4.3 Article

Wellbeing, environmental sustainability and profitability: Including plurality of logics in participatory extension programmes for enhanced farmer resilience

期刊

SOCIOLOGIA RURALIS
卷 63, 期 -, 页码 141-162

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/soru.12413

关键词

agriculture; behavioural change; institutional change; institutional logics; participatory extension

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study explores how a participatory extension program based on peer-to-peer learning can support farmers in increasing resilience. Findings show that such programs provide a safe space for farmers to discuss well-being challenges and connect with support networks. The study also highlights the intrinsic link between farmer well-being, profitability, and sustainability, emphasizing the need for balance in these three areas.
Environmental sustainability and economic challenges are requiring significant change in the agricultural sector, and this is driving an increased focus on farmer and farm business resilience. Participatory extension programmes (PEPs) are a well-known approach for supporting farmer change. The objective of this article is to explore how a PEP based on peer-to-peer learning can support farmers in increasing resilience. Our study examines the interaction of wellbeing, environmental change and profitability through the applications of an institutional logics evaluation framework. We interviewed 24 participants in a PEP based in Northland, New Zealand. Findings show that PEPs can provide a safe space to discuss wellbeing challenges and link farmers with networks to support them on their wellbeing journey. We found that farmer wellbeing is intrinsically linked to other pressures that farmers face around profitability and sustainability, and therefore PEPs need to balance these three pillars. This article adds to the current literature by expanding an institutional logics evaluation framework and identifying the role of different actors in change mechanisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据