Roth, Michael (author), Frixen, Miryam (author), Tobisch, Carlos (author), and Scholle, Thomas (author)
Format:
Proceedings
Publication Date:
2016
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Document Number: D08818
Notes:
Pages 283-298 in Rob Roggema (ed.), Agriculture in an urbanizing society volume one: proceedings of the sixth AESOP conference on sustainable food planning. United Kingdom: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 549 pages.
5 pages, The main objective of this study was to find out how small farmers were affected by urbanization.
The study was conducted during 2020 in 2 barangays (districts ). Cagayan de Ore (CDO) City specifically canitoan and pagatpat, Philippines. There were 12 and 11 farmers in Canitoan and Pagatpat, respectively who participated the focus group discussion (FGD). Majority of them was
considered as small farmers due to the size of their farm which was less than 1 hectare. Around
70 hectares of agricultural land in Canitoan were transformed into a private housing subdivision.
Qualitative approach was employed using FGD and farmers were organized and interviewed as
a group. Data revealed that agricultural lands had been converted into residential or commercial
purposes. CDO agriculture area was decreased from 91.5 to 81.89%. Urbanization affected the farmer in term of displacement, income source, decrease economic status and negative motivation for agriculture. In conclusion, urbanization in CDO which brought progressive economic development had negatively affected the lives of some small farmers. We suggested proper policies to find alternatives for the farmers so that they could continue to produce food in the surroundings of the city and thus made city and rural areas more resilient in food supplies and also water regeneration.
Purpose: The impact of agricultural knowledge transfer (KT) is related to the access to and the quality of services available. Within this context, the allocation of resources in terms of KT offices and the number of advisers are important considerations for understanding KT impact. This quantitative study evaluates the impact of KT resources on farm profitability for clients in Ireland during the recessionary period 2008–2014.
Design/Methodology: Teagasc, the public KT service provider in Ireland, experienced significant office closures (43%) and a reduction in advisers (38%) during the economic crisis, yet client numbers declined only slightly (4.5%). Administrative data are merged with a panel data set on farm-level performance to evaluate the impact through Random Effects estimation.
Findings: The results show that clients gained a 12.3% benefit to their margin per hectare over the period. However, there was a negative effect of 0.2% for each additional client assigned to the adviser which averaged at 9.6%.
Practical Implications: The quantitative findings provide a measure of impact that represents the value for money for the KT service. The key implication is that the client ratio for advisers should be considered when allocating resources and lower ratios would positively impact client margins.
Theoretical Implications: This article outlines the value of quantitative studies to estimate impact in a clear translatable manner which can aid the policy discussion around resource deployment.
Originality/Value: This study evaluates the impact of KT during a recessionary period when resources were constrained, and uses client ratios to examine the spatial effects.
18 pages, The donation of unharvested or unsold crops to rescue organizations has been promoted as a strategy to improve healthy food access for food insecure households while reducing production-level food loss and waste (FLW). In this study, we aimed to assess the motivations, barriers, and facilitators for crop donation as a FLW reduction strategy among Maryland farmers. We interviewed 18 Maryland-based food producers (nine frequent crop donors and nine infrequent, by self-report) in 2016 – 2017, soliciting their perspectives on crop donation motivators, process feasibility, and interventions aimed at increasing crop donation. The interviews were thematically coded. All respondents were aware of crop donation as an option, and most expressed interest in reducing FLW by diverting crop surpluses for human consumption. While financial barriers represented one aspect influencing donation decisions, respondents also cited convenience, process knowledge, and liability as key considerations. In contrast to frequent donors, many of whom considered donation a moral imperative, some infrequent donors questioned the expectation that they would donate crops without compensation. Both frequent and infrequent donors were aware of pro-donation tax incentives, and infrequent donors reported being unlikely to use them. This research demonstrates that crop donation motivations, barriers, and facilitators can be diverse. Given the existence of crop surpluses and their potential benefits as emergency food, our results suggest that multiple interventions and policies may contribute to incentivizing and facilitating crop donation (or enabling the purchase of surplus crops) rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. Our findings also highlight a need to prioritize crop recovery methods that enhance growers’ financial stability.
