• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use and related risks for agricultural workers in Washington State’s tree fruit industry
【2h】

Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views on pesticide use and related risks for agricultural workers in Washington State’s tree fruit industry

机译：超越两极分化：在华盛顿州的水果行业中使用Q方法研究利益相关者对农药使用以及对农业工人相关风险的看法

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Controversies in food and agriculture abound, with many portrayed as conflicts between polarized viewpoints. Framing such controversies as dichotomies, however, can at times obscure what might be a plurality of views and potential common ground on the subject. We used Q methodology to explore stakeholders’ views about pesticide safety, agricultural worker exposure, and human health concerns in the tree fruit industry of central Washington State. Using a purposive sample of English and Spanish-speaking agricultural workers, industry representatives, state agencies, educators, and advocates (n = 41), participants sorted 45 statements on pesticide use and perceived human safety risks in the tree fruit industry in 2011. We used PQMethod 2.33 statistical software program to identify viewpoints, based on differences between how participants sorted the statements. The results revealed three distinct viewpoints among 38 sorters that explained 52 percent of the variance. The viewpoints included the: (1) skeptics (n = 22) who expressed concern over the environmental and human health impacts of pesticide use; (2) acceptors (n = 10) who acknowledged inherent risks for using pesticides but saw the risks as known, small and manageable; and (3) incrementalists (n = 6) who prioritized opportunities to introduce human capital and technological improvements to increase agricultural worker safety. We then brought representatives with these different viewpoints together to analyze the results of the Q study, and to brainstorm mutually acceptable improvements to health and safety in tree fruit orchards. In describing and analyzing this case study, we argue that Q methodology can serve as one potentially effective tool for collaborative work, in this case facilitating a process of orchard safety improvements despite perceived stakeholder polarization.
机译：粮食和农业方面的争议比比皆是，其中许多被描述为两极化观点之间的冲突。但是，将诸如二分法之类的争议归为一类，有时可能会掩盖关于该主题的多种观点和潜在的共同点。我们使用Q方法研究了利益相关者对华盛顿州中部果树业中农药安全性，农业工人接触以及人类健康问题的看法。参与者使用英语和西班牙语为母语的农业工人，行业代表，国家机构，教育者和倡导者（n = 41）的有针对性的样本，对2011年果树业中农药的使用和认为的人类安全风险进行了分类，共有45项声明。使用PQMethod 2.33统计软件程序根据参与者对语句排序方式之间的差异来识别观点。结果揭示了38个分选机中的三个不同观点，解释了52％的差异。这些观点包括：（1）怀疑者（n = 22）对农药使用对环境和人类健康的影响表示关注； （2）接受者（n = 10）承认使用农药的固有风险，但认为这些风险是已知的，较小的和易于控制的； （3）增量主义者（n = 6），他们优先考虑机会引入人力资本和技术改进以提高农业工人的安全。然后，我们将具有这些不同观点的代表聚在一起，分析Q研究的结果，并集思广益，共同商讨改善果树园健康和安全的方法。在描述和分析此案例研究时，我们认为Q方法可以作为一种协作工作的潜在有效工具，在这种情况下，尽管利益相关者存在两极分化，但仍促进了果园安全性的改进过程。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号