Search

Qualitative studies have begun demonstrating how heteropatriarchy negatively affects queer farmer well-being and farm viability. However, quantitative surveys of farmers rarely ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation, precluding analyses that could connect farmers’ experiences to their queerness or to heteropatriarchy more broadly. In this article, we present data from one of the first surveys of U.S. queer farmers. This article inquires: (a) What barriers to farm viability and farmer well-being do queer farmers report? (b) How are these barriers related to or influenced by gender and sexuality? (c) How, if at all, do queer farmers mitigate heteropatriarchal barriers in farming? We find that queer farmers explicitly attributed interpersonal areas of discrimination to their queerness—or rather, to heteropatriarchy— especially anticipated discrimination, social isolation, training opportunities and/or lack of skill, and family dynamics. We assert that farmers’ reported challenges to farming success reflect areas of systemic heteropatriarchal oppression, especially in profitability, land access, health insurance, and affordable and/or available housing. At the same time, queer farmers turn to each other for support in navigating the heteropatri archal landscape of U.S. agriculture. The top area that queer farmers found helpful for their success was LGBTQIA+ farm mentors or peers. Our findings indicate that heteropatriarchy is a central force negatively affecting queer farmers’ wellbeing and farm viability. This research offers critical information for farmers, farming organizations, scholars, and policymakers to bolster farmers’ contributions to U.S. agriculture and gain a more holistic understanding of (in)equity in U.S. agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Generational renewal is widely acknowledged as key to the survival and sustainability of the European agricultural industry. In Ireland and many other European countries an aging farming population, and the lack of succession planning by farmers, are significant concerns regarding the future of the industry. Farm succession is a complex and multifaceted process with the literature highlighting one of its main barriers as a reluctance of older farmers to retire and effectively step-a-side to pass their farm onto the next generation. Such resistance of older farmers is undoubtedly a huge issue in terms of generational renewal of the Irish agricultural industry, however, it is important to understand that there are many sources of concern for farmers that can act as barriers to developing a succession plan. In this context, the objective of this study is to develop a deeper understanding of the concerns and barriers surrounding the farm succession process. Discussions on the topic of farm succession, which took place during semi-structured interviews and consultation meetings with 30 beef farmers in Ireland as part of an intervention programme to support farmers in succession planning, reveal that the source of such concerns appear to stem from two broad areas: successor identification concerns and financial and legal concerns. While acknowledging that such issues cause genuine concern for farmers, we argue that overcoming them may not be as difficult as some farmers may imagine. Hence a distinction between what constitutes real concerns versus what constitutes perceived concerns in the farm succession process emerges. The evidence gathered suggests that where farmers engage the services of professional advisors to discuss farm succession, many of those concerns can be alleviated. Consequently, by reflecting on the findings emerging and by highlighting the case of Irelands Succession Planning Advice Grant as a policy framework solution, we recommend for similar policy development in other countries facing the generational renewal challenge in agriculture. The novel findings emerging from this study provide a valuable contribution to the literature, to practice, and to policy development. • Lack of succussion planning by farmers is a significant challenge in agriculture. • Sources of concern for farmers can act as a barrier to developing succession plans. • Successor identification concerns and financial & legal concerns delay succession. • Engaging the services of professional advisors alleviates farm succession concerns. • A policy framework solution to assist a generational renewal challenge is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Qualitative studies have begun demonstrating how heteropatriarchy negatively affects queer farmer well-being and farm viability. However, quantita­tive surveys of farmers rarely ask questions about gender identity and sexual orientation, precluding analyses that could connect farmers’ experiences to their queerness or to heteropatriarchy more broadly. In this article, we present data from one of the first surveys of U.S. queer farmers. This article inquires: (a) What barriers to farm viability and farmer well-being do queer farmers report? (b) How are these barriers related to or influenced by gender and sexuality? (c) How, if at all, do queer farmers mitigate heteropatriarchal barriers in farm­ing? We find that queer farmers explicitly attributed interpersonal areas of discrimination to their queer­ness—or rather, to heteropatriarchy—especially anticipated discrimination, social isola­tion, training opportunities and/or lack of skill, and family dynamics. We assert that farmers’ reported chal­lenges to farming success reflect areas of systemic heteropatriarchal oppression, especially in profita­bility, land access, health insurance, and affordable and/or available hous­ing. At the same time, queer farmers turn to each other for support in navi­gating the heteropatri­archal landscape of U.S. agri­culture. The top area that queer farmers found helpful for their success was LGBTQIA+ farm mentors or peers. Our findings indicate that het­eropatriarchy is a central force negatively affecting queer farmers’ well-being and farm viability. This research offers critical information for farmers, farming organi­zations, scholars, and policymakers to bolster farmers’ contributions to U.S. agriculture and gain a more holistic understanding of (in)equity in U.S. agriculture.

Implementing rural land consolidation projects (RLCP) is believed to be an intervention that is effective at alleviating the problem of “agriculture, rural areas and farmers”, as well as optimizing the spatial pattern and service functions of ecosystem. Evaluation on ecological benefits of RLCP depends on the value of ecosystem services, as well as the effective assessment of farmers well-being change caused by policy choices or farmers’ activities, integrating and quantifying farmers’ net income from ecosystem services is the key to providing scientific and effective decision-making for the relationship balance between farmers well-being and ecosystem services. In recent years, some places carried out RLCP in new agricultural business entities-dominant mode, which was different from local government-dominant mode. This study aimed to analyze the impact of different RLCP modes on the dependence on ecosystem services from the micro-perspective of farmers. Based on the construction of index system of farmer dependence on ecosystem services (IDES), we investigated 483 farmers of 4 counties and cities in Hubei Province for livelihood data of 2014 and 2017, and then integrated and quantified the net income from ecosystem services and dependence on ecosystem services of farmers. Difference-in-differences model was employed to analyze the difference of farmers’ net income from ecosystem services and dependence on ecosystem services between consolidated areas and unconsolidated areas, and that between new agricultural business entities-dominant mode areas and local government-dominant mode areas. The results indicate that: 1) The income from provisioning service, regulating services, cultural services, ecosystem services and other social-economic activities increased by 33.20%, 5.34%, 35.09%, 32.12% and 33.23% respectively in consolidated areas after consolidation. The income increased by 53.06%, 5.40%, 33.33%, 49.33% and 42.40% respectively in new agricultural business entities-dominant mode areas. The income increased by 6.46%, 5.25%, 38.89%, 8.24% and 27.02% respectively in local government-dominant mode areas, while they increased by 17.01%, 4.66%, 22.34%, 16.85% and 22.98% respectively in unconsolidated areas at the same time; 2) The index of provisioning service, regulating services, cultural services and ecosystem services changed by -28.60%, -21.05%, -6.45% and -26.91% in consolidated areas after consolidation, they changed by -36.57%, -24.69%, -16.24% and -34.52% respectively in new agricultural business entities-dominant mode areas, they changed by -18.97%, -17.27%, +16.42% and -17.59% respectively in local government-dominant mode areas, while they changed by -8.34%, -13.39%, -4.10% and -8.36% respectively in unconsolidated areas at the same time. Implementing RLCP is an effective way to optimize farmers’ income structure and reduce farmers’ dependence on ecosystem services, which increases the share of socio-economy income and reduces the share of ecosystem-service income, and the effect of new agricultural business entities-dominant mode is more obvious than that of government-dominant mode. There is still much room for improvement in local government-dominant mode to optimize farmers’ income structure and reduce farmers’ dependence on ecosystem services. This study provides approach and method for linking ecosystem services and farmers well-being at micro-scale, as well as policy implication for reasonable and continuous promotion of RLCP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]