农民福祉的多维衡量标准:范围审查

IF 6.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRONOMY
Marney E. Isaac, Tian Lin, Sophie Caillon, Léa Sebastien, Ken MacDonald, Scott Prudham, Antoine Doncieux, Delphine Renard, Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Lisa Vincent, Océane Cobelli, Jonathan Locqueville, Eleanor Sterling
{"title":"农民福祉的多维衡量标准:范围审查","authors":"Marney E. Isaac,&nbsp;Tian Lin,&nbsp;Sophie Caillon,&nbsp;Léa Sebastien,&nbsp;Ken MacDonald,&nbsp;Scott Prudham,&nbsp;Antoine Doncieux,&nbsp;Delphine Renard,&nbsp;Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas,&nbsp;Lisa Vincent,&nbsp;Océane Cobelli,&nbsp;Jonathan Locqueville,&nbsp;Eleanor Sterling","doi":"10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Determinants of farmer well-being can be derived from objective and subjective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, and quality of life indices, as well as the multiple scales that farms and farmers operate. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on farmer well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators is unclear. Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices. Here in this scoping review, we synthesize the methodologies in the literature on assessing farmer well-being and identify the extent to which farmer well-being domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. We consolidated and coded 92 papers to respond to the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? Our results show that economics and social relationships are frequent domains of how farmer well-being is identified and assessed. These domains tend to be measured simultaneously, while less common domains, such as governance and place, are rather isolated. A suite of methods was used to assess well-being domains, ranging from basic surveys to in-depth participant observation. Yet, we identify gaps in the methods for deriving farmer well-being indicators. Specifically, methods that refer to farmer-expressed values were rare and domains identified through a place-based approach were often not recorded, but, arguably, critical in developing multidimensionality of farmer well-being. We show that while the translocal approach is well represented in established well-being frameworks, farmer expression is not foundational in well-being assessments but is needed in order to center farmer values when generating indicators of well-being.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7721,"journal":{"name":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","volume":"44 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multidimensional measures of farmer well-being: A scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Marney E. Isaac,&nbsp;Tian Lin,&nbsp;Sophie Caillon,&nbsp;Léa Sebastien,&nbsp;Ken MacDonald,&nbsp;Scott Prudham,&nbsp;Antoine Doncieux,&nbsp;Delphine Renard,&nbsp;Yildiz Aumeeruddy-Thomas,&nbsp;Lisa Vincent,&nbsp;Océane Cobelli,&nbsp;Jonathan Locqueville,&nbsp;Eleanor Sterling\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Determinants of farmer well-being can be derived from objective and subjective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, and quality of life indices, as well as the multiple scales that farms and farmers operate. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on farmer well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators is unclear. Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices. Here in this scoping review, we synthesize the methodologies in the literature on assessing farmer well-being and identify the extent to which farmer well-being domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. We consolidated and coded 92 papers to respond to the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? Our results show that economics and social relationships are frequent domains of how farmer well-being is identified and assessed. These domains tend to be measured simultaneously, while less common domains, such as governance and place, are rather isolated. A suite of methods was used to assess well-being domains, ranging from basic surveys to in-depth participant observation. Yet, we identify gaps in the methods for deriving farmer well-being indicators. Specifically, methods that refer to farmer-expressed values were rare and domains identified through a place-based approach were often not recorded, but, arguably, critical in developing multidimensionality of farmer well-being. We show that while the translocal approach is well represented in established well-being frameworks, farmer expression is not foundational in well-being assessments but is needed in order to center farmer values when generating indicators of well-being.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7721,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"volume\":\"44 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agronomy for Sustainable Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRONOMY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRONOMY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

农民福祉的决定因素可以从社会组成部分、环境可持续性指标、生活质量指数以及农场和农民经营的多种规模的客观和主观措施中得出。然而,尽管有多个关于农民福祉的框架,但在制定农民福祉指标时,农民所表达的价值在多大程度上得到了利用却并不明确。由于提取的指标没有充分立足于当地,或没有充分纳入背景和生物文化关系与实践,因此可能会出现挑战。在本范围综述中,我们综合了有关农民福祉评估的文献方法,并确定了农民福祉领域在多大程度上源自农民直接表达的价值观。我们对 92 篇论文进行了整合和编码,以回答以下问题:(1) 在已发表的研究中,最常见的农民福祉领域是什么?(2) 采用什么方法得出多维农民福祉领域?(3) 文献中使用的福祉领域是否充分反映了生物文化背景,包括对福祉的地方性影响?我们的研究结果表明,经济和社会关系是确定和评估农民福祉的常见领域。这些领域往往是同时测量的,而治理和地方等较少见的领域则比较孤立。我们采用了一整套方法来评估福祉领域,从基本调查到深入的参与者观察,不一而足。然而,我们也发现了农民福祉指标推导方法中的不足之处。具体而言,参考农民表达的价值观的方法很少见,通过基于地方的方法确定的领域往往没有记录,但可以说,这些领域对于发展农民福祉的多维性至关重要。我们表明,虽然在既定的福祉框架中充分体现了 "本地化 "方法,但农民的表达并非福祉评估的基础,而是在生成福祉指标时以农民的价值观为中心所必需的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Multidimensional measures of farmer well-being: A scoping review

Multidimensional measures of farmer well-being: A scoping review

Determinants of farmer well-being can be derived from objective and subjective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, and quality of life indices, as well as the multiple scales that farms and farmers operate. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on farmer well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators is unclear. Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices. Here in this scoping review, we synthesize the methodologies in the literature on assessing farmer well-being and identify the extent to which farmer well-being domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. We consolidated and coded 92 papers to respond to the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? Our results show that economics and social relationships are frequent domains of how farmer well-being is identified and assessed. These domains tend to be measured simultaneously, while less common domains, such as governance and place, are rather isolated. A suite of methods was used to assess well-being domains, ranging from basic surveys to in-depth participant observation. Yet, we identify gaps in the methods for deriving farmer well-being indicators. Specifically, methods that refer to farmer-expressed values were rare and domains identified through a place-based approach were often not recorded, but, arguably, critical in developing multidimensionality of farmer well-being. We show that while the translocal approach is well represented in established well-being frameworks, farmer expression is not foundational in well-being assessments but is needed in order to center farmer values when generating indicators of well-being.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agronomy for Sustainable Development
Agronomy for Sustainable Development 农林科学-农艺学
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
8.20%
发文量
108
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Agronomy for Sustainable Development (ASD) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of international scope, dedicated to publishing original research articles, review articles, and meta-analyses aimed at improving sustainability in agricultural and food systems. The journal serves as a bridge between agronomy, cropping, and farming system research and various other disciplines including ecology, genetics, economics, and social sciences. ASD encourages studies in agroecology, participatory research, and interdisciplinary approaches, with a focus on systems thinking applied at different scales from field to global levels. Research articles published in ASD should present significant scientific advancements compared to existing knowledge, within an international context. Review articles should critically evaluate emerging topics, and opinion papers may also be submitted as reviews. Meta-analysis articles should provide clear contributions to resolving widely debated scientific questions.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信