Does organic farming present greater opportunities for employment and community development than conventional farming?:A survey-based investigation in California and Washington

Organic farming may present opportunities for job creation over and above those provided by conventional agriculture; this study is one of a small number to have empirically examined this proposition. We compared countywide averages of hired farm labor from the USDA’s 2007 Agricultural Census with data collected through a mirrored survey of organic farmers in the same counties in Washington and California. Based on mixed-effects linear models to estimate differences (if any) in employment between organic farms and countywide farm averages, our analysis indicated that organic farms employed more workers per acre (95% CI: 2–12% more). Further, a greater proportion (95% CI: 13–43% more) of hired labor on organic farms worked 150 days or more compared to the average farm, suggesting increased labor requirements—and potentially more secure employment—on organic farms. We conclude the present study by considering possible policy implications of our findings with regard to organic agriculture as part of regional economic development strategies

Agroecology Now!

This open access book develops a framework for advancing agroecology transformations focusing on power, politics and governance. It explores the potential of agroecology as a sustainable and socially just alternative to today’s dominant food regime. Agroecology is an ecological approach to farming that addresses climate change and biodiversity loss while contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals. Agroecology transformations represent a challenge to the power of corporations in controlling food system and a rejection of the industrial food systems that are at the root of many social and ecological ills. In this book the authors analyse the conditions that enable and disable agroecology’s potential and present six ‘domains of transformation’ where it comes into conflict with the dominant food system. They argue that food sovereignty, community-self organization and a shift to bottom-up governance are critical for the transformation to a socially just and ecologically viable food system. This book will be a valuable resource to researchers, students, policy makers and professionals across multidisciplinary areas including in the fields of food politics, international development, sustainability and resilience

Land sparing versus land sharing:Moving forward

To address the challenges of biodiversity conservation and commodity production, a framework has been proposed that distinguishes between the integration (land sharing) and separation (land sparing) of conservation and production. Controversy has arisen around this framework partly because many scholars have focused specifically on food production rather than more encompassing notions such as land scarcity or food security. Controversy further surrounds the practical value of partial trade-off analyses, the ways in which biodiversity should be quantified, and a series of scale effects that are not readily accounted for. We see key priorities for the future in (1) addressing these issues when using the existing framework, and (2) developing alternative, holistic ways to conceptualise challenges related to food, biodiversity, and land scarcity

The \u27Goldilocks Hypothesis\u27 : A Political Ecology of the Land-sparing/Wildlife-friendly Farming Debate

Proposals for biodiversity conservation as related to the dominant form of human land use, agriculture, have broadly coalesced around two paradigms: Land sparing and Wildlife-friendly farming. Neither paradigm is sufficiently grounded in the more complex socioeconomic realities of the food system with regards to another paramount problem of our time: widespread malnutrition. However, the land sparing paradigm\u27s simplistic approach to food, policy, and ecosystem dynamics is arguably more egregiously out of sync with current knowledge. The talk will present a conceptual view of food systems, hunger, and biodiversity conservation, with the goal of generating discussion on how to systematically integrate the different and sometimes clashing perspectives different academic areas bring to this debate. Without more sophisticated, integrative, and value-explicit assessments and models, and the recognition of the need for discontinuous change, we risk intensifying a system known to have severe consequences for biodiversity alongside notable failures to reduce hunger, or alternatively, modifying it in ways that ameliorate neither problem.https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/systems_science_seminar_series/1025/thumbnail.jp