...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Land Use Policy >A survey exploring private farm advisor perspectives of agri-environment schemes: The case of England's Environmental Stewardship programme
【24h】

A survey exploring private farm advisor perspectives of agri-environment schemes: The case of England's Environmental Stewardship programme

机译：一项探索私人农场顾问对农业环境计划观点的调查：以英国的环境管理计划为例

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Most stakeholder-based research concerning agri-environmental schemes (AES) derives from work engaging with farmers and land managers. Consequently, the voices and opinions of other actors involved in AES tends to be unrepresented in the wider literature. One group of actors that seem particularly overlooked in this respect are private (independent) farm advisors (i.e., the consultants contracted by farmers and land managers to advise-on AES and agronomic matters). To begin to rectify this knowledge gap we developed an exploratory online survey to explore private farm advisor perspectives in the UK; specifically, the situation in England and advisors' experience of Natural England's Environmental Stewardship programme. A total of 251 Natural England registered farm advisors (29.9%) completed our survey. The majority of these had knowledge and expertise in relation to two (31.5%) or three (42.2%) Environmental Stewardship schemes, with proficiency in EIS (93.4%) and HLS (82.8%) being the most common. On average, advisors had 9.6 +/- 5.6 yrs of experience and operated (75.3%) in a single region of England. Although our results concentrated upon a relatively simple set of initial topics of inquiry, the survey revealed a number of interesting findings. Firstly; for example, that in the opinion of the advisors working with farmers applying for Environmental Stewardship schemes, the 'knowledge-exchange encounter' occurring between themselves, their clients and Natural England is fundamental to the environmental effectiveness of these schemes as well as their farm business compatibility. Secondly, respondents suggested that beneath this 'encounter' lie tensions arising from the competing agendas and objectives of the different actors involved which can affect the content of agreements; for instance, farmer selection of management options versus Natural England's target environmental objectives. Farm advisors suggested that they had to negotiate this balance whilst also serving the needs of their clients. Thirdly, respondents raised issues concerning the complicated nature of scheme arrangements, both from their own and farmers' perspectives, as well as the adequacy of payments to cover input costs and matters regarding contractual compliance, all of which theyproposed affected farmer participation. Looking ahead, we believe that future AES should account for all of these issues in their design to aid long-term farmer participation, effective agreement implementation and beneficial environmental management. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译：大多数基于利益相关者的有关农业环境计划（AES）的研究都来自与农民和土地管理者的合作。因此，在广泛的文献中，涉及AES的其他参与者的声音和观点往往没有得到体现。在这方面似乎特别被忽视的一组参与者是私人（独立）农场顾问（即，由农民和土地管理者签约的顾问，以就AES和农艺问题提供建议）。为了纠正这一知识鸿沟，我们开发了一项探索性在线调查，以探索英国私人农场顾问的观点。具体而言，英格兰的情况和顾问对自然英格兰的环境管理计划的经验。共有251位自然英格兰注册的农业顾问（29.9％）完成了我们的调查。其中大多数具有与两个（31.5％）或三个（42.2％）环境管理计划相关的知识和专业知识，其中最常见的是熟练掌握EIS（93.4％）和HLS（82.8％）。平均而言，顾问在英格兰的一个地区有9.6 +/- 5.6年的经验，并且有工作（75.3％）。尽管我们的结果集中在一组相对简单的初始调查主题上，但调查显示了许多有趣的发现。首先;例如，在与申请环境管理计划的农民一起工作的顾问看来，他们之间，他们的客户和英格兰自然之间发生的“知识交流会”对于这些计划及其农场业务的环境有效性至关重要。兼容性。其次，受访者认为，在这种“遭遇”之下，存在着由不同参与者的竞争性议程和目标所引起的紧张关系，这些紧张关系可能会影响协议的内容;例如，农民选择管理方案与自然英格兰的目标环境目标相比。农场顾问建议他们必须协商平衡，同时还要满足客户的需求。第三，受访者从自己和农民的角度提出了有关计划安排的复杂性质的问题，以及支付足够的资金来支付投入成本和合同合规性的问题，所有这些都影响了农民的参与。展望未来，我们相信未来的AES应该在其设计中考虑所有这些问题，以帮助农民长期参与，有效实施协议和有益的环境管理。 （C）2016作者。由Elsevier Ltd.发布

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

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