毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译--农民社区的连接和生态农业的未来

- 1 - Agriculture and Human Values, (2006), 23: 75–88 农民社区的连接和生态农业的未来 作者Sonja Brodt1, Gail Feenstra2, Robin Kozloff3, Karen Klonsky4, and Laura
Tourte5 作者单位1Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis,
California, USA; 2Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education Program, University of California, Davis, California, USA;
3Private Consultant, Davis, California, USA;
4Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis,
California, USA; 5Santa Cruz County Abstract. While questions about the environmental sustainability of contemporary
farming practices and the
socioeconomic viability of rural communities are attracting increasing
attention throughout the US, these two issues
are rarely considered together. This paper explores the current and potential
connections between these two aspects of
sustainability, using data on community members’ and farmers’ views of
agricultural issues in California’s Central
Valley. These views were collected from a series of individual and group
interviews with biologically oriented and
conventional farmers as well as community stakeholders. Local marketing,
farmland preservation, and perceptions of
sustainable agriculture comprised the primary topics of discussion. The mixed
results indicate that, while many
farmers and community members have a strong interest in these topics,
sustainable community development and the
use of sustainable farming practices are seldom explicitly linked. On the
other hand, many separate efforts around the
Valley to increase local marketing and agritourism, improve public education
about agriculture, and organize grassroots
farmland preservation initiatives were documented. We conclude that linking
these efforts more explicitly to https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 2 -
sustainable agriculture and promoting more engagement between ecologically
oriented farmers and their communities
could engender more economic and political support for these farmers, helping
them and their communities to achieve
greater sustainability in the long run.
Key words: California’s Central Valley, Community development,
Farmer-consumer connections, Farmland preservation,
Local marketing, Sustainable agriculture 摘 要 虽然关于现代农业实践的环境可持续性和农村社区社会经济的可行性在全美国引
起了越来越多的关注但这两个问题很少在一起考虑过。这篇论文运用加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的
区民和农民在农业问题上的观点的数据探究这两方面现在和潜在的联系。这些观点从一些个人和
以生物为导向的一群组和传统农民还有社区利益相关者中收集来的。地方行销、耕地保护和可持
续发展农业观点组成主要的讨论话题综合结果表明虽然许多农民和区

民对这些话题有强烈的兴
趣但可持续社区发展和可持续农业实践的利用很少明确的联系到一起。在另一方面许多单独
的努力在提高地方行政和农业旅游提高关于农业的公共教育和组织基层农田保护倡议都已用文
件证明。我们推测将这些努力联系的更明确和促进以经济为导向的农民和他们的社区更多的参与
能够为这些农民产生更多经济上和政治上的支持帮助他们和社区长远地更加可持续性。

关键词 加利弗尼亚州的中央谷社区发展农民—消费者关联农田保护地方行销
可持续发展
1 Introduction Two increasingly important areas of public concern have emerged around US
agriculture. One is the environmental have suggested that environmental
sustainability and community viability are inherently linked and are most
effectively addressed together (Flora, 1990; Bird et al., 1995; Campbell,
1997). This paper draws from a study of community members and farmers’ views
of prominent agricultural issues in California’s Central Valley to explore
possible beneficial connections between sustainable agriculture and rural
community development, and to determine where this nationally important
agricultural
region stands in terms of making these connections. 1 前言 公众关注的两个日益重要的领域出现在美国农业。一个是现代农业技术带来的环境危害另https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 3 - 一个是农村社区和家庭农场的社会经济的持续性。显然一些以前的拙作以表明环境可持续性和社
区可行性是内在ianxi在一起的并且最为有效地一起处理但是这两个问题经常被分割地研究。
这篇论文从研究加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的社区居民和农民在突出的农业问题方面的观点的课题
中推测并研究可持续农业和农场社区发展之间所存在的可能的有利联系并依据这些联系来决定
国家级重要的农业区的所在地。 2 Conceptual framework and local context 2.1 Conceptual framework: Sustainable agriculture and community development
The need for an agriculture that makes more sustainable use of natural
resources has become increasingly clear. The pollution of our soil, water,
and air are but a few of the detrimental environmental impacts of many
agricultural practices still commonly used (Kegley et al., 1999; EPA, 2000;
Griffin et al., 2002). At the same time, a need for improvements in the social
and economic sustainability of farming is also gaining publicity in the wake
of the continuing loss of family farms; growth of suburban sprawl (Medvitz
and Sokolow, 1995); high health risks and low compensation rates to
farmworkers (Villarejo et al., 2000); and resulting loss of vitality among
rural communities nationwide (Allen and Sachs, 1993).
Some authors have begun to addr

ess these diverse issues holistically by
linking sustainable agriculture to community development, suggesting that a
shift to more sustainable farming practices – which rely more on natural
ecological processes than on synthetic chemical
interventions – will not only protect the natural environment, but will also
inherently benefit rural communities (Bird et al., 1995; Dobbs and Cole, 1992; https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 4 -
Flora,
1990, 2001). Proponents of this view have used socioeconomic as well as
philosophical perspectives to argue for the community benefits of sustainable
agriculture.
One socioeconomic argument relates to farm structure and rests on the
assumption that sustainable agriculture is more labor-, information-, and
management-intensive.
Therefore, it is thought to favor smaller, family run farms over larger
corporate farms (for summaries of these arguments see Dobbs and Cole, 1992;
Lasley et al., 1993). To our knowledge, the argument that sustainable
agriculture will lead to a predominance of smaller farms has yet to be
empirically substantiated and is likely to vary by crop and region. However,
the second part of the argument, that smaller farm size benefits rural
communities, has already been widely documented. Many scholars have shown that
larger, more industrially organized farms with less personal (i.e., more
corporate) forms of ownership tend to have negative socioeconomic
consequences for local communities (Goldschmidt,1947; Lobao, 1990; Welsh and
Lyson, 2001). Tolbert et al. also demonstrate empirically that small and
midsized firms of many types (not just farms) tend to be
more ‘‘anchored to place by social and economic relationships’’ (1998:
404) and thereby foster higher levels of civic engagement within rural
communities. This engagement, in turn, enhances community welfare according
to several standard socio-economic indicators. One additional economic
argument is that sustainable farming practices tend to require more locally
produced inputs, to replace agrochemicals obtained in distant markets, and
so they will increase local trade and support businesses within communities. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 5 -
Preliminary evidence, however, suggests that the latter cannot happen when
local economies are not yet set up to provide the types of inputs alternative
farmers need (Dobbs and Cole, 1992). Some authors attribute community benefits
to a presumed tendency of sustainable agriculture to bring about
a more communally minded style of farming through its very philosophy.
According to Lasley et al. (1993) and Kirschenmann (1992), this philosophy
advocates not only working in concert with nature, but also cooperating
with one’s neighbors and fostering a communal spirit.
Such claims suggest that because sustainable farmers must understand the
relationships between their crops and the surrounding environment, the

y are
also more predisposed to view themselves as embedded in local community
relations that are essential to their well-being. Flora (1990) likewise argues
that sustainable agriculture, with its food quality concerns, is inherently
more consumer- oriented and more closely tied to local markets. Sustainable
farmers, therefore, may be intrinsically more disposed towards civic
participation and working together to achieve regional self-sufficiency.
Civic participation, in turn, can benefit the farmers themselves by helping
them to build social capital. According to Putnam (1995) and Coleman (1990),
social capital is the set of resources inherent in interpersonal relationships
and social organization that can be used to enhance cooperation for mutual
benefit. These resources include not only family and community relationships,
but also norms of reciprocity and relations of authority and trust. Social
capital can facilitate effective resource mobilization and community-based
problem solving (Flora, 1995). Sustainable farmers in particular need to
facilitate such processes to develop alternative information
services and knowledge networks as well as alternative input sources and
stable markets for their products. Social capital that extends into the wider,
non-farming community can also help rural communities and farmers. A consuming
public that understands how a healthy food system works and that sees the links
between its own health and the health of farm communities is more likely
to support policies beneficial to agriculture. Sustainable farmers especially
need the support of educated consumers in order to survive within the dominant
economic and policy framework that often still favors more industrial scale
and conventional modes of production (Dahlberg, 1993). Consumers can develop
an understanding of agriculture through appropriate education and by engaging https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 6 -
with farmers in direct marketing mechanisms such as subscription farming,
farmers markets, and farm-to-school programs. An already abundant literature
on local food systems details the numerous economic and social benefits
accruing to both farmers and consumers when they are re-connected in direct
marketing schemes (see Lyson et al., 1995; Feenstra, 1997).
In this exploratory paper we will investigate the connections between
sustainable agriculture and community development by drawing on interviews
with farmers and community stakeholders from California’s Central
Valley.We will focus on a few key questions as a means of exploring a selection
of the broader arguments outlined above. Do farmers practicing a more
environmentally sustainable agriculture also engage in local community
problem-solving initiatives and community-based organizations? Do they use
local, direct marketing efforts and do community members see these efforts
leading to greater economic

sustainability? Do these farmers place
greater value on civic participation? Do non-farming residents of these
farmers’ rural communities understand the challenges and rewards of farming
sustainably, thereby demonstrating the presence of social capital on which
those in the sustainable agriculture movement might draw to influence public
policy? What are the public education and policy implications of the answers
to these questions?
2
基本概念和当地情况 2.1 基本概念可持续农业和社区发展
更加可持续性地利用自然资源已变成农业越来越明晰的需求。在目前普遍使用的
农业操作中对环境有害的影响中土地、水源、空气的污染仅仅是一小部分。与此同
时随着家庭农场的不断减少提高农业的社会和经济的持续可发展的能力引起了注
意郊区蔓延的增长对于农业工人高健康危险和低补偿汇率导致了全国的农村社区
的活力减弱。
一些作者开始以将可持续发展农业和社区发展联系起来和全盘处理这些不同的
问题。暗示向更可持续发展农业的一个转变——那将是更加依赖于自然生态过程而不
是人工化学干预将不仅仅保护自然环境而且将内在的有利于农村社区。Bird et
al于1995年表明Dobbs和Cole于1992年表明Flora于1990年和2001年表明 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 7 -
公民参与反过来能有利于农民本身通过帮助农民建立社会资本。根据
Putnan(1995)和Coleman(1990)社会资本是一系列资源内在于人际关系和社会组
织他们可以用来增强互利的合作。这些资源不仅仅包括家庭和社区关系还包括互
惠规范的权力和信任关系社会资本能够促进有效资源的调动和社区问题的而解决。
社会资本扩展到更宽广非农业的社区也能够帮助农村社区和农民。一个能了解
健康食品系统如何运作看到他自己的安全与农村社区健康之间联系的消费群更加
可能的去支持有利于农业的政策。
在这篇探究性论文中我们通过询问加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的农民和社区利益相
关者来调查可持续发展农业和社区发展之间的联系。我们将聚焦于一些关键问题作
为选择一个更宽广的上文所述参数的一个手段。农民会参与更加环境可持续发展农业
同时从事于地方社区问题解决方案和社区组织吗他们利用本地的直接的销售努力
吗社区居民能看到这些努力致使的经济更加可持续发展吗这些农民是否会将公
民参与放于重要的位置农村社区里的非务农居民能够理解农业可持续发展的挑战
和回报吗公众教育和政策含义将如何回答这些问题
2.2 The local context: Agriculture and communities in California’
s Central
Valley Cal

ifornia’s Central Valley exhibits several traits that make it a useful
site for studying these broad issues of sustainability in agriculture and
vitality of local communities.
The expansive valley possesses an intensive and highly productive
agricultural industry, while simultaneously experiencing shortages in
economic and political resources to address growing socioeconomic disparities.
Famed for its fruit, nut, and vegetable operations,
the Central Valley produces more than half of the total US supply of many of
these crops. Its dry, Mediterranean- like climate, augmented by an extensive
irrigation
infrastructure, is valued for producing crops of particularly high quality.
Uniformity of size and color, firmness for long-distance shipping, lack of
pest-induced blemishes, and, in some cases, precise sugar and solids
compositions needed for processing, are the qualities most growers strive
to achieve. Often, these qualities are almost as important as the frequently
phenomenal yields California is also considered a world leader in ecological agriculture and
boasts some of the toughest environmental regulations pertaining to farming https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 8 -
in the
world. A growing number of Central Valley farmers are turning to more
biologically oriented and ecologicall ybased farming methods. A particularly
long-standing andactive concentration of these innovative growers can be
found in the northern San Joaquin Valley, located in the
heart of the Central Valley and the primary focus area for this study. Some
of these predominantly fruit and nut producers are members of the
Merced/Stanislaus chapter
of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), a non-profit
member-activist organization with a 20-year record of working with farmers
and rural communities to
enhance the viability of family farms. This organization, in conjunction with
the University of California Cooperative Extension, launched the Biologically
Integrated
Orchard Systems (BIOS) program in 1993 to integrate the expertise of growers,
researchers, Cooperative Extension farm advisors, and private pest control
advisors (PCAs) in
providing assistance and support to almond growers wishing to reduce synthetic
fertilizer and pesticide use (CAFF, n.d.). BIOS-recommended practices hinge
on using a whole systems approach to building overall orchard health and
buffering orchards against pest outbreaks.
They include practices such as comprehensive monitoring of pest and beneficial
populations, enhancing habitat for beneficials, releasing beneficials, cover
cropping, applying natural fertilizers such as compost, using selective
‘‘soft’’ pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis and only when monitoring
indicates they are needed, and careful mowing and irrigation management for
disease control. (While bearing similarities to an organic approach, BIOS is

not limited only to practices approved for certified organic production.)
Furthermore, BIOS institutionalized a social learning model that supports
farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-expert information-sharing and builds a
community of learning. By 1998, the program had expanded to walnut growers
as well and boasted 106 participating growers in 7counties throughout
California (Stevenson et al., 1998). CAFF also has other ongoing programs to support family farms and to connect
consumers and school children with local food production. In addition, its https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 9 -
programs, particularly BIOS, have spawned similar ecologically oriented
farming programs in other crops around the state. With this strong focus on
sustainable agriculture and activist elements working to create a larger
community of interest around local agriculture, the Central Valley appears
poised to make significant gainsin the social and economic sustainability of
farming that must ultimately accompany environmental sustainability. Several historical and current trends, however, often work to counteract
this potential for long-term sustainability. On the one hand, while California
as a whole may be well known in some markets for its quality output, on an
individual and community scale the long-standing
trend toward a commodity orientation serves to obliterate producer identities
in the marketplace. Once produced to the uniform specifications required by
handlers and processors, the fruit from most growers is aggregated in
processing facilities. It is then sold in national and global markets where
fruit from one area, as a ‘‘commodity,’’ is easily interchangeable with
that from another source, and no link is made to the original producers or
their regions.
This trend, coupled with the newer trends of trade liberalization and recent
agricultural development in various
countries in Asia, South America, and
southern Europe,is creating stiff competition for Central Valley growers,
many of whom have seen producer prices drop to levels at or near the cost of
production. All of the precision andfine-tuning that has become standard
practice for Central Valley growers, therefore, does not assist them in
garneringa larger share of the food dollar spent by consumers,who, for the
most part, remain ignorant of the particular farming practices used and the
challenging context in which Central Valley growers must compete. This paradox
is especially evident in the case of farmers who use environmentally
integrated practices. After making the added effort and taking the risks to
increase the sustainability of their operations, few use market mechanisms
that would allow their products to be distinguished from those of their
conventional neighbors with which their products get pooled.
Farmers in the Central Valley are also affected by some of the highest rates
of popu

lation growth and urbanization in a state already noted for its rapid
growth. Throughout the Valley, about 30,000 acres are converted annually from
farmland to urban uses (Medvitz and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 10 -
Sokolow, 1995). Such rapid farmland conversion inevitably brings rising land
prices, changing tax structures, and other financial pressures that threaten
the economic sustainability of agriculture. In addition, the composition and
character of communities within the Valley are rapidly h of the land
conversion attributable to an influx of more affluent commuter populations
from the San Francisco and Silicon Valley metropolitan areas. These changes
create rising tensionsalong the urban/agricultural interface (Handel, 1998).
Despite these rapid transformations and the presence of a multi-billion dollar agrifood industry, the Central Valley still harbors some of the poorest
communities in California. Many of these communities are composed of immigrant
farmworkers who are stuck in an economic
structure with a very steep job pyramid, having very few stable jobs at the
top and mostly low-paying seasonal jobs at the base. As a result, 55% of workers
interviewed for the National Agricultural Workers Survey in 1996 earned less
than $7,500 per year (Martin and Taylor, 2000) and one-quarter of children
in the San Joaquin Valley live in families with incomes below the poverty level
(Taylor and Martin, 2000). At the same time, farmworkers are
disproportionately exposed to the risks of pesticide-related illnesses and
injuries while tending high-value food crops that many cannot even afford to
purchase for themselves
(Villarejo et al., 2000). Low producer prices, low farmworker wages, and poor
working conditions are all symptoms of a system in need of public and
politicalattention to foster its sustainability on environmental, economic,
and social fronts simultaneously. It is precisely the potential for achieving greater sustainability as well
as the forces arrayed against it that prompted us to explore the farming
communities in this particular region. The relatively large numbers of farmers
explicitly interested in more environmentally sustainable approaches to
farming make this region a fruitful place to explore factors that might link
environmental sustainability with community health. Furthermore, the
pressing problems threatening community vitality in the region would seem to
provide enough impetus to realize such linkages if they do indeed exist.
Furthermore, we particularly wanted to focus on civic engagement of farmers
and their direct connections to local consumers and other members of their
communities, since these seemed important for building social capital and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 11 -
facilitatingeconomic benefits. 2.2当地情况加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的农业和社区 加利弗尼亚州的中央谷存在一些特点这些

特点能让它成为研究农业的可持续发展能力和当
地社区的可行性的一个有用地点。中央谷种植水果、坚果和蔬菜。中央谷生产的这样产品占美国
总供应的一半还要多。
加利弗尼亚州还被认为是经济型农业的世界领先者并且自夸自己的农业环境规章制度是在
全世界最为严格的。越来越多的泓阳光的农民向更为面向生物和从生态学角度出发的耕作方法转
变。
中央谷的还受到最高人口生长率和高速度的城市化的影响。在整个中央谷每年有大约30000
英亩的耕地转变为城市用地。如此高速的农地变更不可避免地带来土地价格上涨税收结构变更
还有其他财政压力影响农业的经济可持续发展。
尽管这些迅速的转变和拥有价值数十亿美元的农产品产业但中央谷仍然还拥有一些加利弗
尼亚州的最贫穷的社区。这里面的许多社区由移民农场工人组成他们深陷于带有非常陡峭的工
作金字塔的经济结构他们美元处于顶端的固定的工作他们大部分拥有处于低部的低收入季节
性的工作。
我们将特别关注于农民的公民参与和他们和当地消费者、社区其他成员之间的直接关系因
为这些看起来对于建立社会资本和促进经济效益增长非常重要。 3 Study methods In order to explore the relationships between rural communities and
sustainable agriculture, we draw on three sets of farmer and community member
interviews conducted
in Stanislaus and Merced Counties (Table 1). These interviews were all part
of a larger study entitled ‘‘Increasing Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture
and Positive Community Impacts,’’ which examined farm management styles,
adoption of environmentally sustainable farming practices, and farmers’
involvement in their communities. From these interviews, we were able to
identify a range of views related to farmer and community interactions and
perceptions of sustainable agriculture. Finally, we were able to identify
successful examples of and future opportunities for linking sustainable
farming with local community development https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 12 -
3研究方法 为了探究农村社区和可持续发展农业之间的关系我们在坦尼斯劳斯和马德塞县的
三组农民和社区居民进行了访问。见表
4 Results This section details the results of the interviews with each group of
respondents. It is organized into two main topic areas: (1) perceptions of
sustainable agriculture; and (2) perceptions of interactions between farmers
and communities. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 13 - 4.1 Perceptions of sustainable agriculture BIOS farmers. Most of the farmers interviewed were
already self-selected, belonging to an organization and a program that
specifically promotes sustainable agriculture, and so all wer

e familiar with
the term. However, they noticed some initial skepticism and defensiveness
among other growers when CAFF first introduced BIOS concepts locally. The
reasons for these negative attitudes were thought by some to stem from the
language used in CAFF’s early attempts to promote BIOS. These early attempts
failed to acknowledge that careful business planning usually goes into
farmers’ use of conventional practices, and it implied instead that
conventional farmers simply used chemical sprays in a reckless manner, with
no consideration for the environment. While the interviewees’ comments
specifically addressed CAFF activities, they could be construed as
characterizing some farmers’ negative perceptions of the sustainable
agriculture movement generally. On the other hand, many of the farmers
interviewed noted that other local farmers were starting to adopt more
sustainable practices, including those promoted in BIOS, once they saw the
economic and/or environmental benefits, and once these tangible advantages
were more directly communicated to them. Community stakeholders. When asked about their perceptions of sustainable
agriculture, most of the community stakeholders from both Stanislaus and
Merced
Counties noted that they were unfamiliar with the term. Only three of the
respondents from Merced County were conversant with ‘‘sustainable agriculture
practices’’ and knew farmers who used them. Only two respondents from
Stanislaus County had more than a superficial understanding of how the term
‘‘sustainable’’ relates to agriculture. Overall, while understanding of the
term was
generally superficial, reaction to it tended to be positive. On the other hand,
a few respondents rejected the notion that ‘‘sustainable’’ farmers should
be distinguished in any way from ‘‘conventional’’ farmers on the grounds
that all
farmers are environmental stewards and that the purchase of sustainably grown
products is a matter of consumer choice rather than food health or safety.
In a similar vein, one respondent noted that he did not think that sustainable https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 14 -
farmers constituted a fundamentally different type of farmer, but simply were
farmers who were ‘‘on the leading edge or willing to make a difference.’’
In addition, a few respondents from Stanislaus County also cautioned that the
term ‘‘sustainable’’ might be negatively perceived as synonymous with ‘‘no
growth’’ or increased environmental regulations. Farmer management strategy interviews. The Q methodology resulted in three
distinct groups of growers. For ease of reference, we labeled each group with
a name that captured some of their most distinctive qualities, based on which
types of statements the growers in each group ranked most highly.
Environmental Stewards
were most interested in managing resourc

es in cooperation with nature and
decreasing pesticide use on the farm as a way of improving living and working
conditions. They placed a higher priority on conserving natural resources than
on getting the highest possible yields all the time. They tended to give a
neutral rating, expressing neither strong agreement nor disagreement,
to statements relating to off-farm and community interests. Production
Maximizers took a more industrial and business-oriented approach to farming.
They focusedon getting the highest yields and quality ratings, and displayed
the least interest in off-farm activities, whether social or employment
related. Networking
Entrepreneurs placed relatively less emphasis on earning a living from the
farm and showed a correspondingly stronger interest in off-farm activities
and social interaction, especially for information-seeking purposes.
Possibly due to competing interests off-farm, they also showed a tendency
towards a strong, business-like cost/ benefit approach, in terms of time and
money, in choosing farming practices. 4.2 Perceptions of interactions between farmers and their communities BIOS farmers. The BIOS farmer focus group and interview respondents
indicated that, as a whole, farmers seem to interact mostly with other farmers
and people directly involved in agriculture and much less so with anyone
outside of agriculture. Moreover, some farmers spoke about the possibility
of ‘‘negative’’ interactions that might develop with residents of new rural
subdivisions who found the noise and odor of some farming practices offensive.
Community stakeholders. Echoing the farmers, community stakeholders also https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 15 -
expressed the opinion that many people view farmers as isolated from the
broader community, often to their own detriment. One person commented that
many farmers ‘‘work in their own circles and outside that circle they’re
not interested. There’s only a small percentage that will become involved
in community events that are not related strictly to agriculture.’’
Farmer management strategy interviews. The growers participating in the
management strategy interviews were not asked the same questions about
farmland
preservation and local marketing as were the previous respondents. However,
issues of community involvement and local marketing were expressed in the
statements
they had to prioritize as part of the Q-method procedure. As in the BIOS farmer
and community stakeholder interviews, the management strategy interviews
revealed that some farmers are much more involved in community activities than
others. Production Maximizers were the most production-focused and the
least keen to engage in social and community activities off the farm. For
example one farmer noted that ‘‘if you are a farmer, you should concentrate
on that.’’Their statement rankings also indi

cated that Production Maximizers
tend toward being more private, competitive, and less willing to share
information with other
farmers.
4结果 这部分详述对每组调查者访问的结果由两个主要的话题组成1对于可持续发展农业的
看法2对于农民和社区之间的联系的看法。 4.1对于可持续发展农业的看法 BIOS农民大部分受访问的农民属于促进农业可持续发展的组织和项目他们同
样对于术语非常的熟悉。但是他们还注意到当CAFF在当地最先引进BIOS概念时最
初有一些怀疑和防护。在另一方面许多接受访问的农民注意到一旦其他的当地农民
看到经济和环境效益一旦这些切实的优势直接地传达给其他农民他们也会开始采
纳更加可持续发展的方法。
社区利益相关者当问及他们对于可持续发展农业的看法时大部分坦尼斯劳斯
和马德赛县的利益相关者们都表示他们对术语很不熟悉。
农民管理策略采访运用Q方法导致分出3组有区别的种植者。因此对于可持续https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 16 -
发展农业有着不同的看法。对于生态农业的不同态度表明在所有农民中对于什么是
“可持续的”和什么对环境是有害的下定义是完全不可能清晰明确的。而且对于
拥有对什么是可持续的有着不同理解和在农场管理中什么是应该首先被考虑的农民
来说他们仍然同意经济方面的考虑会限制他们采纳对于自己的农场最佳的可持续发
展的方法的能力。 4.2对于农民和社区之间联系的看法 BIOS农民BIOS农民调查者表明作为整体农民看起来与其他农民和直接参与
到农业的人相互影响比较大于农业之外的人影响很小。另外一些农民认为产生这
种“消极”的相互作用可能是由于居住在农村出售土地上的人认为农耕所产生的噪音
和气味令人恼怒。
社区利益相关者呼应农民社区利益相关者也表达了一个观点许多人将农民从
更广阔的社区中独立出来。有人这样评价农民“他们在自己的圈子里工作而对于圈
子之外的世界他们都不感兴趣。参与与农业没有太大联系的社区事件的农民仅占小
数。”
农民管理战略采访参与管理策略采访的种植者并没有问和之前调查者一样的有
关于土地保护和地方行销的问题。但是社区参与和地方行政的问题以作为被优先考
虑一部分Q方法的步骤的方式表达出来。 5 Discussion This study suggests mixed progress towards linking sustainable agriculture
with local community development. While some of the interviews imply that all
farmers in general are relatively isolated from surrounding communities and
lack social capital for community-based problem solving, other data

suggest
that some farmers are already very engaged in local issues. The more salient
point that emerges from the data, however, is that all farmers – both
conventional and more ecologically oriented– vary considerably from one
another in their goals and value orientations towards both farm management
and community involvement.
One very important reason for this disconnect is that most agriculture in
the Central Valley is still heavily ycommodity-oriented and export-focused,
a fact that maypose a greater barrier to incorporating community https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 17 -
sustainability than the growers’ personal attitudes toward civic
participation. When large numbers of growers all produce the same crop,
especially when this crop, like almonds and winegrapes, is not a staple food,
they will of necessity rely substantially on exports out of the region. This
limitation applies to all growers, whether or not they are using more
sustainable crop production practices. As long as these same crops are
produced in their current large volumes, local and even regional markets are
not large enough to absorb them all.
Furthermore, growers who do wish to participate inlocal marketing
strategies such as farmers markets and community supported agriculture must
diversify their operations, produce small quantities of a large variety of
products at regular or frequent intervals, and learn new skills such as
customer service. Typical commodity growers are often not well equipped or
prepared to do this. Finally, growers who do show an interest in capitalizing
on their unique identities as sustainable farmers by marketing directly to
consumers do not necessarily target local markets. Nevertheless, community
members’ perspectives do suggest that at present there is still much more
scope for expanding the involvement of local growers in regional marketing.
Certainly, the increased involvement of even a few ecological farmers could
increase the visibility of all of these farmers as a group, to the benefit
of all. 5 讨论 这份研究表明将可持续发展农业与地方社区发展联系起来是一个喜忧参半的进
程。虽然一些采访者暗示基本上所有的农民相对地孤立于周围的社区而且缺少社区
问题解决的社会资本但是一些数据表明一些农民已经积极参与地方事务。
有这样截然不同情况的一个非常重要的原因是中央谷的绝大多数农业仍然以商
品为导向和以出口为导向这个事实将给合并社区的持续发展能力构成更大的障碍
比起种植者个人对公民参与的态度而言。
此外希望参与地方行销战略就像农民市场和支持农业的社区的种植者必须使他
们的经营多样化定时或不定时地生产少量的多种产品学习新的技能。例如顾客服
务。 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 18 - 6 Conclusion The result

s presented here confirm that links between farm-level
environmental sustainability and community- level socioeconomic
sustainability in the Central

Valley exist, but that the potential for greater concerted effort from many
individuals and organizations to strengthen these links is evident. One of
the biggest factors that hinders the further development of such links is
undoubtedly the commodity export orientation of agriculture in this region.
Since it is apparent that this fundamental factor will not change in the near
future, some questions for further research arise. Given that some individual
growers and organizations are indeed interested in smaller-scale local and
regional connections through direct marketing and other means, how big must
this fraction of growers be within a given community or region to ensure an
adequate capacity for public education and social capital-building that
benefits all of agriculture, even those continuing in a more traditional
commodity orientation? In other words, is there some ‘‘critical mass’’ needed
to fundamentally change the local public’s perceptions and understanding of
agriculture, without having to transform the entire agricultural system?
Further work should also focus on specific details of how to help those growers
who are interested in making a transition to more local marketing. What are
the best crop mixes that can optimally utilize existing farm resources
currently devoted to commodity production while also appealing to local
consumers? Farm-
to-school programs at the district level appear to offer the
possibility of a large enough buyer base to be able to engage with the existing
mixed commodity production system at a level that is profitable enough for
multiple commodity growers, such as fruit and nut producers, without the
growers having to make large changes to their production base. Are there other
institutional buying arrangements that offer similar advantages for fitting
into the predominant commodity-oriented system? Finally, what is the
potential for larger, singlecrop growers to interact with the community, even
if they continue to participate global markets?
In the area of environmentally sound agriculture, further research is needed
to identify what specific factors have motivated growers to participate in
BIOS- and BIFS-type programs and what social and economic impacts their https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html, - 19 -
participation has had on their communities.
Finally, how can the large labor base already employed in agriculture be
profitably tapped for local food systems? For example, training and incubator
programs as well as small business grants and loans might be profitably
deployed to assist underemployed agricultural workers to develop their
capacity to become involved in local businesses in areas such as small-scale
direct marketing and agritourism, for their

own benefit as well as that of
regional economies. Many workers are of Mexican origin, and, as previously
mentioned, substantial numbers of small-scale immigrant farmers from South
and Southeast Asia also populate the Central Valley. Work with these
populations is needed to determine what aspects of environmental and community
sustainability are most important to them and how
they might be able to contribute to larger-scale regional sustainability.
Ultimately, supporters of both ecological agriculture and community
development will have to work together to build larger communities of interest
with the power to marshal the social, political, and economic support needed
to address intertwined issues of environmental and community sustainability. 6结论 展现在这里的结果证实了在中央谷的农场级水平的环境可持续发展能力和社区
级水平社会经济可持续发展能为之间的联系是存在的但是很明显它还需要来自个
人和组织更大的一直的努力。
在环保型农业领域需要更多的研究去确认什么具体的因素能够激励种植者去参
与BIOS和BIFS类型的项目中他们的参与对他们的社区有什么社会和经济影响。最
后生态农业和社区发展的支持者们将要一起努力建设更大的社区更加有力的利用
引领社会的政治的、经济的支持去处理缠绕在一起的环境和社区可持续发展的问题。





https://www.wendangku.net/doc/db12620684.html,