Shellabarger, Rachel M. (author), Voss, Rachel C. (author), Egerer, Monika (author), Chiang, Shun-Nan (author), and University of California, Santa Cruz
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-10-17
Published:
United States: Springer Netherlands
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 8 Document Number: D10316
13 pages., Via online journal., The idea of a profound urban–rural divide has shaped analysis of the 2016 U.S. presidential election results. Here, through examples from agri-food systems, we consider the limitations of the urban–rural divide framework in light of the assumptions and intentions that underpin it. We explore the ideas and imaginaries that shape urban and rural categories, consider how material realities are and are not translated into U.S. rural development, farm, and nutrition policies, and examine the blending of rural and urban identities through processes of rural deagrarianization and urban reagrarianization. We do not argue that an urban–rural divide does not exist, as studies and public opinion polls illustrate both measured and perceived differences in many aspects of the lived experiences that shape our individual and collective actions. Ultimately, we suggest that the urban–rural divide concept obscures the diversity and dynamism of experiences each category encompasses. Additionally, it ignores the connections and commonalities that demand integrative solutions to challenges in agri-food systems, and draw attention to the power relations that shape resource access and use within and across urban and rural spaces.
6 pages, via online journal, In order to design and implement public policies in the context of rural development, information tends to be gathered about family farming in different Latin American countries. In contrast, scarce attention has been given to the description of rural extensionists, who are the ones supporting family farming in the fi eld. A cross-sectional investigation was conducted between 2010 and 2012 including surveys to rural extensions working in 10 different Latin American countries, this allowing for a preliminary description of the socio-demographic profile of the respondents. The samples were incidental ranging from 19 (Bolivia) to 220 (Argentina) subjects, this implying that they were not representative. Significant statistical differences were found with regards to the sex, age, experience, level of education and university degree of the samples pertaining to the different countries. In average, most extensionists are men (70.1%), age 40.3 and have little more than 11 years of experience as extensionists. Brazilian practitioners surveyed are the oldest, most educated and experienced among the different samples. In general, most extensionists have a technical background and are agricultural engineers. The Uruguayan sample showed the highest percentage of extensionists coming from the area of social sciences.
