure. Using assemblage theory, we scrutinize demo plots as active sites of socio-technical selection, configuring actors, spaces, and knowledge systems in ways that privilege market integration through intensification, while sidelining alternatives. The analysis challenges prevailing narratives of demo plots as neutral (even apolitical) pedagogical tools, instead arguing to understand them as instruments of power that determine which agricultural futures materialize.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10900-x.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147830102","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cultivating fear: agrifood labor governance and victimcould in populist nationalism","authors":"Michael Carolan","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10889-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10889-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper examines how contemporary U.S. agricultural labor, economic, and immigration policies can appear contradictory—simultaneously depending on immigrant labor while opposing immigrants—yet nonetheless cohere as an affective project of labor governance. Focusing on policies and public discourse surrounding the second Trump administration as a critical case, I draw on Williams (<i>Marxism and Literature</i> 1977) concept of structures of feeling, Anderson (<i>Emotion, Space And Society</i> 2, 2009) notion of affective atmospheres, and Higgins (<i>European journal of cultural studies</i> 2025) idea of victim<i>could</i> to argue that immigrant labor is reshaped not through elimination but through the cultivation and management of fear. This fear operates on two interconnected levels: the constant, visceral fear experienced by immigrant agrifood workers living under the threat of deportation, and the anticipatory fear of supporters of populist nationalism, who see themselves as potential victims of harm that immigrants could cause. Through an iterative discursive analysis of over 200 publicly accessible online materials—including government documents, media interviews, agricultural industry communications, and migrant-rights reports—the paper identifies four mutually reinforcing structures: anticipatory crisis, the dual portrayal of immigrant labor as both essential and dangerous, deportability as an atmospheric technique of governance, and “victim<i>could”</i> as a justification for repression. Collectively, these dynamics create a workforce that is physically present but living in fear. The paper concludes by reflecting on its implications for scholars, policymakers, and activists, suggesting how the phenomena described can further their work to study, critique, and resist fear as a deliberate tool of governance.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147797037","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Farmer-led networks for redistributing power in pluralistic advisory systems: two case studies from Ontario, Canada","authors":"Baran Karsak,&nbsp;Erin Nelson,&nbsp;Laura L. Van Eerd,&nbsp;Sarah K. Larsen,&nbsp;Heather White,&nbsp;Tori Waugh,&nbsp;Paige Allen","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10893-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10893-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This article examines whether and how farmer-led networks can contribute to a more democratic approach to agricultural extension by redistributing power within pluralistic advisory systems. Despite a rhetorical commitment to diversity and farmer choice, contemporary advisory systems are frequently dominated by private and commercially embedded advisors whose interests shape what enters the advisory agenda. Drawing on qualitative data from two farmer-led networks in Ontario, Canada—the Ecological Farmers Association of Ontario (EFAO) and the Ontario Soil Network (OSN)— and using Lukes’ multidimensional view of power, we find that these networks challenge extension’s depoliticization by flattening symbolic hierarchies, centering place-based knowledge, and shifting power dynamics toward collective agenda-setting and the normalization of alternative agricultural imaginaries. However, without efforts toward inclusion, farmer-led networks risk reproducing existing power relations among members. We conclude that while farmer-led networks hold significant potential for moving pluralistic advisory systems toward genuine pluralism, their democratizing capacity depends on deliberate organizational design and cannot substitute for structural change that addresses inequalities in land access and the commercialization of the broader agricultural landscape.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147797219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Navigating the adoption spectrum: how U.S. farmers manage longevity, entirety, variability and complementarity of cover crops","authors":"Lauren Hunt,&nbsp;Maria Teresa Tancredi,&nbsp;Meredith T. Niles,&nbsp;Jennifer Jo Thompson","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10885-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10885-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Understanding how farmers adopt conservation farming practices is critical for advancing agricultural sustainability, yet adoption is often treated as a binary outcome. This binary view risks underestimating commitment by mislabeling adaptive management as disadoption, while overestimating environmental benefits by equating small trials with whole-farm adoption. To expand our understanding of adoption, we apply a multidimensional framework – capturing longevity, entirety, variability, and complementarity – to examine how farmers make decisions about cover crops as a focal conservation practice. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 86 farmers across nine U.S. states, we show that adoption is not a linear or uniform process, but a dynamic navigation of trade-offs. Farmers frequently described trialing and partial implementation as strategic resilience mechanisms, discontinuity as a response to shifting constraints rather than failure, and simplification or selective integration of practices as pathways to long-term viability. Complementary practices were often adopted to enhance ecological and economic synergies, reflecting systems-oriented decision-making rather than isolated practice uptake. Our findings advance understanding of adoption by demonstrating that binary adoption metrics fail to capture the lived reality of management. These insights have direct implications for refining cost-share program efficacy, interpreting ecological outcomes, and designing policies that support durable, whole-farm conservation strategies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147796495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The capacity to advocate: a mixed-methods study of political advocacy in agricultural nonprofits","authors":"Paige Graves Seitz,&nbsp;Robbie Waters Robichau,&nbsp;Wendi Arant Kaspar,&nbsp;Theresa Pesl Murphrey","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10886-6","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10886-6","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Nonprofits perform an essential role in the policymaking process by providing representation to different causes and interests, often through advocacy by mobilizing individuals to act, speaking or meeting with stakeholders to educate them, or directly lobbying legislators to influence legislation. However, advocacy efforts among nonprofits are declining, which, combined with increasing environmental and economic pressures on the agriculture industry, heightens the importance of farmer voices. To address this growing concern, we conducted a mixed-methods study involving interviews with leaders from 15 agricultural nonprofit organizations in Texas, USA, and analysis of IRS tax filings and legislative witness testimony data. Our study explores how agricultural nonprofits conceptualize advocacy and mission, how they communicate and advocate with members and policymakers, and what constrains participation in advocacy. Advocacy and communication strategies varied widely based on organizations’ capacities, resources, and goals. State-level organizations focused efforts within state and local government and utilized collaborative networks to advocate at the national level. A lack of financial resources, time, professionalization, and staff was the most common barrier to participation in advocacy. We discuss implications for agricultural nonprofits who want to strengthen their political engagement and advocacy capacities to better represent their members.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10886-6.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147738399","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Embedding justice in agroecological transitions: a practice-informed framework for food and land system transformation","authors":"Rounaq Nayak","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10877-7","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10877-7","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Agroecological transitions are widely recognised as essential to achieving just and sustainable food system transformation. However, governance frameworks guiding such transitions often overlook structural inequities, power asymmetries, and historical injustices. This paper develops a Justice-Embedded Transitions Management framework that integrates four justice dimensions – recognitional, procedural, distributive, and restorative – across the temporal phases of system change: pre-development, take-off, acceleration, and stabilisation. Drawing on principles of justice, equity, decolonisation, and inclusion, the framework embeds justice considerations from the outset rather than retrofitting them as post-hoc assessments. The conceptual model is grounded in empirical insights from two participatory engagements with UK food and land system actors: a co-created workshop with 20 participants and a policy consultation webinar with 73 participants. These engagements explored how justice is conceptualised, experienced, and enacted within agroecological transition pathways. Findings highlight that justice concerns are not phase-specific but systemic, requiring continuous attention throughout transitions. Cross-cutting themes include epistemic exclusion, tokenistic participation versus genuine co-design, and eligibility criteria functioning as distributive gatekeeping. Justice dimensions interact dynamically and interdependently: recognitional failures in early phases produce distributive and procedural injustices later, while procedural exclusion perpetuates misrecognition throughout. The paper contributes to sustainability science by offering a practice-informed, temporally grounded governance framework for just agroecological transitions. It concludes with implications for theory, practice, and policy, emphasising anticipatory justice mapping, reflexive governance mechanisms, and co-produced tools as critical to enabling inclusive, historically situated, and equity-centred transition pathways transferable across diverse geographic and political contexts.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10877-7.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147738680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"What practices constitute ‘biodiversity-friendly’ dairy farming? Farmers’ perspectives and local context matter","authors":"V. J. Oostvogels,&nbsp;B. Dumont,&nbsp;L. Allart,&nbsp;R. Etienne,&nbsp;I. J. M. de Boer,&nbsp;R. Ripoll-Bosch","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10881-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10881-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Farmers vary greatly in how they see themselves and their profession in relation to biodiversity. However, despite its relevance for conservation, little is known about how this informs their ideas of what constitutes ‘biodiversity-friendly’ farming. With this study, we aimed to explore this interplay. We interviewed dairy farmers in two areas in the Netherlands and two in the French Massif Central. In these interviews, we asked farmers general questions about their relationship with biodiversity, as well as which farming practices they consider biodiversity-friendly. Earlier analysis of the interviews revealed six narratives on the farming-biodiversity relationship: ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity - valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity - innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of necessity’, and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of conviction’. Here, we analysed patterns in the practices identified across these six interview sets. We found a spectrum of perspectives, from farmers emphasising overall moderation of production intensity and local knowledge (‘WITH’, ‘FROM - valorising what is there’, ‘SEPARATE - out of necessity’) to those emphasising eco-efficient production and/or conservation on spared land, with a stronger focus on exogenous knowledge (‘FROM - innovating for sustainability, ‘FOR’, ‘SEPARATE - out of conviction’). We argue that this diversity in ideas about what biodiversity-friendly farming entails can be an asset in achieving biodiversity goals, and that to allow for such diversity, conservation initiatives should avoid catering to only a narrow subset of conceptualisations of biodiversity-friendliness.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10881-x.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147738679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Altering food, animals, and environment: comparing competing sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing - introduction to the symposium","authors":"Tomiko Yamaguchi,&nbsp;Theresa Selfa","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10867-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10867-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Amid rapid developments in gene editing and ongoing debates over food, animal, and environmental governance, gene-editing technologies are increasingly framed as solutions to sustainability, food security, and climate challenges. Existing studies, however, have tended either to focus on risk-based regulation or to treat discursive visions of technological futures as shaping governance from a distance, leaving insufficient attention to how technological futures become stabilized through everyday practices of governance and implementation. This introduction develops the concept of alteration as an analytical lens for examining how sociotechnical imaginaries are enacted, negotiated, and selectively stabilized through regulatory routines, evidentiary standards, and material interventions. Alteration directs attention to the incremental processes through which governance practices render certain futures actionable and legitimate while constraining others, often without explicit political resolution. Drawing on contributions across food, animal, and environmental domains, the symposium demonstrates how the governance of gene editing unfolds through accumulation, negotiation, and partial stabilization rather than moments of closure. By linking sociotechnical imaginaries to practices of implementation, the introduction provides a framework for analyzing how technological futures become institutionally embedded and politically consequential over time.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147737867","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond compensation: understanding land manager resistance to nature restoration schemes in Denmark","authors":"Kasper Krabbe,&nbsp;Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe,&nbsp;Tiffanie F. Stone,&nbsp;Michael Friis Pedersen,&nbsp;Jakob Vesterlund Olsen","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10884-8","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10884-8","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Wetland restoration is central to climate mitigation in Europe, yet uptake of voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) remains limited. This article examines why some Danish land managers hesitate to participate in wetland restoration schemes, despite financial compensation and growing political pressure for large-scale rewetting. Drawing on fourteen semi-structured interviews with land managers managing carbon-rich soils, we analyse how decisions are shaped by economic concerns, moral and social values, and everyday farm logistics. Combining Graeber’s value theory, Mills et al.’s willingness–ability–engagement framework, and Burton’s concept of the “good farmer,” we show that land managers’ reasoning extends far beyond financial payoff. For many, land embodies family continuity, place-based identity, and stewardship obligations, while practical constraints, farm fragmentation, administrative burdens, and uncertainty about long-term regulations - further limit perceived feasibility. Our findings highlight a misalignment between policy assumptions of economic rationality and the multidimensional value worlds within which land managers operate. We argue that improving scheme uptake requires policy designs that integrate non-economic motivations, strengthen farmer engagement, and address long-term trust and operational constraints. As Denmark positions itself as an early and ambitious implementer of wetland restoration, these insights hold broader relevance for European efforts to accelerate nature restoration on privately owned farmland.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10884-8.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147738716","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Boundaries and interdisciplinarity: the rise and fall of agroecosystem analysis in Southeast Asia","authors":"Leo Chu","doi":"10.1007/s10460-026-10883-9","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s10460-026-10883-9","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In the past decade, agroecology has been promoted as a potential way to facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and overcome the uneven socio-ecological impacts of agricultural development, yet agroecologists also warn the danger of co-option by dominant agri-food systems. This paper seeks to understand the history of such tension through the development of agroecosystem analysis—a research method related to but different from contemporary agroecology—in Southeast Asia, in particular Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines, between 1970 and 1990. The paper adopts the concepts of boundary work and boundary object to scrutinize how agroecosystem analysis was theorized: on the one hand, scientists’ emphasis on the interdisciplinary of agroecosystem analysis could be read as a boundary work differing the method from the narrow focus on rice production in the Green Revolution; on the other hand, agroecosystems could be analyzed as boundary objects deployed by scientists to facilitate collaboration across diverse actors within the network. However, the downplaying of public participation in agroecosystem analysis made it vulnerable to the co-option by authoritarian regimes, which primarily used the method to attract international funds and sacrificed its interdisciplinarity. Drawing from the rise and fall of agroecosystem analysis in Southeast Asia, the paper interprets contemporary agroecologists’ alliance with peasants’ struggle as a new round of boundary work seeking to resist the persistent threat of co-option while realizing the transformative potential of interdisciplinary research in food and agriculture.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"43 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10460-026-10883-9.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147738527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}