4.7 Article

Farmer perspectives on collaboration: Evidence from agricultural landscapes in Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania

Journal

JOURNAL OF RURAL STUDIES
Volume 94, Issue -, Pages 1-12

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.05.008

Keywords

Farmer participation; Stakeholder engagement; Collaborative environmental management; Contextual factors; Agricultural working landscapes

Funding

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Water for Agriculture from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2017-68007-26584, 1013079]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This comparative study examines the influence of contextual factors on farmer perspectives on collaborative environmental management. The study reveals four key themes from farmer perspectives on collaboration and identifies three contextual factors that shape farmers' positions on each theme. These findings have implications for guiding collaborative forums aiming to elicit farmer participation in environmental management.
We examine how contextual factors affect farmer perspectives on collaborative environmental management in Arizona, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania, U.S., through a qualitative and comparative study. In doing so, we explore how contextual factors identified in foundational collaborative environmental governance research play out specifically in three agricultural cases. Findings from this study reveal four key cross-case themes from farmer perspectives on collaboration: (1) prior participation, (2) flexible agenda, (3) willingness to learn, and (4) agency influence. Further, we find positions that are more open or closed on each theme are shaped by three contextual factors: farmer interdependence with non-farmers, the nature of salient water resource issues, and protection from versus vulnerability to regulatory agencies. These findings are useful for guiding future collaborative forums aiming to elicit farmer participation in environmental management.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available