Abstract
Determinants of farmer well-being can be derived from objective and subjective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, and quality of life indices, as well as the multiple scales that farms and farmers operate. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on farmer well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators is unclear. Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices. Here in this scoping review, we synthesize the methodologies in the literature on assessing farmer well-being and identify the extent to which farmer well-being domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. We consolidated and coded 92 papers to respond to the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? Our results show that economics and social relationships are frequent domains of how farmer well-being is identified and assessed. These domains tend to be measured simultaneously, while less common domains, such as governance and place, are rather isolated. A suite of methods was used to assess well-being domains, ranging from basic surveys to in-depth participant observation. Yet, we identify gaps in the methods for deriving farmer well-being indicators. Specifically, methods that refer to farmer-expressed values were rare and domains identified through a place-based approach were often not recorded, but, arguably, critical in developing multidimensionality of farmer well-being. We show that while the translocal approach is well represented in established well-being frameworks, farmer expression is not foundational in well-being assessments but is needed in order to center farmer values when generating indicators of well-being.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Contents
-
1. Introduction
-
2. Search strategy, screening protocol, and analysis
-
3. Farmer well-being definitions and frameworks
-
4. Farmer well-being domains
-
4.1 Domain frequency
-
4.2 Domain interrelationships
-
-
5. Assessment of farmer well-being domains
-
5.1 Methods to collect domains
-
5.2 Scale and implementation of domain assessment
-
-
6. Discussion: Biocultural approaches to farmer well-being multidimensionality
-
7. Conclusions
-
Acknowledgements
-
References
1 Introduction
Farmer well-being is influenced by a multitude of factors. These include environmental, social, political, and economic factors, such as soil health, social capital, and material living conditions (Schirmer et al. 2013; Brigance et al. 2018; Sabillon et al. 2021), which can be either objective (e.g., physical health and economical welfare) or subjective (e.g., satisfaction of one’s own existence) (Dasgupta 2001). Farmers can derive well-being from processes that operate at and across multiple spatial scales including farm, landscape, community, national and international (Latruffe et al. 2016; Hammersley et al. 2022). Yet, many factors also have a negative impact on the well-being of farmers, i.e., ill-being, including climatic hazards (e.g., floods and droughts) and change, economic pressure (e.g., increase in the cost of inputs and price volatility), public policies and regulations (administrative work), and social isolation (Isakson 2015; Mills et al. 2021; Talukder et al. 2021). The definition of well-being spans mental and physical health, social, cultural, spiritual, economic, and political elements (see King et al. 2014; Barrington-Leigh and Escande 2018), all of which are strongly multidimensional and context-dependent. The appropriate assessment of farmer well-being underpins the accurate development of sustainability indicators in agriculture (Brown et al. 2021) and is the basis of well-being frameworks that inform policy (Betley et al. 2021). Including elements of farmer well-being has become a priority for many emerging agriculture programs, such as crop credit and insurance programs (DeLay et al. 2020), or pesticide-free agriculture (Jacquet et al. 2022). Notably, assessments of well-being are critical as farmers are increasingly suffering from depression and burnout (see Brew et al. 2016; Jones-Bitton et al. 2020).
While there is much scholarship on the development of sustainability indicators in agriculture (Latruffe et al. 2016) and on well-being indicators for farmers (Brown et al. 2021; Mills et al. 2021; Sabillon et al. 2021), there remains many and sometimes opposing ways in which farmer well-being is assessed (for instance, including explicit consideration of ill-being). King et al. (2014) describe the assessment of well-being in a social-ecological context, and highlight the evolution of ways to assess well-being, from a narrow focus on objective measures of economic conditions to a more complex and holistic concept through including subjective and objective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, quality of life indices, and theories of multidimensional well-being. Breslow et al. (2017) present a framework for determining indicators of well-being specifically for ecosystem-based management, and advance previous frameworks by including multi-directional relationships among well-being indicators, and identify comparable categories based on context specific factors. Specific to agriculture, Brown et al. (2021) argue that most agricultural sustainability indicator frameworks do not include farmer well-being, but provide evidence that the inclusion of subjective well-being measures contribute more fully to what constitutes farmer well-being. In fact, Sabillon et al. (2021) conclude from their large-scale assessment of farm level factors on farmer well-being that it is essential to integrate measures of farmers’ point of view of social issues to achieve true multi-dimensional indicators. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators remains unclear.
The values that underpin these frameworks are not always explicitly formulated but rather implicit in the methods used to measure well-being (Brown et al. 2021). Processes to filter a large array of values into domains of well-being are common (Breslow et al. 2017), leading to diverse steps of aggregation or decomposition to determine well-being indicators. In Fig. 1, we conceptualize this process moving from farmer values to well-being indicators through various domains. Values, or expressed individual motivations, are aggregated to generate significant domains of what constitutes well-being. These well-being domains are constructed as overarching and recognizable major groupings, similar to the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) biosphere, economics, and social domains. Domains of well-being can be assessed by the assignment of indicators that are measured in order to compare well-being among farmers and across locations and time (albeit not without limitations). For instance, protection of nature may be a farmer value, which, among other related values such as landscape beauty, are aggregated into a domain “environment” and can be measured by indicators such as “species richness.” Or voicing autonomy may be a farmer value, which among other related values such as freedom is aggregated into a domain “governance” and can be measured by the indicator “land tenure.” However, in addition to these values, we add farmers’ expression of their well-being or ill-being in terms of specific forms of attachment and practices, and specifically as articulated by the respondent in the process of indicator identification. For instance, farmers may express “I like to find wild species in my fields” or “I wish I owned my farmland.” While capturing farmer expression occurs as part of a discourse during interview processes, this inclusion of farmer narratives responds to the long-standing call for place-based and biocultural approaches in sustainability assessments (Merçon et al. 2019; Hanspach et al. 2020). This pathway to the identification and development of well-being values, domains and indicators includes what constitutes well-being for the farmer through self-expressed, locally informed descriptions, which are in turn key to embracing equity and representation in well-being assessments (Betley et al. 2021).
Pathway to determine and assess farmer well-being. Farmers express narratives about their lives from which values are identified. These values are then constructed into well-being domains, from which indicators to measure are assigned. Two examples of each step are provided. Photo of a diversified agricultural system (photo credit: M. Isaac).
Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices (Sterling et al. 2017; McCarter et al. 2018; Sébastien 2020). Determinants of well-being are not only dependent on the intrinsic characteristics of individuals but also on context, including that which is constituted by the relations and practices that link individuals to other people and elements of the non-human world within a local, holistic, social-ecological landscape. For instance, environment can be considered as a “constituent” (internal) element of well-being, rather than a “determinant” (external) one (Dasgupta 2001). To address these overlooked aspects of indicator development, biocultural approaches embed the shared experiences, behaviors, and beliefs of local communities through a place-based approach that informs our understanding of the relationships between farmers and their environment (Gavin et al. 2015; Caillon et al. 2017; McCarter et al. 2018). Such approaches offer the promise of embracing both biological and social-cultural aspects of well-being, and of addressing the complex relationships and feedbacks between human and non-human entities in situ (Rose et al. 2017; Hanspach et al. 2020; Betley et al. 2021). A biocultural framing of well-being also allows for embracing multiple forms of knowledge (Raymond et al. 2019) and has been recently highlighted as critical to effective environmental policy-making (Merçon et al. 2019). The development of farmer well-being indicators often overlooks such social-cultural dimensions, even though these factors of well-being are recognized as critical to achieve sustainability in agriculture (Brennan et al. 2020).
In order to better understand how the dimensionality of farmer well-being is being assessed, particularly what and how well-being is being measured, we conducted a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature. The objective of this paper is to identify farmer well-being domains and the extent to which well-being domains are derived from subjective values expressed directly by farmers within published studies. We ask the following research questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? (4) Are recommendations derived from well-being indicators reported as implemented in the published literature?
2 Search strategy, screening protocol, and analysis
To gather studies related to farmer well-being, we conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature. Similar to reviews conducted on well-being and equity (Betley et al. 2021), we followed the “Guidelines and Standards for Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management” (Bangor University, Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018). Our scoping review had five steps: (1) querying academic literature databases for relevant studies; (2) screening titles and abstracts to determine if a study meets our inclusion criteria; (3) screening the full text of studies that passed our screening; (4) extracting relevant data outlined in our code book; and (5) summarizing results.
We used Web of Science 12.1.20, all databases, all languages, January 2000 to November 2021, run with Columbia University Scholar access. Our research query was:
-
indicator OR metric OR index OR indices AND evaluat* OR assess* OR monitor* OR measur* OR impact OR framework OR outcome AND wellbeing OR well-being OR "farmer well-being” OR “farmer wellbeing” OR “farmer well being” OR disatisfaction OR unhapp* AND agriculture OR agroeco* OR agronom* OR agrofor* OR biodynamic OR "organic agriculture.
These search terms were used to gather all studies related to farmer well-being. A flow diagram (Page et al. 2021) illustrating our study screening for our scoping review is shown in Fig. 2.
Our search resulted in 190 articles. We screened the abstract and titles of all citations from our search with Colandr (Cheng et al. 2018). Our inclusion criteria were based on eligible populations or subjects—farmers/ farm employees producing food or drink, include links to health, but has to have one or more elements of well-being, include labor if there is a direct link to farm activity/ practice; eligible intervention(s) or exposure(s)—types of farming, including organic, regenerative, conventional, subsistence and commercial including industrial, needs to be about food/drink, single family or collectives/ cooperatives; eligible outcomes—must include measures of well-being for farmers; eligible types of study design—must include methods, ideal if includes well-being indicators. Using our criteria, we excluded 42 articles that were not relevant to our criteria during screening. Therefore, 148 articles passed initial screening. After a full assessment for eligibility, 56 articles did not meet our inclusion criteria after a full text review. In the end, our review included 92 papers (Supplementary File 1).
A codebook was developed to extract information from each study. Our multidisciplinary coding team created the codebook through an iterative process including blind test coding rounds, involving assigning a pair of coders to code the same paper and thus enable comparison of results. Improvements were made through discussion of discrepancies in coder agreement between coders. We coded for five aspects: (i) descriptive, including geographic location, type of agriculture and well-being definitions, (ii) well-being domains, described below, (iii) method of data collection, such as interviews, focus groups, surveys, landscape/transect walks, (iv) presence of biocultural context, including a discussion of place and place-attachment beyond the location of data collection, and (v) implementation of recommendations, either clearly stated or inferred. We surveyed articles for 14 domains. Domains included economic, social, environment, agricultural management, general health, physical health, mental health, governance, education, human-nature relationships, affect, culture, place, and ill-being. This list of domains was compiled through an interactive discussion among the research team, based on field work, and existing knowledge of the indicators literature and preconceived categories (Sterling et al. 2017; Breslow et al. 2017; Betley et al. 2021), noting that affect, culture, and place domains were specifically added to respond to our objective of assessing studies for methods that capture place-based and bio-cultural context of well-being measures. In Table 1, we define each domain and provide indictor examples for each from the literature. The co-occurrence network of well-being domain relationships measured within studies was made with an adjacency matrix to generate a network of nodes (domain) and ties (in the same study).
Of the 92 studies included in our review, the largest portion focused on Western Europe with Oceania and South Asia also highly represented (Supplementary File 2). African sub-regions (North, East, West, and South) make up the next largest proportion of the studies’ geographies. By country, studies were concentrated in Australia (n = 9), France (n = 9), and India (n = 7). Across all geographic regions, the types of agricultural systems included annual (13%), perennial (6%), or both (33%) production systems. Other agricultural systems represented in the studies were dairy farming, crop-livestock integration, urban gardening, and vineyards. Both conventional and organic/ecological agriculture were represented within these studies.
3 Farmer well-being definitions and frameworks
Among the 92 studies, 25 provided an explicit definition of well-being, seven did not state a definition, and a definition can be inferred from 60 studies. Studies with explicit definitions ranged from the “care theory” to elicit grower’s well-being (Alarcon et al. 2020), to composite indicators of well-being based on a suite of components including material wealth, fulfillment of social needs and basic psychological needs (Bartl 2019). Perrin et al. (2020) considered farmer well-being as the evolution over time of farmers’ perception of their satisfaction, while Mourão et al. (2019) were more comprehensive in their definition, which included a person’s physical health, psychological state, level of independence, social relationships, personal beliefs, and relationships to features of their environment. TerAvest et al. (2019) were categorical in their definition, proposing subjective (well-being as life satisfaction and happiness) and material (quantity and quality of physical goods) as separate but interrelated groupings.
Inferred well-being definitions were typically based on aspects of sustainable agriculture. For instance, many of the studies that did not clearly provide a definition used the three pillars of sustainable agriculture (environment, economic, and social) or the four-pillars framework of sustainability indicators (environment, social, economic, and governance). The majority of studies relied on established frameworks (88 out of 92), drawing on concepts such as Nature’s Contributions to People; the sustainable livelihoods approach; life satisfaction domains; or achievement of the SDGs. Yet, while some studies did not directly categorize farmer well-being, they drew upon well-established framings such as the functioning framework by Sen (1985) or capabilities framework by Nussbaum (2000).
4 Farmer well-being domains
4.1 Domain frequency
Many studies focused on well-established domains such as economics (57%), social relationships (53%), environment (40%), and health—including specifically, physical (40%) and mental (22%) health (see Fig. 3) —with domains such as education also relatively well-represented (32%). Domains, such as place, culture, or affect, were much less common in the surveyed studies on farmer well-being. Among all studies, 89% of studies did not focus on place as a domain, with only 11% of studies mentioning place other than naming the case location as a passive backdrop. Attention to concepts such as place attachment, place meaning, or sense of place was not broadly apparent in the reviewed studies.
4.2 Domain interrelationships
Of the 14 domains in our coding framework, studies on average measured five domains; two studies measured none, rather covering general well-being, attitudes, and perceptions about quality of life (Farnworth 2009; Markussen et al. 2018). Among the suite of domains, studies most often measured economic, social or environmental domains and management practices and their interrelations (Fig. 4). It is common to see studies operationalizing farm income with an aspect of environmental protection and a specific new practice. For instance, TerAvest et al. (2019) used family farm income to assess and compare the well-being of farmers in Malawi across three cropping systems - continuous no-till maize, conservation agriculture rotation, and conventional tillage rotation. Similarly, economic domains were often measured with health domains within a study. Governance was most often measured with culture and education domains. For instance, Ma et al. (2021) show that social relations between farmers in China were more harmonious under a system of self-governance, leading to higher well-being. Multiple domains were also often measured in relation to working conditions, for instance, Witt et al. (2020) examined occupational factors and health indicators with farm work satisfaction. The few studies that identified place as an aspect of farmer well-being tended to also measure the environment domain and affect domain. For instance, Bruley et al. (2021) capture quality of life as “rurality” or links to the region and an affect-oriented “attractiveness” measure, related to tourism.
Relationships between the 14 domains of farmer well-being and ill-being. Nodes represent domains and ties represent co-occurrence of domains in the same study. The frequency of occurring in the same study is indicated by tie thickness. The size of the node indicates the overall rank of mentions among all studies.
Ill-being domains were most often measured in studies that also measured social and economic domains but no studies measured ill-being and culture or infrequently with a place-oriented domain. While ill-being can certainly be measured in association with values of place and culture, these were very uncommon. For example, while a farmer may engage in agricultural practices that are viewed by neighbors as culturally inappropriate “in place” even if these same practices enjoy wider social sanction (e.g., if a farmer is the first in a localized context to adopt an agronomic technique or crop variety), and experiences social isolation as a result, this is rarely measured or captured in studies focused on farmer well-being indicators.
5 Assessment of farmer well-being domains
5.1 Methods to collect domains
Methods used to identify and measure well-being domains, whether using one or multiple methods in a study, were heavily skewed toward surveys (59 studies) and interviews (45 studies) as the most common approaches to collecting data from farmers on well-being. However, studies also employed more intensive ethnographic methods such as landscape walks (5 studies), focus groups (18 studies), and indicator ranking with groups (10 studies). Other less frequent methods used included physical health assessment tests, participant mapping and satellite observations, soil sampling, and analysis of policy documents. Many studies used well-being frameworks that relied substantially on mixed methods for data collection (51%), with a smaller share focused solely on qualitative (27%) or quantitative (22%) methods. Multiple approaches to standardize rankings of domains were used, including Likert scales, percentiles, and categorization, yet comparability between studies, times, and locations was difficult as the bounds of these rankings were often not described.
Use of predetermined lists of domains to elicit farmers’ well-being was common among the 92 studies, through indicator rankings or surveys. For instance, using a scale of 0 to 10, Brown et al. (2021) measured farmer well-being among regenerative agriculture farm managers with an established survey using worthwhileness, life satisfaction, and multi-dimensional domain items (standard of living, personal health, achieving in life, personal relationship, personal safety, community connectedness, and future security). Similarly, using a scoring approach, Kaufman (2015) classified the ability to achieve “good” health and dietary requirements, material needs, and social and family aspirations as environmental, health, financial, social, production, and food security variables. The ubiquity of using a data collection framework with pre-determined domain lists could be partly driven by the need to evaluate domains, which requires a quantitative and comparable component. Ahmed et al. (2019) used a total of 10 indicators across three domains—education, health, and living standards—to compare smallholders’ well-being in Ghana against self-reported subjective well-being measures. The subjective well-being domains were also selected ahead of time, with smallholders providing their responses to four questions on a 4-level Likert scale. Establishing subjective well-being domains prior to data collection was also used by others (Garrett et al. 2017; Ma et al. 2021; Perrin et al. 2020), with some revision of domain lists occurring during the interview process.
In contrast, Alarcon et al. (2020) explore how French winegrowers relate to and care for non-humans and the environment without a predetermined list of domains. Rather, the authors conducted training with winegrowers and discussed their relationships with nature to identify domains through a more grounded approach. Likewise, Bailey and Kingsley (2020) posed open-ended questions to understand the relationship between individual well-being and community gardens in Australia. Through these discussions, the authors found salient domains: personal well-being benefits, community connections and well-being, and environment connections and well-being.
5.2 Scale and implementation of domain assessment
Studies most frequently collected data at the local and municipal scale (65%), followed by subnational (13%) and national (11%). Fewer studies captured data at multiple scales (9%). Notably, however, Rivera et al. (2018) conducted interviews and workshops with farmers, research and development experts and advisors, agricultural companies, and representatives of farmers’ associations across seven countries to investigate rural prosperity and well-being. Likewise, Antunes et al. (2017) integrated national measures such as domestic water supply and tariff structure, regional measures such as average salary, and local measures such as technical and financial capacity of farmers for their sustainability assessment of irrigated areas.
Among the studies, 67% clearly stated their recommendations for planning and decision making, while 12% of studies did not mention any recommendations. When recommendations were provided, the scale of implementation discussed in the paper was predominately at the local/municipal scale. For their recommendations, several studies discussed the need for validation of data and expansion of frameworks using an iterative process, especially as demand for well-being assessments increases (Häni et al. 2003; Brennan et al. 2020; Poudel et al. 2020). With most studies being cross-sectional, authors also recommended longitudinal studies and long-term monitoring of indicators across multiple scales to better assess farmer well-being (Blackburn et al. 2009; Castonguay et al. 2016).
Despite most studies having explicit recommendations, very few studies describe how recommendations will be integrated into decision-making (10%) nor have an assessment of the implementation (13%). An exception is provided by Mello et al. (2020) who propose solutions to address issues of water and land access among farmers in Wai’anae, Hawai’i, through applying data from research outputs, including maps, to support policy briefs and decision-making. Kaufman (2015) also outline financial support mechanisms that civil society organizations and governmental agencies may target to improve the resilience of organic and non-organic rice farmers in northeast Thailand.
6 Discussion: biocultural approaches to farmer well-being multidimensionality
The objective of this paper was to identify the breadth and frequency of farmer well-being domains and the extent to which these domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. Among the 92 studies, farmer well-being tended to be defined by generic environmental or economic frameworks. Importantly, we show that the current approach to determining farmer well-being typically relies on pre-established domains rather than those expressed by farmers. While this may lead to the selection of appropriate well-being indicators (Breslow et al. 2017) and the evaluation of well-being indicators at multiple scales (Smith et al. 2018), this current approach may also limit options for farmers to describe what constitutes well-being for them. We found little evidence of the use of farmer expressed values in the sequence of well-being indicator development (Fig. 1). Among studies that utilized emergent well-being values from farmer discussions to define domains, these domains differed substantially from those used in studies that relied on predetermined lists. For instance, Bruley et al. (2021) allowed for emergent quality of life dimensions during participant workshops, which the authors describe as different than specific indicators of well-being. In this study, the concept of “rurality,” or the maintenance of traditional agriculture practices and rural life, was proposed by workshop participants as a key dimension during the process of well-being indicator development (Bruley et al. 2021). Arguably, pre-determining domains in well-being indicator development can result in poor implementation of policies derived from well-being assessments as the scope does not capture the multidimensionality that may be exposed when identified by farmers themselves.
Frequently, more than one domain was measured within the same study. Studies draw heavily on simultaneous indicators of economic and environmental well-being, for instance income, profit, environmental impacts, and/or biodiversity. This is in line with the predominant discourse that connects economics and environment to well-being (Michalos 1997; Smith et al. 2014). What is less established is the connections between place, affect, culture, and other domains of well-being, including mental and physical health, as well as situated social relationships and practices that can influence the subjective understanding and experience of well-being. We found scarce mention of values related to place, which were often not recorded. The lack of place as a domain in these farmer well-being studies is presumably a result of the scope of research methods in the literature, with most studies not deriving self-expressed, locally informed values from a grounded approach. Yet place-based values are critical to achieve multidimensionality when describing well-being (Cuerrier et al. 2015; McCarter et al. 2018). While quantitative well-being indicators may be common for policy and practical outcomes (Sebastien and Bauler 2013), this is not solely sufficient. The wide range of frameworks (sustainability indicators, sustainable livelihoods approach, life satisfaction domains, achievement of the SDGs, or measuring provisioning, regulating, and cultural ecosystem services) encourages flexibility in methodology but rely on quantitative metrics to achieve comparability. Yet, bioculturally informed well-being indicators have a strong potential to enhance the equity of development strategies and policies (Bunce et al. 2010).
An ethnographic biocultural approach addresses this problem by encouraging the identification of farmer-based subjective values as they are expressed in place (Sébastien 2020). Ethnographic methods create space for the emergence of farmer-derived values, such as participant observation, or actively working with farmers, substantially contributing to a holistic and more representative suite of farmer well-being domains and indicators. While many studies use multiple methods, these methods were in fact closely related, such as surveys and formal questionnaires. For instance, Castoldi and Bechini (2010) used surveys and interviews specifically for economic and environmental indicator values for a global sustainability index and Castonguay et al. (2016) expanded further by using questionnaires, surveys, and interviews to assess rice terrace social-ecological system with a focus on local community perceptions. Mixed method approaches that draw on creative and collaborative ethnographic and grounded research techniques could elicit more situational or context-contingent information, for instance, by incorporating narratives and visualization with interviews, or through the use of focus groups.
A biocultural approach could go a long way to incorporating farmer expression as described in Fig. 1, thus increasing accuracy of well-being priorities and enhancing the meaningful use for policy. Elements of place and locality can play a translatable role in connecting more siloed measures of well-being (Caillon et al. 2017). In particular, subjective attachment to place (or its absence) is an important influence on the subjective experience of well-being; capturing place specific notions and experiences of well-being can help to translate and compare results from different locales. Prioritizing farmer expression as a critical first step may also facilitate the implementation of agricultural policy because these are often bound to evaluations and lack consideration of farmer values (Helne and Hirvilammi 2015). This approach incorporates human-nature interactions and relational values that are central to farmers adopting sustainable agricultural systems (Duru et al. 2015; Isaac et al. 2021; Archibald et al. 2022; Rasmussen et al. 2024) but is overlooked by top-down or a priori approaches to indicator development.
The explicit scale at which domains are developed and operate is critical to well-being, as the local is recognized as a definitive scale for evaluating well-being, even as translocal processes and relationships shape everyday lives. A greater focus on the “local” experience to understand well-being will capture the multidimensional qualities of farmers’ lives within which relationship and attachment to place is an important mediating influence (Cuerrier et al. 2015; Sébastien 2020). Interestingly though, the scale of data aggregation was often not accounted for in the studies, for example, studies may have combined household data and subnational data to derive a single value for a domain, but adequate consideration of the discrepancy in data resolution across scales was not always evident. Moreover, while many indicators of well-being are identified at the individual or household scale, well-being may be shaped by influences that manifest across multiple scales. For example, in the wine sector, community (e.g., vinicultural cooperatives), regional (e.g., specific wine appellations), or national (e.g., wine sector policies and regulations, including in France under the auspices of the Institut national de l'origine et de la qualité) scale all play a role in influencing farmers' daily lives. It is also true that international processes and institutions can shape well-being, for example the EU common market in wine and its associated policies, but also international norms in wine-making and in the marketing of wine (using appellations or grape varieties as descriptors for instance). These scalar interactions are important as many farmers may see their well-being consequentially and inextricably tied to relations and processes operating at the local scale and beyond. Also, it is important to avoid methodological individualism and to see the well-being of farmers as it is shaped socially and culturally. The importance of the collective has been thoroughly explored (Aumeeruddy-Thomas and Hmimsa 2019; Betley et al. 2021) but is rarely applied in studies that aim to determine farmer well-being, given methodological issues with linking individual to community outcomes.
7 Conclusions
Our review highlights the lack of farmer-expressed values when determining the full scope of what constitutes farmer well-being. While there is some emphasis on translocal dimensions in established well-being indicators, subjective farmer expressions of well-being are not common in the literature and are needed in order to better center farmers in the assessment of their own well-being. Centering local, place-based indicators can enhance the accuracy of sustainability indicators. A biocultural approach can help define sustainability indicators while making room for unidentified or overlooked values. More efforts on integrating farmer-identified and expressed values directly into the assessment of farmer well-being will undoubtedly address this gap. Encouraging such multidimensionality in well-being assessments moves beyond generalized packages of indicators and embraces complexity, to better reflect the conjoined, relationally coupled context of farmers.
Data availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
Ahmed A, Dompreh E, Gasparatos A (2019) Human wellbeing outcomes of involvement in industrial crop production: evidence from sugarcane, oil palm and jatropha sites in Ghana. Plos One 14(4). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215433
Alarcon M, Marty P, Prévot AC (2020) Caring for vineyards: transforming farmer-vine relations and practices in viticulture French farms. J Rural Stud 80:160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.08.029
Antunes P, Santos R, Cosme I, Osann A, Calera A, Ketelaere DD, Spiteri A, Mejuto MF, Andreu J, Momblanch A, Nino P, Vanino S, Florian V, Chitea M, Çetinkaya CP, Sakamoto MS, Kampel M, Sanchez LAP, Abdin AE, … Nagarajan S (2017) A holistic framework to assess the sustainability of irrigated agricultural systems. Cogent Food Agric 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1323542
Archibald S, Alline C, Cerdán CR, Isaac ME (2022) From the ground up: patterns and perceptions of herbaceous diversity in organic coffee agroecosystems. Eco Solut Evid 3(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/2688-8319.12166
Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Hmimsa Y (2019) Fig and olive domestication in the Rif, northern Morocco: entangled human and tree lives and history. In: Stépanoff C, Vigne JD (eds) Hybrid communities: biosocial approaches to domestication and other trans-species relationships, Routledge, pp 179–196. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179988-11
Bailey A, Kingsley J (2020) Connections in the garden: opportunities for wellbeing. Local Environ 25(11–12):907–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2020.1845637
Barrington-Leigh C, Escande A (2018) Measuring progress and wellbeing: a comparative review of indicators. Soc Indic Res 135:893–925. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1505-0
Bartl AL (2019) The wellbeing of smallholder coffee farmers in the Mount Elgon region: a quantitative analysis of a rural community in Eastern Uganda. Bio-Based. Appl Econ 8(2):133–159. https://doi.org/10.13128/bae-8928
Betley EC, Sigouin A, Pascua P et al (2021) Assessing human wellbeing constructs with environmental and equity aspects: a review of the landscape. People Nat 00:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10293
Blackburn J, Brumby S, Willder S, McKnight R (2009) Intervening to improve health indicators among Australian farm families. J of AgroMed 14(3):345–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10599240903041638
Boncinelli F, Casini L (2014) A comparison of the well-being of agricultural and non agricultural households using a multicriterial approach. Soc Indic Res 119(1):183–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0488-3
Brennan M, Hennessy T, Emma D (2020) Towards a better measurement of the social sustainability of Irish agriculture. Int J Sustain Dev 23(3–4):263–287. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSD.2020.10037663
Breslow SJ, Allen M, Holstein D, Sojka B, Barnea R, Basurto X, Carothers C, Charnley S, Coulthard S, Dolšak N, Donatuto J, García-Quijano C, Hicks CC, Levine A, Mascia MB, Norman K, Poe M, Satterfield T, St. Martin K, Levin PS (2017) Evaluating indicators of human well-being for ecosystem-based management. Ecosyst Health Sustain 3(12):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/20964129.2017.1411767
Brew B, Inder K, Allen J, Thomas M, Kelly B (2016) The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers : a longitudinal cohort study. BMC Public Health 16(1):988. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3664-y
Brigance C, Soto Mas F, Sanchez V, Handal AJ (2018) The mental health of the organic farmer: psychosocial and contextual actors. Workplace Health Saf 66(12):606–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079918783211
Brown K, Schirmer J, Upton P (2021) Regenerative farming and human wellbeing: are subjective wellbeing measures useful indicators for sustainable farming systems? Environ Sustain Ind 11:100132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indic.2021.100132
Bruley E, Locatelli B, Lavorel S (2021) Nature’s contributions to people:coproducing quality of life from multifunctional landscapes. Ecol Soc 26(1):12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12031-260112
Bunce M, Brown K, Rosendo S (2010) Policy misfits, climate change and cross-scale vulnerability in coastal Africa: how development projects undermine resilience. Environ Sci Policy 13(6):485–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.06.003
Caillon S, Cullman G, Verschuuren B, Sterling E (2017) Moving beyond the human–nature dichotomy through biocultural approaches: including ecological well-being in resilience indicators. Ecol Soc 22(4):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09746-220427
Castoldi N, Bechini L (2010) Integrated sustainability assessment of cropping systems with agro-ecological and economic indicators in northern Italy. Eur J Agron 32(1):59–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.02.003
Castonguay A, Burkhard B, Müller F, Horgan F, Settele J (2016) Resilience and adaptability of rice terrace social-ecological systems: a case study of a local community’s perception in Banaue, Philippines. Ecol Soc 21(2):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08348-210215
Cheng SH, Augustin C, Bethel A et al (2018) Using machine learning to advance synthesis and use of conservation and environmental evidence. Conserv Biol 32(4):762–764. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13117
Cuerrier A, Turner NJ, Gomes TC, Garibaldi A, Downing A (2015) Cultural keystone places: conservation and restoration in cultural landscapes. J Ethnobiol 35(3):427–448. https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-35.3.427
Dasgupta P (2001) Constituents and determinants of well-being. In: Dasgupta P (ed) Human well-being and the natural environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.2307/4003234
DeLay ND, Brewer B, Featherstone A, Boussios D (2020) The impact of crop insurance on farm finance outcomes. Appl Econ Perspect Policy 45:579–601. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.290744
Duru M, Therond O, Fares M (2015) Designing agroecological transitions: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1237–1257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0318-x
Farnworth CR (2009) Well-being is a process of becoming: respondent-led research with organic farmers in Madagascar. Soc Indic Res 90:89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9314-8
Garrett RD, Gardner TA, Fonseca T, Marchand S, Barlow J, Ezzine de Blas D, Ferreira J, Lees AC, Parr L (2017) Explaining the persistence of low income and environmentally degrading land uses in the Brazilian Amazon. Ecol Soc 22(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09364-220327
Gavin MC, McCarter J, Mead A, Berkes F, Stepp JR, Peterson D, Tang R (2015) Defining biocultural approaches to conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 30(3):140–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.005
Hammersley C, Richardson N, Meredith D, Carroll P, McNamara JG (2022) Supporting farmer wellbeing: exploring a potential role for advisors. J Agric Ddu Ext 29:511–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2022.2082498
Häni F, Braga F, Stämpfli A, Keller T, Porsche H (2003) RISE, a tool for holistic sustainability assessment at the farm level. Int Food Agribus Man 6(4):13. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.34379
Hansen BG, Bugge CT, Skibrek PK (2020) Automatic milking systems and farmer wellbeing–exploring the effects of automation and digitalization in dairy farming. J Rural Stud 80:469–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2020.10.028
Hanspach J, Haider LJ, Oteros-Rozas E et al (2020) Biocultural approaches to sustainability: a systematic review of the scientific literature. People Nat 2:643–659. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10120
Helne T, Hirvilammi T (2015) Wellbeing and sustainability: a relational approach. Sustain Dev 23:167–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1581
Isaac ME, Nyantakyi-Frimpong H, Matouš P, Dawoe E, Anglaaere LCN (2021) Farmer networks and agrobiodiversity interventions: the unintended outcomes of intended change. Ecol Soc 26(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12734-260412
Isakson SR (2015) Derivatives for development? Vulnerability and the financialization of climate risk management. J Agrar Change 15(4):569–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/joac.12124
Jacquet F, Jeuffroy MH, Jouan J et al (2022) Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research. Agron Sustain Dev 42:8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00742-8
Jones-Bitton A, Best C, MacTavish J, Fleming S, Hoy S (2020) Stress, anxiety, depression, and resilience in Canadian farmers. Soc Psychiatr Epidemiol 55(2):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01738-2
Kallas Z, Serra T, Gil JM (2010) Gil Farmers’ objectives as determinants of organic farming adoption: The case of Catalonian vineyard production. Agr Econ 41(5):409–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2010.00454.x
Kaufman A (2015) Unraveling the differences between organic and non-organic Thai rice farmers’ environmental views and perceptions of well-being. J Agric Food Syst Co:1–19. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2015.054.002
Kaufman A, Harrow A, Mock J (2014) Cultivating greater well-being: the benefits Thai organic farmers experience from adopting Buddhist eco-spirituality. J Agr Environ Ethic 27(6):871–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9500-4
King MF, Renó VF, Novo EMLM (2014) The concept, dimensions and methods of assessment of human well-being within a socioecological context: a literature review. Soc Indic Res 116:681–698. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0320-0
Kishore KN, Jadhav S (2018) Generating toxic landscapes: impact on well-being of cotton farmers in Telangana, India. Anthropol Med 25(2):121–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13648470.2017.1317398
Koesling M, Flaten O, Lien G (2008) Factors influencing the conversion to organic farming in Norway. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology (IJARGE) 7(1):78–95. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJARGE.2008.016981
Latruffe L, Diazabakana A, Bockstaller C, Desjeux Y, Finn J, Kelly E, Ryan M, Uthes S (2016) Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators. Studies in Agricultural Economics, NAIK Research Institute of. Agricultural Economics 118(3):123–130. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.252980
Lauer S, Sanderson M (2020) Irrigated agriculture and human development: a county-level analysis 1980–2010. Environ Dev Sustain 22(5):4407–4423. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00390-9
Ma L, Qin Y, Zhang H, Zheng J, Hou Y, Wen Y (2021) Improving well-being of farmers using ecological awareness around protected areas: evidence from Qinling Region, China. Int J Enviro Res Public Health 18(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18189792
Markussen T, Fibak M, Tarp F, Tuan NDA (2018) The happy farmer:self-employment and subjective well-being in rural Vietnam. J Happiness Stud 19:1613–1636. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9858-x
Martey E, Etwire PM, Kuwornu JKM (2020) Economic impacts of smallholder farmers’ adoption of drought-tolerant maize varieties. Land Use Policy 94(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104524
McCarter J, Sterling EJ, Jupiter SD, Cullman GD, Albert S, Basi M, Betley E, Boseto D, Bulehite ES, Harron R, Holland PS, Horning N, Hughes A, Jino N, Malone C, Mauli S, Pae B, Papae R, Rence F et al (2018) Biocultural approaches to developing well-being indicators in Solomon Islands. Ecol Soc 23(1):32. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09867-230132
Mello C, Azizi S, Kama SL (2020) Spatial and relational representations of economic well-being and the Kahumana Farm Hub, Waiʻanae, Hawaiʻi. Hum Organ 79(1):57–68. https://doi.org/10.17730/0018-7259.79.1.57
Merçon J, Vetter S, Tengö M, Cocks M, Balvanera P, Rosell JA, Ayala-Orozco B (2019) From local landscapes to international policy: contributions of the biocultural paradigm to global sustainability. Glob Sustain 2:E7. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2019.4
Meuwissen MPM, Feindt PH, Spiegel A, Termeer CJAM, Mathijs E, Yann DM, Finger R, Balmann A, Wauters E, Urquhart J, Vigani M, Zawalińska K, Herrera H, Nicholas-Davies P, Hansson H, Paas W, Slijper T, Coopmans I, Vroege W, Reidsma P (2019) A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems Agr Syst:176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102656
Michalos A (1997) Combining social, economic and environmental indicators to measure sustainable human well-being. Soc Indic Res 40:221–258. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006815729503
Mills J, Chiswell HM, Gaskell P, Courtney P, Brockett B, Cusworth G, Lobley M (2021) Developing farm-level social indicators for agri-environment schemes: a focus on the agents of change. Sustainability 13(14):7820. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147820
Mourao I, Moreira MC, Almeida TC, Brito LM (2019) Perceived changes in well-being and happiness with gardening in urban organic allotments in Portugal. Int J Sust Dev World 26(1):79–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1469550
Nussbaum M (2000) Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841286
Obrien LV, Berry HL, Hogan A (2012) The structure of psychological life satisfaction: insights from farmers and a general community sample in Australia. BMC Public Health 12(1):976. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-976
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al (2021) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Paracchini ML, Bulgheroni C, Borreani G, Tabacco E, Banterle A, Bertoni D, Rossi G, Parolo G, Origgi R, De Paola C (2015) A diagnostic system to assess sustainability at a farm level: The SOSTARE model Agr Syst 133:35–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.10.004
Peel D, Berry HL, Schirmer J (2015) Perceived profitability and well-being in Australian dryland farmers and irrigators. Aust J Rural Health 23(4):207–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajr.12176
Perrin A, Cristobal MS, Milestad R, Martin G (2020) Identification of resilience factors of organic dairy cattle farms. Agric Syst:183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020102875
Poudel S, Funakawa S, Shinjo H, Mishra B (2020) Understanding households’ livelihood vulnerability to climate change in the Lamjung district of Nepal. Environ Dev Sustain 22(8):8159–8182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00566-3
Rasmussen LV, Grass I, Mehrabi Z, Smith O, Bezner-Kerr R, Blesh J, Garibaldi L, Isaac ME et al (2024) Joint environmental and social benefits from diversified agriculture. Science 384(6691):87–93. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adj1914
Raymond CM, Kenter J, Kendal D, van Riper CJ, Rawluk A (2019) Editorial overview: theoretical traditions in social values for sustainability. Sustain Sci 14:1173–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00723-7
Rigby D, Woodhouse P, Young T, Burton M (2001) Constructing a farm level indicator of sustainable agricultural practice. Ecol Econ 39(3):463–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(01)00245-2
Rivera M, Knickel K, de los Rios I, Ashkenazy A, Pears DQ, Chebach T, Šūmane S (2018) Rethinking the connections between agricultural change and rural prosperity: a discussion of insights derived from case studies in seven countries. J Rural Stud 59:242–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.006
Rose M, Schleicher K, Maibaum K (2017) Transforming well-being in Wuppertal—conditions and constraints. Sustainability 9:2375. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122375
Sabillon BH, Gerster-Bentaya M, Knierim A (2021) Measuring farmers’ well-being: Influence of farm-level factors on satisfaction with work and quality of life. J Agric Econ 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12457
Schirmer J, Berry HL, O’Brien LV (2013) Healthier land, healthier farmers: considering the potential of natural resource management as a place-focused farmer health intervention. Health Place 24:97–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2013.08.007
Sébastien L (2020) The power of place in understanding place attachments and meanings. Geoforum 108:204–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.11.001
Sébastien L, Bauler T (2013) Use and influence of composite indicators for sustainable development at the EU-level. Ecol Indic 35:3–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.04.014
Sen AK (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam. https://doi.org/10.2307/2232999
Shakya B, Shrestha A, Sharma G, Gurung T, Mihin D, Yang S, Jamir A, Win S, Han X, Yang Y, Choudhury D, Schneider F (2019) Visualizing sustainability of selective mountain farming systems from far-eastern himalayas to support decision making. Sustainability:11(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061714
Siepmann L, Nicholas KA (2018) German winegrowers’ motives and barriers to convert to organic farming. Sustainability 10(11):4215. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114215
Smith L, Case J, Smith H, Harwell L, Summers J (2014) Relating ecosystem services to domains of human well-being: foundation for a US index. Ecol Indic 28:79–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.032
Smith GR, Strachan G, Gibbon D (2018) Rural well-being: the push and pull and the diversity in-between. Int J Sust Dev World 25(7):592–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2018.1446369
Sterling EJ, Filardi C, Sigouin A, Toomey A (2017) Biocultural approaches to well-being and sustainability indicators across scales. Nat Ecol Evol 1:1798–1806. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0349-6
Talukder B, Loon BGWV, Hipel KW, Chiotha S, Orbinski J (2021) Health impacts of climate change on smallholder farmers. One Health 13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100258
Templer N, Hauser M, Owamani A, Kamusingize D, Ogwali H, Mulumba L, Onwonga R, Adugna BT, Probst L (2018) Does certified organic agriculture increase agroecosystem health? Evidence from four farming systems in Uganda. Int J Agr Sustain 16(2):150–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2018.1440465
TerAvest D, Wandschneider P, Thierfelder C, Reganold JP (2019) Diversifying conservation agriculture and conventional tillage cropping systems to improve the wellbeing of smallholder farmers in Malawi. Agric Syst 171:23–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.01.004
Torralba M, Oteros-Rozas E, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2018) Exploring the role of management in the coproduction of ecosystem services from Spanish wooded rangelands rangeland. Ecol Manag 71(5):549–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2017.09.001
Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, Brouckaert V, Franchois L, Garcia Cidad V, Hermy M, Mathijs E, Muys B, Reijnders J, Sauvenier X, Valckx J, Vanclooster M, Van der Veken B, Wauters E, Peeters A (2007) SAFE—A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agr Ecosyst Environ 120(2):229–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.09.006
Vilei S (2011) Local perceptions of sustainability of farming systems on Leyte, Philippines – divergences and congruencies between different stakeholders. Int J Sust Dev World 18(4):291–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.555112
Whitehead J (2017) Prioritizing sustainability indicators: using materiality analysis to guide sustainability assessment and strategy. Bus Strateg Environ 26(3):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1928
Witt CD, Reed DB, Rayens MK, Hunsucker S (2020) Predictors of job satisfaction in female Farmers aged 50 and over: implications for occupational health nurses. Workplace Health Saf 68(11):526–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079920931895
Zahm F, Viaux P, Vilain L, Girardin P, Mouchet C (2008) Assessing farm sustainability with the IDEA method – from the concept of agriculture sustainability to case studies on farms. Sustain Dev 16(4):271–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.380
Acknowledgements
We thank anonymous journal reviewers for insightful comments on our manuscript. We thank Erin Betley, Pua’ala Pascua, Amanda Sigouin, and Nadav Gazit of the American Museum of Natural History’s Center for Biodiversity. All authors express their heartfelt condolences for the loss of our co-author, Dr. Eleanor Sterling.
Funding
This study was funded by the National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS, France) through the Projet International de Coopération Scientifique (PICS), “Indicateurs de bien-être: une co-construction selon une approche bioculturelle” to S. Caillon (CNRS) and K. MacDonald (UoT), the Canada Research Chairs Program, and the Sustainable Food and Farming Futures Cluster, University of Toronto Scarborough to M.E. Isaac (UoT).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: MEI, SC, and ES. Methodology: MEI, TL, SC, and ES. Investigation: MEI, TL, SC, LS, KM, SP, AD, DR, YA-T, LV, OC, JL, and ES. Writing—original draft: MEI, TL, SC, ES. Writing—review and editing: MEI, TL, SC, LS, KM, SP, AD, DR, YA-T, LV, OC, JL, and ES. Funding acquisition: MEI and SC. Supervision: MEI, SC, and ES.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
Marney E Isaac currently serves as an editor and asked to be blinded from the decision process of this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
This article is published under an open access license. Please check the 'Copyright Information' section either on this page or in the PDF for details of this license and what re-use is permitted. If your intended use exceeds what is permitted by the license or if you are unable to locate the licence and re-use information, please contact the Rights and Permissions team.
About this article
Cite this article
Isaac, M.E., Lin, T., Caillon, S. et al. Multidimensional measures of farmer well-being: A scoping review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 44, 39 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-024-00971-7