Agriculture and Human Values, (2006), 23: 75–88
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
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
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.
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。
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 address 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; 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. 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, they 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 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?
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）
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？
1
California’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 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
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 population 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
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 facilitatingeconomic benefits.
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。
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://wkrtcs.bdimg.com/rtcs/image?w=583&md5sum=68368155bb22856ca0ec4b0ba86a6e6f&sign=2ff69fe504&rtcs_flag=1&rtcs_ver=3&l=webapp&bucketNum=103&ipr={"t":"img","w":"583","h":"265","dataType":"jpeg","c":"word/media/image1.png","imgOriW":940,"imgOriH":427})
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
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.
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 were 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
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 resources 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.
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 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 indicated 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。
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。
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。
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 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.
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。
The results 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 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.
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。
本文来源：https://www.2haoxitong.net/k/doc/02dea5825ff7ba0d4a7302768e9951e79b8969eb.html
文档为doc格式