A VESTED INTEREST APPROACH TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES IN THE STATE OF OHIO
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
BY
Peter Abdul Ndoinje Karim-Sesay, B.A, M.A.
The Ohio State University 2004
Dissertation Committee
Professor William Flinn, Adviser Approved by
Professor Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Adviser ______
Professor Jeff Sharp Advisers Rural Sociology Graduate Program
ABSTRACT
The current diversity in the rural population of America creates problems for the proper interpretation of attitudes towards agriculture and related environmental issues.
Most previous sociological studies of perceptions or attitudes about agriculture and the environment have been largely descriptive and have attempted to distinguish varying perceptions based on rural and urban residence alone. No major studies have attempted to examine the place of vested interest and social distance in understanding these attitudes.
This dissertation goes beyond mere descriptive analysis of empirical data, by evoking the middle-range conception of Robert K. Merton, which incorporates both a theoretical dialogue and empirical evidence to analyze varying attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. Based on a vested interest approach, this study draws from functionalist and conflict theories as well as rational choice and exchange theory.
The data used in this study is derived from a 2002 statewide survey of 4031 Ohio households. The results of this study suggest that residence, social connections and social
-i i - activities play an important role in the formation of perceptions and attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. In this study, age and social activities are the strongest predictors of vested interest.
However, although the statistical results have not explained great proportions of variance, the study provides a framework for further studies based on a vested interest approach. There is a need for further exploration of the concepts involved in vested interest. Future studies might benefit from incorporating general values orientation such as agrarianism and consumerism, in order to restore the role of consumption in agricultural production.
-ii i -
DEDICATED TO ALL THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF THE SENSELESS WAR IN SIERRA LEONE
-iv -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The completion of a major work like this could only have been completed with team effort, co-ordination and co-corporation. I am therefore very grateful for all those who have contributed to this effort and I want to take this opportunity to thank you all from the bottom of my heart.
To my advisers, William Flinn and Joe Donnermeyer, I will forever remain humbled by your patience, judgment, and expertise. Thank you for supporting my efforts and making my graduate school experience a wonderful one. Your guidance and encouragement both within and outside academia are in part responsible for this successful outcome.
I would also like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my committee member Dr. Jeff Sharp. Thank you for your constructive criticisms and vital inputs and guidance. Thank you for accommodating me in your busy schedule and providing guidance throughout the period of this research.
I want to say a special thanks to my wife Waithera Karim-Sesay for your love and affection during these trying times but most importantly, for your wonderful insights and critique throughout my doctoral studies. Without you this dissertation would never have been completed.
-v -
There are many great people I have had the opportunity to work with during my period of study here at Ohio State and I want to say thanks to Dr. Donald Thomas, Dr.
Cathy Rakowsky, and Dr. Linda Lobao for their invaluable support of my efforts.
I would also like to thank Cheryl Dingus of the statistics department for greatly helping out with the analysis of this data. Your contribution toward the successful outcome of this study is immeasurable.
A number of others in the department have contributed significantly towards making my graduate school experience worthwhile: Jackie Grueser, Marjorie Dellinger,
Terry Osterman, Greta Wyrick, and Sam McCarter. Thanks for all the help provided and with so much love.
Finally, I would like to extend gratitude to my parents for believing in the value of education and indeed supporting my educational efforts throughout the period of my life.
I thank you mum and dad for believing in me and making me believe that ignorance is more expensive than education.
-v i -
VITA
Born Bo, Sierra Leone
October, 1995…………………………………………...B.A. (Social Science) Sociology and Environmental Science, University of Botswana.
March, 2000………………………..……………….…. M.A. (International development) Ohio University.
2000-2001………………………………………..……..Tutor (Ohio State University)
Fall 2004…………………………………………………Adjunct Professor Columbus State Community College
2001-2004…………………………………….…………Graduate Teaching and Research Associate. The Ohio State University
2003-2004……………………………………………….Fellow of the Ohio State Teaching Enhancement Program
FIELDS OF STUDY Environmental Science Sociology Rural Sociology International Development Social Change and Development African Development
MAJOR FIELD………………………………………….Rural Sociology
-v ii -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..ii Dedication… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..iv Acknowledgments… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … .v Vita… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … vii List of Tables… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … .… x List of Figures… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … xi
Chapters:
1. Introduction… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… 1
1.1 Research Objectives.… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .4 1.2 Justification for Study… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...... 6 1.3 Definition of Terms… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...7
2. Review of Literature...… … … … … … … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .8
2.1 The Middle-range Model of Vested Interest… … ..… … … … … … … … … … 8 2.2 The Role of Sociological Theory… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...... 12 2.3 Exchange and Rational Choice Theories … … … ...… … … … … ...... 15 2.4 Critique of Rational Choice and Exchange Theories… … … … … … … … … 20 2.5 Relevance of the Theoretical Framework… ...... … … … … … … … .. .22 2.6 The Origins of Agricultural Research in the US… … … … … … … … ...... 23 2.7 The Sociology of Agriculture… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...... 25 2.8 A New Explanation of Agriculture in the US.… … … … … … ...... 28 2.9 Recent Empirical Evidence in the US… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 31 2.9.1 The Alabama Study… … … ..… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..32 2.9.2 The North Carolina Study… ..… … … … … … … … … … … … … … .34 2.9.3 The Attitudinal Surveys of Pennsylvania… … … … … … … … … … 34 2.9.4 National Survey of Food, Farming and the Environment… … ...... 35 2.10 Environmental Review… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .36 2.11 Research Questions… … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .41 2.12 Research Hypothesis… … .… … … … … … … … … … .… … … … … … … … ..43 2.13 Model Summary… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...44
-vi ii -
3. Research Methodology… … … … … … … ..… … … … … … ..… … … … … … … … … … 46 3.1 Method of Data Collection… … … … ...… … … … … … … … … … … … … … .46 3.2 Sampling Method… … … … … … … … … ...… … … … … … … … ..… … … … .46 3.3 Operationalizing the Independent Variables… … … … … … … … … … … .… 47 3.3.1 Demographic Variables… … … … … … … .… … … … … … .… … … 48 3.3.2 Vested Interest Variables… … … … … .… … ...… … … … … … … … 52 3.4 Operationalizing the Dependent Variables… … … … … … … … … … … … … 53 3.4.1 Preservation of Scenic Quality of Rural Places… … … … … … … ..53 3.4.2 Agricultural Attitudes.… … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … … ...56 3.4.3 Trust of Farmer… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...56 3.4.4 Environmental Concern… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...57
4. Results… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… … … … … … 67
4.1 Results of the Bivariate Correlation Analysis… … … .… … … … … .… … .… .68 4.1.1 Correlates of Preservation of Scenic Quality Variable… ..… … … ..68 4.1.2 Correlates of Agricultural Attitudes Variable… … … … … .… … .....71 4.1.3 Correlates of Environmental Concern … … … … … … … … … .… … 72 4.1.4 Correlates of Trust of Farmer… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...73 4.1.5 Correlates of Farmer’s Sensitivity to Non-farm Neighbors… .… … 74 4.1.6 Correlates of Environmental Regulation of farming… … … … … … 76 4.2 Results of the Multivariate Analysis… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… .78 4.2.1 Regression Model for Preservation of Scenic Quality… … … … .… 78 4.2.2 Regression Model for Agricultural Attitudes… … … … … … .… … ..81 4.2.3 Regression Model for Environmental Concern … … … … … … … ...83 4.2.4 Regression Model for Trust of Farmers … … … … … … … … … … ..86 4.2.5 Regression of Farmer’s Sensitivity to Non-farm neighbors… … … .87 4.2.6 Regression of Environmental Regulation of Farming… … … … ...... 89
5. Discussion of Findings and Results… … … … … .… … … ..… … … … … … … … … … … 91
5.1 The Vested Interest Hypothesis… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .92 5.1.1 Residence..… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 92 5.1.2 Social Connection … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… … … .… .92 5.1.3 Social Activities… … … … … ..… … … … … … … ..… … … … … … ....93 5.1.4 Recommendations for Future Research… ..… … … … … … … … … ..95 5.1.5 Improving the Independent Measures… … … … … … … … … … … ..96 5.1.6 Improving the Dependent Measures… … ...… … … … … … … … … ..98 5.1.7 Mediating Variables… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..99
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 102
APPENDIX A… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… 107
-ix -
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Results of the Weighted Sampling… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...... 47
3.2 Frequency Distribution of Other Independent Variables… … … … … … … … … 51
3.3 Factor loadings for the Social Activities Scale… … … … … ..… … … .… … … … .53
3.4 Factor loadings for all Dependent Scaled items… … … … … … … … … … … … ..55
3.5 Means and Standard Deviations for Independent Variables in the Model...... 59
3.6 Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables in the Model.… ...... 60
3.7 Means and Standard Deviations of all Scales in the Model… … … … … … … … 61
4.1 Bivariate Correlations of Dependent and Independent Variables… … … … … ...70
4.2 Inter-correlations of Dependent Variables… … .… … … … … … … … … … … … .77
4.3 Regression Model for the Preservation of Scenic Quality… … … … … … … … ..80
4.4 Regression Model for Agricultural Attitudes… … … … ..… … … … … … … ...... 82
4.5 Regression Model for Environmental Concern… … … … … ..… … .… … … ...... 84
4.6 Regression Model for Trust of Farmers to Protect the Environment… … … ...... 86
4.7 Regression Model for the Variable: Ohio farmers are Generally Sensitive to the Concerns of Non-Farm neighbors… … … … … … … … … … … … … .… … … .88
4.8 Regression Model for the Variable: Environmental Protection Laws Regulating Farming are too strict… … … … … … … ..… … … … … … … … … … ..90
5.1 Observed Associations between Dependent and Independent Variables… … … .94
-x -
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2.1 Model of Hypothesized Relationships… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..45
3.1 Place Respondent Currently Lives… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… ..62
3.2 Place Respondent Prefers to Live… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .....63
3.3 Place Respondent Grew Up… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… … 64
3.4 Gross Household Income of Respondents… … … … … … … … … … … ...… .64
3.5 Did Respondents Parents ever own or operate a farm… … … … … … ...… ...65
3.6 Did Respondent’ s Close Friends own a Farm… … ..… … … … ...... 66
3.7 Does Anyone in Respondent’ s Household Maintain a Vegetable Garden...66
-x i -
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Farming was the precursor to the development of some of the earliest civilizations in Africa, Mesopotamia, and China, and farming remains an important component in the lives of millions of people around the world. In advanced capitalist societies, agriculture continues to play a significant role in both local and national development. In the developing world, even though there has been rapid urbanization during the last fifty years, significant proportions of the population still reside in rural areas and depend on agriculture (World Development Report, 2002). Farming has remained a way of life for many people and societies, and environmental degradation as a result of agricultural activities is equally universal.
There have been dramatic changes in the demographic structure of both rural and urban areas of countries around the world. In developed societies like the US, rural communities have become more diverse in their occupational structure. According to the
US Census Bureau (2000), farming is now a minority occupation in rural communities in the US, while farming remains the main occupation of rural residents in a developing country like Sierra Leone (World Development Report 2002).
-1-
These demographic changes tended to favor urban areas and marginalize rural residents. Sharp (1998) suggested that although rural places have considerably improved over the last five decades, the effects cannot be equally felt in non-metropolitan America.
Sharp goes on to identify four main concerns of Iowa farmers: social problems, high unemployment, low educational attainment, and health problems (Sharp 1998:3).
Agriculture remains a significant component of economic growth in both developed and less developed countries. The global population exceeds 6 billion people
(US Census Bureau 2003), so that agriculture must continue to be an important tool in tackling global food needs and supporting future economic growth and societal development.
The World Watch Institute in its Global 2000 report suggests that one of the difficulties faced by developing nations in their pursuit of economic development is environmental problems. Although farmers possess a vested interest in environmental protection, there is much evidence of poor harvests due to poor soils as a result of erosion, pollution and other problems. Urban sprawl, industrial waste disposal and use of chemicals on lawns, to name a few, can cause permanent harm to the environment.
Permanent damage to the environment affects both the economic and social dimensions of people’ s quality of life. For example, a traditional farming practice, known as shifting cultivation in Africa, allows a piece of land to be abandoned for some years so that it can regain its nutrients, typically in 25 year cycles, representing long-term concern for the stewardship of land (Fyle, 1988).
-2 -
However, because of damage to the environment and population increase, families are now restricted to one piece of land which must be farmed continuously to ensure survival.
Changes in agricultural practices and impacts are not limited to developing nations. Moser (2002), for example, indicates that agriculture continues to be a major contributor to the economy of Ohio. He states that the industry of food and agriculture is the largest in the state, contributing $73 billion annually to the state’ s economy. Moser reports that agriculture accounts for over 1 million jobs in the state of Ohio. The 1997 US
Census of Agriculture shows that there are more than 31,000 full-time farms and 50,000 part-time farms in the state of Ohio. Rural Ohio communities now face a range of problems: (1) industrial development; (2) urban sprawl; (3) disposal of waste in landfills;
(4) environmental laws regulating farming; (5) residential and commercial development of farmland; and other environmentally related subjects. Farming communities tend to be antagonistic to these urban advances, and the social distance of urban people from farming is relevant in understanding perceptions about agriculture and related environmental issues. Yet rural/urban differences alone are insufficient in explaining variations in perceptions among people about these issues. As urbanization continues, the economy of Ohio becomes more globalized. For example, perceptions may hold that economic wellbeing is based on the price of Middle Eastern oil or on cheap electronics in
China, as much as on the price of corn and wheat on the Chicago Board of Trade.
The focus of agricultural research has recently shifted toward attitudes about agriculture and the environment. Within this attitudinal framework, attention has been
-3 -
paid largely to differences based on rural or urban residence (Tremblay and Dunlap
1978). Harris (1990) argues that the recent literature on development shows a focus on sustainable development as a direct result of environmental considerations. Mannion
(1995) argues that agriculture, from traditional hunting and gathering societies to shifting cultivation and animal husbandry, has always involved a transformation of the natural environment. In the early history of agriculture, the link with environmental issues was overlooked. However, since the 1970’ s, there has been increased research interest in the relationship between agriculture and the natural environment.
Scholars have tried to distinguish between rural and urban settings on the basis of attitudes about a variety of social phenomena. Although these differences are vital in understanding the attitudes that people hold toward agriculture and related environmental issues, analysis needs to move beyond the simplistic rhetoric of rural versus urban and examine the broad structural concepts that help to understand the changing dynamics of agriculture and the environment.
1.1 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Past research on perceptions of agriculture and related environmental issues focused on the differences in attitudes between rural and urban people. This focus is attributable to the physical, economic and social differences that previously existed between rural and urban areas. Although these differences between rural and urban areas have steadily diminished in recent decades, clear differences between the two still exist.
This research attempts to move beyond mere description of people’ s attitudes based on
-4 -
residence. It seeks to explain why, regardless of residence, people differ in attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. In other words, how does both physical and social distance from farming influence perceptions about agriculture and environmental issues?
This analysis begins with the premise that neither sociological theory nor empirical evidence alone can explain the full range of differences in attitudes among
Ohioans about agriculture and related environmental issues. The approach adopted by this study thus incorporates Merton’ s (1949) middle-range concept that involves amalgamating a theoretical component as well as empirical data.
The goal of this research is to test hypotheses that individuals who are socially and physically close to agriculture are more likely to hold positive views about agriculture than individuals who are not. This ‘vested interest’ approach states that if people believe they can benefit from agriculture, they perceive farming and related environmental issues positively. Likewise, those who are at a greater social and physical distance from agriculture will have more negative attitudes toward agriculture.
The forces of economic globalization will perhaps continue to compel agricultural research to consider the perceptions of urban residents, even more so than in the past. In the future, this idea of social distance will play a major role in the structure of agriculture.
Decisions concerning agriculture and related environmental issues are largely made by urban residents and the rural minority is expected to comply. It is imperative that we examine factors associated with perceptions among rural and urban residents based on their social distance to agriculture. In this study the principal assumption is that there are
-5 -
significant differences in perceptions and attitudes among rural and urban residents as well as between different socio-economic groups, and that these differences have the potential to create political, social and cultural conflict in the future.
The objective of this study is two-fold: (1) analyze attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues from randomly selected households in the state of Ohio; and (2) examine the relationship between these perceptions in order to test the relevance of vested interest as measured by social distance from farming. In this study, I introduce a middle-range theory that draws from diverse academic enquiries, particularly those of rural sociology, sociology, economics, and environmental sciences.
1.2 JUSTIFICATION FOR STUDY
The purpose of this study is to contribute to building theory, methods and concepts related to agriculture and the environment, as well as the theory of vested interest. It is hoped that rural and agricultural leaders will thus be better able to understand public perceptions and in the process redirect policy to suit the needs of the people most likely to be affected. For example, an investigation of the role social distance plays in attitudes about agriculture may permit a better understanding of which policies do and do not need to be changed. Furthermore, examining differences in attitudes and perceptions informs the agriculture/environment dialogue by providing information based on the theory of vested interest. This study will permit understanding of the public’ s perceptions of problems and solutions in dealing with environmental issues that impact
-6 -
agriculture. Sound agricultural and environmental policy depends in part on an accurate assessment of the general public’ s attitudes and perceptions. Issues related to why these perceptions are held and by what kinds of people are therefore vital research questions.
1.3 DEFINITION OF TERMS
Vested Interest refers to a special interest in an existing system, arrangement, or institution for particular personal reasons.
Social Distance refers to the physical and psychological distance between a person, and issues within the framework of a society.
Social Connection refers to past or present affiliations that exist between individual people and social events that are taking place around them.
Social Activities refers to the level of involvement of an individual person in a particular sector of society.
Middle-Range Theory refers to the coalescence of empirical evidence and theoretical knowledge in understanding and explaining social phenomena.
Attitude refers to the manner, disposition, feeling and position of a person with regard to issues related to agriculture and the environment.
Environment refers to the air, water, minerals, other organisms and all other external factors surrounding and affecting a given organism at any time.
Positive attitudes more likely to agree with an item
Negative attitudes less likely to agree with an item
-7 -
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This review includes four major dimensions: (1) a discussion of a middle range sociological model of vested interest as applied to perceptions of agriculture and related environmental issues; (2) an examination of the origins of agricultural research in the
United States; (3) discussion of functionalist and conflict theories as precursors to social exchange theory; and (4) a discussion of the relevance of rational choice and exchange theories to a middle-range theory of vested interest. Finally, the review focuses on past research issues related to citizen perceptions of agriculture and related-environmental issues. In turn, this leads to a statement of hypotheses about the relationship between vested interest as measured by social distance, and attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues.
2.1 THE MIDDLE-RANGE MODEL OF VESTED INTEREST
There are obvious costs and rewards for engaging in both economic and social activities. Agriculture is no exception. It is therefore important to remember that attitudes may also be influenced by these costs and rewards. This section introduces a middle-level theory of vested interest and applies it to the understanding of varying attitudes about
-8 -
agriculture and related-environmental issues in the state of Ohio. This theory of vested interest is the product of the amalgamation of several components of social exchange theory. In the model, costs and benefits are critical elements for understanding human behavior.
Social exchange theorists argue that individual persons try to avoid punishment while seeking rewards in their everyday interactions. However, costs and benefits are determined in part by the perceptions of individual actors. Without an ability to understand a situation and make a choice, there is no basis for social distance. The concept of social distance suggests that the closer an actor is to an issue, the more he or she knows specific things about it. The premise of this vested interest approach, therefore, is that individuals with vested interest or closer social distance to agriculture are more likely to exhibit positive attitudes about issues related to agriculture and environmental issues.
In creating this middle-range theory to explain agriculture and environmental attitudes, the work of Merton (1968:39) defines sociological theory as “logical interconnected sets of propositions from which empirical uniformities can be derived and guide empirical research”.
Merton focuses on two basic problems inherent in sociological enquiry: first,
“narrow empiricism” which is the collection of data without reference to theory; and second, “abstract theorizing” which formulates explanations of an entire range of social phenomena without reference to data. Merton believed that sociology must focus on theories of the middle-range to deal with these two extremes. He argued against
-9 -
sociologists who focus strictly on theoretical work on the basis that “ issues must not be formed in the mind of one man and then much discussed if they attract attention” , and that “ progressive adaptation modification as a result of the concerted efforts of great numbers of men is rare” (1976:47).
He believed that for sociology to progress, theory must focus on: (1) using empirical studies with a limited set of assumptions about specific phenomena rather than with a broad abstract entity such as an entire social system; and (2) evolving rather that suddenly emerging (Merton 1968:51).
Merton agrees that even though middle-range theory may contain abstractions, he contends that such abstractions are backed up by empirical data. Merton indicates that:
“ Our major task today is to develop special theories applicable to limited ranges – theories, for example, of deviant behavior, the unanticipated consequences of purposeful action, social perception, reference groups, social control, the interdependence of social institutions – rather than to seek the total conceptual structure that is adequate to derive these and other theories of the middle range” (1968:51).
Merton further argues that empirical evidence performs four major functions that shape the development of theory: (1) to promote the initiation of a new theory; (2) to provide unanticipated results that are vital in the understanding of social phenomena; (3) to help in refocusing a theory or conceptual framework; and (4) to clarify poorly defined concepts in the literature. For Merton, sociological theory develops through empirical evidence and research in order to establish a base of knowledge from which broader theories can be developed.
-1 0 -
Applying Merton’ s concept of middle-range theory to develop a vested interest approach to agricultural and related environmental issues, I begin with the assumption that within advanced capitalist societies like the US, social differentiation has generated distinct interests among various groups. Because of this, there are differences in values, attitudes and expectations based on vested interest. As such, social distance will play a role in explaining these attitudinal differences about farming and the environment.
This study attempts to use empirical evidence in the Mertonian tradition to discuss people’ s attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues. A middle-range theory of vested interest is utilized to examine the differences in people’ s attitudes toward various issues related to agriculture and the environment. Middle-range sociological theory will be combined with empirical data to produce an explanation and identification of areas where additional research and theory development should occur.
It is recognized that vested interest in agriculture is not equivalent to vested interest in agriculturally-related environmental issues. The assumption is that the two domains of agriculture and environment may not be perceived in the same way by respondents. The general assumption, however, is that residents who have a perceived vested interest in agriculture and related environmental issues are likely to be in closer social proximity to the issues. As such, it is assumed that individuals who are socially and or physically closer to agriculture will exhibit more positive perceptions than those who are socially or physically farther removed from agriculture and related environmental issues.
-1 1 -
2.2 THE ROLE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY
The two main sociological theories applied in explaining societal structures are functionalism and conflict theories. Although its roots go back to the founders of sociology, functionalism in its contemporary form first emerged from the work of
Durkheim. The functionalist perspective states that society consists of institutions which work together for the benefit of the whole. Major contributors to functionalist theory are
Talcott Parsons, Robert K. Merton, Peter Blau and George Homans (Wallace and Wolf,
1999).
Parsons (1937) laid the theoretical foundations which exchange theorists would later utilize, defining social action as predicated on four basic principles: (1) the existence of a human actor; (2) the action must be ends-oriented; (3) there is a congenial environment for the action to take place; and (4) there are norms attached to the choices people make.
The organism metaphor is the traditional description of how functionalism describes the workings of societies. It simply means that societies are like living organisms in many ways. Society is made up of parts called societal institutions. Like the human organism, the institutions of society must be at equilibrium to produce a normally functioning society. Indeed, institutions like the school, the family and the church must work in harmony for the wellbeing of people within society. In this functionalist framework, all social institutions are viewed as contributing to the maintenance of equilibrium. For example, a prison is considered by functionalists to be an institution for punishing and controlling crime and giving law-abiding citizens a sense of justice.
-1 2 -
Wallace and Wolf (1999) describe functionalism with an analogy about how an airport operates. Successful travel depends on every aspect of the “ airport society” , from entrance to time of departure. This includes purchasing a ticket, queuing at the counter, going through security, final boarding etc. In short, a delay at the ticket counter may lead to a delay in flight or cancellation of flight. Hence, functionalism assumes that problems in one institution cause problems in other institutions. Another important focus of functionalism is the issue of commonly-held values and adherence to societal norms. For instance, Wallace and Wolf describe functionalist theory as placing a great emphasis on
‘values consensus’ and conformity to societal norms (Wallace and Wolf 1999:19).
Another major functionalist assumption is that social conflict is a direct result of disunities within the system. In short, problems in one institution are related to dysfunctions in the entire system. If the dysfunctions in one system can be resolved, then the system returns to equilibrium.
As an advocate for middle-range theory, Merton was more concerned with the question; “ Functional for whom?” What is normally functional for one group may not be functional for other groups. This viewpoint tends toward the conflict approach linked to the works of Karl Marx, Max Weber, and others such as William Chambliss, Ralf
Dahrendorf and C. Wright Mills. The conflict perspective posits that the institutions in society are not necessarily in harmony; instead different groups with different interests tend to be antagonistic toward each other.
For example, Marx argued that society was divided between two groups: “ haves” and “ have-nots” . The ‘haves’ or bourgeoisie were the affluent who owned and controlled
-1 3 -
the means of production and the ‘have-nots’ or proletariat were the workers who served the bourgeoisie. “ Society as a whole” he says “ is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and
Proletariat” (Marx 1848: 66).
Marx claims that if we look at every society in human history, we will find a
‘manifold gradation of social rank’ (1848). He contends that from the period of ancient
Rome there were distinct social classes including patricians, knights, plebeians and slaves. The middle ages were characterized by feudal lords, vassals, guild masters and serfs. Likewise in capitalist societies, he says, there are distinct social classes based on the “ relations of production” , that is, workers who sell their labor to those who own the means of production. This differential social class structure creates conflict of interests amongst people and it is these conflicting interests that define the concept of vested interest.
Differences exist among conflict theorists which involve variations in the treatment of conflict. Marx focused on differences among people based on social class, while Weber was more interested in how status groups compete among themselves for dominance. Dahrendorf and Collins dealt with issues of authority and influence within advanced capitalist societies. Wallace and Wolf (1999) argue that these later conflict theorists are more analytical because they examine a series of conflicting groups and institutions within the framework of a particular society.
Dahrendorf (1937) examines the inequalities and differing interests among social groups and argues that societal conflicts are inevitable. Weber discussed issues related to
-1 4 -
“ value-oriented actions” , a concept that rational choice and exchange theorists would later exploit. The idea was that actions were largely based on perceptions of rewards and costs. Weber’ s views were further developed by Parsons (1937), Homans (1961), Blau
(1964) and Heath (1976), to name a few. The idea of vested interest has been integral to the development of sociological theory since the founding of the discipline and continues to play an important role in understanding social phenomena today.
2.3 EXCHANGE AND RATIONAL CHOICE THEORIES
Homans (1961) uses his biology background to explain social behavior in terms of human interaction and exchange. For Homans, as with rational choice and exchange theorists in general, the fundamental element of social interaction, social institutions and social change is the actions of individuals. Homans defines social behavior as an exchange of goods either material or non-material, such as symbols of approval or prestige (Homans, 1961:446). Homans suggests that individual human actors may tend to incur costs and because alternative courses of action are available, individuals will tend to minimize costs while attempting to increase benefits through their selection of alternatives. Homans believed that individuals are always likely to behave in ways similar to the rational man. He argued that change in behavior is likely to be greater when the least profit is expected.
Homans (1950) also attempted to put forward concrete measures of the
‘interconnected uniformities’ that could be observed in group behavior. One contribution that Homans (1950:1) makes to exchange theory is his definition of the human group:
-1 5 -
a group, a number of persons who communicate with one another often over a span of time and who are few enough so that each person is able to communicate with all the others, not at second-hand, through other people, but face to face.
In this definition, it is clear that those who interacted with others out of pure chance
such as a bank teller and a customer cannot be considered a group.
Blau (1964) presents a more simplistic definition of social exchange. He argues
that social exchange can be found all around, as in love and friendship, as well as in our
everyday interaction with people, and goes on to give specific examples of social
exchange. He notes that in everyday life neighbors often exchange gifts or favors.
However, the value of the exchange between two individuals is largely dependent on
the nature of their relationship. Blau argues that once an individual is given a gift from
another, then that individual must reciprocate by giving something back in return (Blau
1964:89). Important to this exchange process, as far as Blau is concerned, is that the
expected amount of return is not known as this is dependent on the individual. Because
of this type of arrangement, Blau argues that both actors in an exchange relationship
will try to increase rewards in anticipation of further benefits. If one person supplies
more, he or she becomes dominant in the relationship. Blau also suggests that the
exchange that takes place in primitive societies cannot be referred to as exchange in the
strict economic sense. He says that this type of exchange is only to create bonds and
establish a “ hierarchy of power”.
Another exclusion made by Blau in explaining his theory of exchange is the concept of forced exchange such as a bank robbery or a voluntary exchange in which no
-1 6 -
direct return is expected such as philanthropy and charitable giving. He suggests, “ Social exchange is voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring and typically do in fact bring from others”. Blau (1964) also suggested that this broad nature of social exchange means that any activity that has an expected return may be termed as social exchange:
the only assumption made is that human beings choose between alternative potential associates or courses of actions by evaluating the experiences or expected experiences with each in terms of a preference ranking and then selecting the best alternative (Blau, 1964:18).
Blau claimed that during this interaction process, there are ties of friendship that develop between human actors, and that people will befriend those from whom they expect greater rewards. He further suggests that the difference between social and economic exchange is that the former involves “ unspecified obligations”. In economic exchange, the exact amount of reward anticipated is known but in social exchange the reward or return remains the discretion of the giver. For this to be effective, he argues, there must be a reasonably high level of mutual trust (Blau 1964:96).
Therefore, Blau claimed that there are three conditions that must exist for exchange to take place. This includes: (1) the nature of the relationship between actors in an exchange relationship; (2) the nature of rewards; and (3) the nature of costs to be incurred (Blau 1964: 97).
Blau (1974) states that many rewards sought by human actors can only be attained through social interaction, and that social interaction is in itself social exchange. Thus, he
-1 7 -
argues that “ the concept of social exchange refers to voluntary social actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from others and then cease when these expected reactions are not forthcoming” (Blau, 1974:208).
Another important twist that Blau added to the exchange dialogue was the issue of power in social relationships, so that those who give more gifts and not receive commensurately will tend to develop undue power over their counterparts. Power relations in the exchange process were further discussed by Cook and Emerson (1978).
They identify “ dependency” as a major concept in exchange relationships. If one actor is always at the receiving end of gifts they are likely to be powerless in their exchanges with others, but balancing mechanisms may keep dependency in check. For example, those without power can quit the relationship if they feel oppressed. For Cook and Emerson, network-exchange is of two types: (1) where actors negotiate; and (2) where actors cannot bargain. They questioned why individuals would interact with some people and not with others, and suggested that exchange networks can be compared to any hierarchical structure in society. The tributes paid to the king in a feudal kingdom are payments for running the kingdom. For Cook and Emerson, most exchange networks are like this.
Cook and Emerson (1978) also examined the role of justice in exchange relations, and argued that the results or outcomes of bargaining were predicated on power. In short, those with power will perceive the distribution of wealth as fair. They identify two basic concepts in the exchange process: (1) societal norms and rules governing distribution;
-1 8 -
and (2) perception of fairness in the distribution process. Cook and Emerson argue that if people perceive distribution as fair, then the exchange will be more balanced.
Cook and Emerson also identified two exchange categories: network generalized exchange and group generalized exchange. In network generalized exchange each actor provides resources for another, who in turn provides resources for the others. The main actor receives resources from all the other actors in the group. Group generalized exchange refers to a process by which actors pool their resources. This is where the concept of free-loading emerged. It is rational for some actors not to participate in group processes, even though they enjoy the overall rewards. These are called free-loaders.
However, Lawler and Yoon (1996) argue that Cook and Emerson fail to account fully for the kinds of tactics that actors can use in bargaining. Lawler and Yoon claim that
Cook and Emerson are more conciliatory and so fail to account for punishment for non- compliance, and introduced two new concepts to the exchange dialogue: (1) “ bilateral deterrence” , which refers to the fear of retaliation from both sides engaged in an exchange; and (2) “ conflict-spiral”, when actors expect power to be used against them, so that even though inequality is low, conflict is still likely.
The argument put forward by these exchange theorists is that if actors equally depend on each other for resources, then there is no inequality of power in the exchange process. Power imbalance is created when an actor has power over others but for Cook and Emerson this power is mitigated through balancing, whereas for Lawler and Yoon, the more dependent actor can threaten additional costs on the dominant party. They refer to this as “ punitive” or “ coercive” force in the exchange process.
-1 9 -
Lawler and Yoon (1996) also point out the role of commitments. The frequency of the exchange may increase agreement between the two parties. Also, interest and excitement as well as pleasure and satisfaction may be real payoffs from an exchange.
The greater the volume of interaction, the greater the cooperation between the actors, which in turn produces commitments in the following ways: (1) an actor may decide to stay in a relationship even when better offers are made elsewhere; and (2) the two parties involved in the exchange may have equal vested interest, as in a joint operation. Lawler and Yoon argue that bonds and partnerships are made through such relationships which become “ objectified” and saw commitment as indicators of emotions emerging from frequent exchanges among actors.
2.4 CRITIQUE OF RATIONAL CHOICE AND EXCHANGE THEORIES
Three main criticisms have been leveled against exchange theorists: (1) that it is not necessarily rational to collect information before deciding on social phenomena; (2) that it is not true that an individual must have adequate information for proper exchange to take place; and (3) that individuals do not always work in their self-interest, and may instead work as a form of duty or altruism.
Heath (1976) claims that rational and exchange theory lacks important elements:
Excluded from this conception of exchange is behavior which is not motivated by the return but by a sense of duty or by some other internalized value. “ The actions of the man who believes in the rightness of his cause and is not affected by the praise or blame of others cannot be included in the category of exchange. Nor can behavior which is actually lacking in motive (Heath 1976:2).
-2 0 -
The rational choice approach makes a series of basic assumptions about human relationships and social interaction. The initial assumption is that human actors always desire things because of their diverse and infinite needs. Much like the opportunity cost theory in economics, it is assumed that actors are faced with diverse alternatives and must make certain choices between what to forgo and what to pursue.
Heath (1976:3) argues that Homans and Blau have merely imitated economic theories of maximum utility. He argues that exchange theorists fail to recognize the power of the individual in the decision-making process.
Heath favors the concept of “ choice” as a fundamental starting point of exchange theory, because the theory of choice deals with a process that is clearly sociological in contrast to Blau and Homans who work, he says, from an economic base. The theory of maximum utility just like the theory of opportunity cost dictates that an individual is likely to choose the best alternative from a range of choices. However, Heath argues, this happens only in cases of certainty, because in situations of uncertainty, an actor may have little choice in the possible outcomes. As Blau (1964:18) put it, “ Human beings choose between alternative potential associates or courses of action by evaluating the experiences or expected experiences with each in terms of a preference ranking and then selecting the best alternative” . Heath (1976:3) suggests that in the exchange process, the participants “ need not necessarily be better off than they were before the exchange.”
Heath also questions the exchange process itself and asks if these exchanges must always be voluntary or forced. For Heath, exchange theorists focus on voluntary exchange and by doing so fail to recognize the role of forced exchanges.
-2 1 -
He gives the example of the disgruntled and battered wife, and suggests that there are many people who may be in an abusive relationship but refuse to get out.
In summary, the three main criticisms levied against exchange theorists are: (1) that the theory is tautological, meaning that people by nature try to maximize profit while minimizing costs in their everyday interactions; (2) that human actors are not necessarily rational; and (3) that actors may likely be looking for satisfactory outcomes rather than the best results.
2.5 RELEVANCE OF THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theories discussed above are all related to the vested interest approach that this research attempts to follow. The functionalist approach is theoretically related to rational choice theory because it emphasizes that society is based on a system of exchanges. It is assumed by functionalists, rational choice, and exchange theorists that people are expected to engage in activities that increase reward while decreasing punishment.
The conflict approach on the other hand, focuses on the divergent interests in societies and the continual struggle between groups. Conflict theorists contend that social class differences are characteristic of every society. Individual loyalty is placed in one’ s social group. Members of one social class would exhibit different attitudes toward everyday issues than members of another social class.
Although they remove the focus from the group relationships advocated by the conflict theorists and place it on the individual, the rational choice and exchange theorists
-2 2 -
draw heavily on the conflict model. In short, individual decision making is based on the rational calculation of costs and rewards which has a basis in vested interest as a representation of a person’ s position in the social structure, including social class location.
Therefore, there is an underlying concept of vested interest at play in the conflict, exchange, and rational choice perspectives. People will tend to exhibit or associate with events and activities from which they believe they can benefit. In the same vein, people’ s opinions tend to align closely to expected rewards. Here the concept of social distance also comes into play. In attempting to analyze people’ s perceptions and attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues, the discussions above provide a lens through which these perspectives can be studied. The dialogue on agriculture and related environmental issues has focused largely on pointing out the differences between the attitudes of rural and urban people. This study attempts to extend this dialogue beyond mere residence by investigating the extent to which vested interest, through the concept of social distance, plays a role in these differing perceptions.
2.6 THE ORIGINS OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH IN THE US
This section examines empirical sociological research on agriculture in the United
States. The purpose is to demonstrate the extent to which US agriculture, existing as it does in an advanced capitalist society, is at a post production phase, where packaging of food is more important than the primary production of food. It also points to the past limitations of social science-based agricultural research. Previously, the focus on
-2 3 -
production and profit-making was more important so that the results of data collected both at the national and the local level tended to emphasize the question of why new agricultural innovations were not accepted faster. The significance of this agricultural literature is that considerable demographic and structural change in agriculture and rural society has produced a diversity of interests, ideas and reasons for locating in rural areas.
Many people are moving to rural areas for reasons that are quite different from farming.
Research on agriculture in the United States started a century ago, culminating in the birth of rural sociology as a sub discipline of sociology. Renowned black sociologist
W. E. B Dubois attempted to understand the economic conditions of small, well-defined groups of blacks that resided mostly in the countryside. Later, he shifted to an urban focus which set out to investigate the conditions of blacks in Philadelphia, most of whom were emigrants from the rural south, in terms of their homes, jobs, organizations, daily life, as well as the relationship between blacks and whites (1899:1).
Under the auspices of the United States Department of Labor, Dubois (1901) published a comprehensive study of the Negro Land-holding of Georgia. The focus was on the nature of land acquisition by freed black men. The successes of these empirical studies would open the way for future research in the field of agriculture, farm families, minority sub-populations and the structure of farming in general.
In 1908, President Roosevelt appointed a commission to investigate and provide a summary of what was known about the present conditions of country life, and to recommend measures to alleviate differences that existed between rural and urban areas.
The study’ s purpose was to examine the general social and economic health, educational
-2 4 -
and labor conditions existing in rural areas and to understand the conditions of farmers nationally. The study’ s results were mixed. Some regions of the country reported positive perceptions and attitudes toward farming and country life, while others were either uninformed or exhibited negative attitudes toward farming and country life.
2.7. THE SOCIOLOGY OF AGRICULTURE
Rural sociology has overcome many difficulties with identity and continues to portray its field as different from a mainstream sociology that appears to have neglected rural issues. As Newby (1983:68) puts it, rural sociology today “ represents not merely a branch of occupational sociology, but a new approach to rural sociology, one more theoretically informed, holistic, critical and radical than the conventional rural sociology that preceded it” .
Newby blames rural sociology for failing to examine agricultural production and the relations of production. As Lobao argues (1990), structural changes in agriculture have had major impacts on the household of farmers in general and the relations of work both outside and within the household, particularly for women. These social relations of production are relevant in understanding the overall nature of agriculture.
In the past, the focus of rural sociology was on documenting the differences between rural and urban areas, and on settlement patterns in attempting to explain social interaction. In the late 1960’ s in the US, there was a net outflow of people to rural places.
-2 5 -
For example, in the state of Ohio there was what was referred to as the rural turnaround, involving significant population increases (albeit sporadically) in rural and exurban areas following years of consistent decline and stagnant population growth.
Traditional subsistence activities in rural communities, which were largely based on farming, fishing, mining, and forestry, are no longer the main occupations of rural dwellers. The occupational mix of people living in rural areas and possibly their vested interests have changed. According to Newby (1983:72), “ rural sociologists had in the past, devoted most of their efforts to charting patterns of rural society: kinship, customs, traditions and community change”. According to Newby (1983), rural sociology has now shifted its focus from rural/urban differences to the structure of agriculture itself, farm families, space and locality, policies governing agriculture and environmentally related issues, and differences among regions.
Buttel et al. (1990) have provided a chronological sequence of agricultural development from the beginning of the 20th century. They discussed four phases in agricultural research foci and the role of rural sociology in this discourse. They argue that the first years of agricultural research were dominated by the conception that a majority of people living in the rural U.S. was engaged in farming. The percentage of rural residents has considerably decreased and fewer and fewer rural residents are now involved in farming (Buttel et al. 1990).
During this first phase of agricultural development, prior to the 1950’ s, research was focused on rural/urban differences and diffusion of innovation in agriculture, the way
-2 6 -
of life of communities practicing agriculture, the different types of farming regions, agricultural practices and general conditions of rural life. This laid the foundation for future agricultural studies.
The second phase of agricultural development has been called the “ psychological behaviorist phase” (Buttel et al. 1990) between the 1950s and 1970’ s. During this period, studies about agriculture focused primarily on rapid technological change, value- orientation, and entry into farming. Buttel et al. argue that farmers were conceptualized as mere objects responding to the changing agricultural environment around them. Farmers began to seek more part-time jobs outside farming to augment their diminishing farming incomes.
The third phase has been referred to as the new sociology of agriculture by Buttel et al. (1990) because the primary focus is on the environment and the structure of agriculture. This phase saw a gradual movement toward the political economy and an assessment of research dynamics in the period between 1970 and 1990.
The final phase identified by Buttel et al. is the environment phase, from the
1990’ s to the present time. The relationship between agriculture and the environment, the new rural sociology and the sociology of agriculture are currently incorporated in the agricultural development dialogue. It is within this new framework of the rural sociological contribution to agricultural development that this research is tailored.
-2 7 -
2.8 A NEW EXPLANATION OF AGRICULTURE IN THE US
During the 1960s and 1970s, individual human action gained a more important role in social science research. The exchange theories of Homans (1964), Blau (1964),
Health (1976), and Cook and Emerson (1978) emphasized the significance of the individual in the interaction process. Debate resulted from the development of a capitalist agricultural dialogue, Mann and Dickinson (1978), Mooney (1983, 1987) and Newby
(1983). Some researchers were interested in how capitalism has or has not influenced the development of agriculture. Some have questioned Marx’ s prediction that all modes of production will sooner or later adopt a capitalist production mode.
An early attempt to develop a Marxist political economy of agriculture was developed by Mann and Dickinson (1978) in “ obstacles to the development of a capitalist agriculture” . They analyzed the persistence of family farms and the role of Marxism in the agricultural dialogue. If we believe the capitalist production process advocated by
Marx, they said, then there should be no existing family farms in advanced capitalist societies. The assumption is that family farms will be forced into adopting capitalist production or risk disappearing. The argument advanced by Mann and Dickinson is that agricultural development and capitalist development are not compatible, so that there is little chance for a complete capitalist development of agriculture. For Mann and
Dickinson, the issue is why have family farms continued to exist amid the global capitalist penetration in every other sector of social, political and economic life. In effect, they attempted to juxtapose petty commodity production and large scale capitalist
-2 8 -
production. The reasons they claim that the capitalist mode of production has not dominated agriculture can be summarized into four main factors.
The first factor deals with the difference between “ production time and labor time” (Mann and Dickinson 1978: 471). They began with the assumption that labor time was important in determining the value of things produced, particularly in the advanced world. Production time is the entire time spent on producing goods, from start to finish, while labor time is the time spent actively working on producing the product. For example, in producing alcohol, there is a phase of fermentation in which the producer can exert no physical labor.
The second factor identified by Mann and Dickinson (1978), relates to the effect of production time on profit. As they put it, “ the shorter the period of turn over, the larger the appropriated surplus value because surplus value is appropriated in each cycle.”
Some commodities take a year for turnover while others can exhibit turn over multiple times during the year. For example, in wheat farming turnover is an annual event, whereas swamp-land rice farming in Sierra Leone has three turnovers in a year. Capitalist firms tend to be attracted to high turnover productive activities. Slow turn over may in part be responsible for the lesser capitalist penetration in family farming.
The third issue also relates to problems of turn over. Here, Mann and Dickinson argued that some agricultural products are perishable (e.g. dairy products), and thus need to be moved quickly to the market in order to remain profitable. The expenses incurred in transferring these perishable products must be borne by the capitalist, so capitalists will be equally slow to invest in perishable farm products. (Mann and Dickinson 1978:475)
-2 9 -
Finally, Mann and Dickinson examined the effect of production time on the social relations of production. Whereas a capitalist mode of production depends on hired labor, the family farm provides labor by family members. The point here is that social relations are different under different production systems. Because the owner does not have to rely on hired help, the issue of class exploitation does not arise in family farming or petty commodity production; labor and capital are fused together. Capitalist production on the other hand is largely dependent on hired labor so that labor and capital, are independent of each other.
The approach adopted by Mann and Dickinson has been criticized by Mooney
(1983, 1987) who argues that Mann and Dickinson focus on only one dimension of capitalist development in agriculture, and that “ such a theoretical orientation must therefore be supplemented with conceptual schemes that allow greater access to the subjective dimensions of social life” (Mooney, 1983: 563-564).
Mooney (1983), in rejecting the economically oriented approach used by Mann and Dickinson, contends that it is inadequate to use wage labor as a measure of capitalist development in agriculture. Instead he attempts to use Erik Olin Wright and the works of
Braverman to develop a model of “ contradictory class locations”:
a single (wage-labor) form of proletarianization in the development of capitalism in agriculture … and have concluded that a structure of contradictory class locations between simple commodity and capitalism may provide a more efficient and less risky means by which capital may appropriate the surplus value of direct producers in agriculture (Mooney, 1983:565).
-3 0 -
Mooney also suggests that in simple commodity production, the goal is not necessarily to produce surplus. The main point of Mann and Dickinson, according to
Mooney, is that they tend to assume that capitalist production is the only process that attempts to overlap production time and labor time. He contends that any mode of production, be it capitalist or non-capitalist, will seek to reduce the disparity between production time and labor time (Mooney 1982:281).
In “ collectivizing our thoughts: a reply to Mooney”, Mann and Dickinson
(1987a), offered a response that questions Mooney for using social relations in his work.
They argue that although Mooney spends so much time talking about class contradictions, he fails to explain why these class contradictions take a particular form.
In answering these criticisms, Mooney (1987) claimed that he refused to talk about the nature of class contradictions because of the subjective nature of the motivations of farmers, which cannot be properly measured.
The importance of the somewhat contentious dialogue between Mann and
Dickinson versus Mooney is that they both recognize the relationship between the growing complexity of a capitalist mode of production and vested interests. Like exchange theorists, both see farmers as actors who attempt to make rational decisions and maximize return on their investments of capital and labor. Both analyses point to a growing differentiation of interests among different classes of farmers, a circumstance which implies that non-farm interests also influence the economic, political and social conditions under which agriculture is conducted.
-3 1 -
2.9 RECENT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IN THE U.S.
Many studies in the United States and elsewhere have attempted to look at attitudes of people with regard to agriculture and related environmental issues. In all of these studies, there tends to be a clear difference in respondents’ perceptions of agriculture and the environment based on their experiences with the rural environment, although they do not directly employ a vested interest perspective. These studies do provide hints about how perceptions may differ among groups with different levels of social distance from agriculture and agriculturally related environmental issues. Those who are closest to agriculture and the rural setting, and those who are engaged in environmental activities, are likely to differ in views about agriculture and the environment interrelationship than those who are not closely linked to agriculture and related environmental issues.
2.9.1 THE ALABAMA STUDY
The Alabama study was conducted by Auburn University Center for
Governmental Services, commissioned by the AU Butler/Cunningham endowment in agriculture and environment. The goal of the study was to find out how much ordinary
Alabamians knew about agriculture based on a series of items about agricultural and related environmental issues. Three main research questions were asked: (1) how does
Alabama compare to other states in terms of agricultural development in the United
States? (2) What is the perceived association between fertilizer use on lawns and environmental pollution? and (3) How does Alabamians perceive their rural
-3 2 -
communities? Results showed that Alabamians were not knowledgeable about issues related to agriculture, as was expected. Many Alabamians were unaware of the actual status of agriculture and rural communities in the state. More than half of the respondents
(56 percent) thought that Alabama was one of the nation’ s major agricultural producers.
Other respondents were highly respectful of agriculture, but at the same time supportive of government subsidies, thus preferring to pay higher prices for food and endorsing import restrictions to protect local agriculture and the environment.
The majority of respondents interviewed also saw agriculture as a valuable economic asset for the state. A majority did not consider agriculture to be a major threat to environmental degradation in the state. Respondents were able to identify that there had been a decline in the number of farms and farmers in the state. For example, a majority thought that about 5% of the state’ s population was involved in farming when in reality less than 2 % was involved in farming. About 60% of the sample agreed with the assertion that they would support higher prices for food in order to sustain farming or protect the environment. Respondents were positive when asked questions related to agriculture’ s influence on environmental quality. About 46% of respondents surveyed agreed that fertilizers were a major environmental hazard, while 50% thought poultry farming was a major environmental pollutant. However, most of the respondents ranked agriculture far below industry as a major polluter in the state.
-3 3 -
2.9.2 THE NORTH CAROLINA STUDY
In 1999 the state of North Carolina conducted a study to gain understanding of citizens’ perceptions of agriculture, using telephone interviews and focus groups. Again, results suggested that people were not very knowledgeable about the workings of the
North Carolina agriculture. However, results also showed that certain groups of people were more likely to view agriculture in a positive way than others. For instance, the study reported that women, residents of smaller places, people with direct connections to agriculture, and those with interest in agriculture were more likely to view agriculture in a positive light than those far removed from agriculture. This study did not go beyond mere descriptions of the perceptions of people about farming, offered no possible explanations for why these perceptions are held.
2.9.3 THE ATTITUDINAL SURVEYS OF PENNSYLVANIA
In 1998, the Center for the Rural Pennsylvania reported on a statewide attitudinal survey of rural Pennsylvanians. Prior to this survey there were no baseline statewide data dealing with attitudes about agricultural issues. Results were mixed. There was support for local government action to control environmental problems such as urban sprawl. Most rural residents of Pennsylvania identified financial difficulties coupled with unemployment as the most important problems facing them. Overall, a majority of the respondents saw the rural communities in which they lived as generally good places to be.
Another study in 1996 analyzed agriculture in regions of Pennsylvania. Two hypotheses were developed: (1) response to agricultural preservation varies, and (2) that
-3 4 -
these variations stem from differences in the local economy and attitudes toward government. This study claims that some deprived members of society are often suspicious of government programs that are viewed as inhibiting their most basic survival strategies. This study suggested that attitudes toward farming and environment varied largely on the basis of peoples’ experiences.
2.9.4 NATIONAL SURVEY OF FOOD, FARMING AND THE ENVIRONMENT
A survey under the auspices of a U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative
State Research Service study committee (Molnar 1992), suggests that during the 1980s the agricultural dialogue was based on the farm crisis, but in the 1990’ s there was more focus on the relationship between agriculture, environment, and land. Molnar (1992) concluded that during the past decade the public's view of farming has changed, and that survey results suggest that the public supports agriculture but is concerned about the undesirable aspects of agricultural production on the environment. Molnar (1992) notes that half the sample believed that more chemicals are used by Americans that are necessary to produce food. More than 50 percent believed that farmers should be held accountable for their management of land and environment. Yet few respondents were of the opinion that farming practices were major polluters of drinking water. More than 70 percent of the survey respondents said they would be willing to pay more for food that could be produced in ways that protect the environment. On issues of governmental control, respondents indicated that government programs should focus on family farms.
Many also supported the use of government programs for agriculture if these programs
-3 5 -
could help ensure a reliable food supply. However, nearly 50 percent of the respondents also thought that farmers should compete on the free market without government support.
In addition, more than 90 percent of the respondents thought that economic problems within agriculture will affect the entire country.
2.10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The environmental literature has also tried to demonstrate why environmental perceptions differ among people living in rural and urban areas, and offers suggestions that urban residents are more environmentally conscious than their rural counterparts
(Buttel and Flinn 1974; 1978; Tremblay and Dunlap 1978; Van Liere et al. 1981;
Freudenburg 1991; Busck 2002; and Van Dam et al. 2002).
Prior to the 1970’ s, little research had been conducted on the significance of environment in the agricultural discourse, but environmental issues are now central to discussions about many spheres of farming. During the early stages of the environmental discourse, the focus of researchers was primarily on differences in attitudes among rural and urban residents (Buttel and Flinn 1974; 1978 and Tremblay and Dunlap 1978).
During the 1980’ s, research was redirected to examining environmental awareness, environmental behavior and change, measurement of problems of environmental concern, attitudes towards environmental quality, and the role of technology in heightening environmental concern (Van Liere et al. 1981). In the 1990’ s, research was often aimed at
-3 6 -
assessment of perceived environmental quality, landscape aesthetics, environmental laws, environment and development, and the role of humans in environmental degradation
(Freudenburg 1991; Busck 2002)
The role of residence in the environmental dialogue has been mixed. Some research has found no relationship between rural and urban residence and environmental concern but other studies have reported differences, as demonstrated above. For example, Buttel and Flinn (1978) found a positive association between urban residence and environmental concern although this association was weak. Tremblay and Dunlap
(1978) also found that rural farmers were lowest in rank with regards to environmental concern, but agree that results about environmental concern are often mixed and not straightforward. They argue that because rural occupations are more extractive in nature, residents tend to be less concerned with environmental issues. They also suggest that even those rural residents who are not employed in extractive industries will tend to ally with their farming or mining counterparts on various issues related to agriculture or environment. Because of “ shared rural culture and shared beliefs, norms and values,” they say, “ we would expect a utilization perspective to spread among rural residents”
(Tremblay and Dunlap 1978: 477). The 1970’ s also saw concern with definition of concepts in the environmental discourse. For example, Buttel and Flinn (1978) addressed problems in measuring environmental concern. They adopted two measures:
(1) awareness of issues related to the environment, that is, the extent to which various environmental issues were viewed as serious; and (2) support for the environmental movement. They found that standard demographic variables such as education, income,
-3 7 -
and employment do not show any significant impact on environmental concern.
However, place of residence was found to be a better measure of environmental awareness. Those who reside in large cities were more likely to view environmental issues as a serious problem. This rural-urban categorization would be the standard for understanding environmental perceptions throughout much of the 1970’ s and early
1980’ s.
Van Liere et al. (1981) point out that research on peoples’ attitudes toward environmental issues has tended to utilize multiple measures of environmental concern.
They suggest that in the 1970’ s the focus of environmental research was directed toward natural resource management, recycling and litter reduction, and communicating environmental knowledge and awareness. The 1980’ s saw a focus on environmental behavior, environmental change, and issues of sustainability, with researchers assessing perceived environmental quality, perceptions of hazards in residential areas, and the role of technological advancement in increasing environmental hazards (Freudenburg 1991;
Buttel 1990).
Most of the same research topics continued to prevail in the 1990’ s. Freudenburg
(1991) argued that rural areas are different from urban areas in terms of attitudes toward environmental issues because rural areas were not heavily modified like urban areas in terms of industrial and infrastructural development, and because rural areas depend on primary production or extractive industry such as farming, mining and forestry, rural residents are not as enthusiastic about environmental protection as their urban counterparts. Some researchers have asserted that there is no need to focus on rural-urban
-3 8 -
differences because the traditional reasons for differences no longer exist. These mixed viewpoints suggest that other factors need to be examined to get a better understanding of agriculture and environmental attitudes. As Freudenburg suggested, research perhaps needs to refocus on issues of methodology and attempt to properly clarify concepts involved in the environmental discourse.
Freudenburg (1991) argued that those engaged in agriculture are more environmentally concerned than other rural residents who are non-farmers. He further suggested that there is little chance for demographic or control variables such as age, education, marital status, gender, or income to have an impact on environmental perceptions even though weaker and less consistent correlations have been reported on political party affiliation and environmental concern.
In the Netherlands, Van Dam et al. (2002) contended that rural areas “ are transforming from an agricultural productivist countryside to a multifunctional consumption space and postmodern countryside, so that differences between rural and urban areas are much reduced. However, Van Dam et al. also note that aesthetic and
“ morphological” differences such as landscape still exist. “ The traditional affective and aesthetic feelings towards rural society; the greenness of vegetation, the openness of space, fresh air, peace and quietness still pervade rural societies of Holland” (Van Dam et al. 2002:463). They suggest a human preference for living in rural areas because of the images of the countryside/rural environment - aesthetic beauty and the serene or idyllic nature of the environment.
-3 9 -
Busck (2002) argues that research issues and social debates in agriculture have moved beyond the processes involved in agricultural production, with “ increasing attention been directed towards the landscape effects of agriculture and the non- production values of the agricultural landscape”. He suggests that the demographic transformation in rural areas has meant that agricultural production per se is no longer a major pre-occupation of many rural societies.
The discussions above put into perspective the diverse range of issues in agriculture and related environmental attitudes. There are problems with categorization.
A cognitive dimension refers to general knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. To capture environmental attitudes, it is necessary to incorporate both a cognitive and a behavioral aspect. Focusing on cognition alone fails to capture behavioral aspects that are important to vested interests, including indicators of “ connectedness” to agriculture. In the United
States and other advanced societies around the world, agricultural production has long developed beyond mere production. In response, sociologists have shifted their focus to various non-productive dimensions, including the aesthetic landscape of agriculture
(Busck 2002).
Two main concepts have emerged from the literature on agro-environmentalism: the theory of differential exposure and the theory of extractive-commodity (Benneth and
Mcbeth 1998). The former argues that urban residents, being more exposed to environmental problems and/or controversies will exhibit more knowledge about environmental issues than rural residents. Extractive commodity theory simply states that
-4 0 -
if actors are associated with an extractive industry such as farming or mining, they are less likely to support environmental laws because it is not in their economic or social interest.
2.11 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study attempts to analyze the relationship between vested interest and attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues, from the theoretical frameworks of both functionalism and conflict theories. The conflict approach is used as a complement to functionalism because: (1) it explicitly focuses on conflicting interests based on people’ s location within the structure of society; and (2) the rational choice and exchange theorists give more credit to conflict than functionalist theory. Nevertheless, there is an underlying element of vested interest derived from both theories. To capture the role of vested interest in the agriculture and environmental dialogue, I use the constructs of residence, social connection and social activism. All three concepts have been used in past research, as cited above, but none of these studies have couched these concepts within a vested interest framework.
The role of residence has long been discussed among researchers, and is both the traditional and most frequently used concept for examining perceptual differences about agriculture and environmentally related issues. Many studies have argued or assumed that physical distance from farming (i.e. living in a city) is confounded with social distance from agriculture.
-4 1 -
Rural/urban residence is here used the same way, although other explicit indicators of social distance, social connectedness and social activities are also employed.
It is expected that rural residents will differ from urban residents in attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues. Although it is true that most people in rural areas of the US are not necessarily involved in farming, recent studies have shown that rural residents tend to have more positive attitudes toward agriculture and environmental issues than their urban counterparts (Freudenburg 1991). Residence is measured in three ways: (1) as a place respondents currently live; (2) as a place where respondents prefer to live; and (3) as a place where respondents spent most of their childhood.
Another concept of vested interest used in this study is social connection to agriculture and environmental issues. Social connection refers to past or present affiliation with farming and with growing food. The expectation is that those who have social connections to agriculture are more likely to hold positive perceptions of issues.
Social connection is measured by three items: (1) whether respondents’ parents ever owned or operated a farm; (2) whether respondents’ close friends own or operate a farm; and (3) whether respondents’ maintain a vegetable garden. These three items are used as elements of vested interest to test the relationship that those who have social connections to agriculture differ in perceptions from those who do not.
The third set of independent variables used in this study is social activities related to agriculture and related environmental issues. The hypothesis is that those individuals who are actively involved in issues related to agriculture and the environment will exhibit more positive attitudes than those who are not involved. Social activities are measured by
-4 2 -
five items: (1) whether respondents visit a small town or rural setting for recreational purposes; (2) whether respondents purchase farm produce at a farmer’ s market or roadside stand; (3) whether respondents visit a farm for social recreation; (4) whether respondents hunt or fish; and (5) whether respondents travel to a rural place to visit friends or relatives. All of these five items are related to vested interest.
This study attempts to address three major research questions: (1) to what extent does vested interest, as a middle-range theory, explain people’ s attitudes toward agriculture and the environment? (2) what role does social distance, as specified by vested interest theory, play in people’ s attitudes about agriculture and environment? and
(3) to what extent do people perceive environmental concern (measured by industrial activities, agricultural activities, urban sprawl, disposal of waste, use of chemicals on lawns, and logging or mining), as a set of important issues in the state of Ohio?
2.12 RESEARCH HYPOTHESES:
The first hypothesis pertains to attitudes about agriculture as they relate to vested interest as expressed through respondents’ social distance from farming. The second hypothesis deals with attitudes about agriculturally-related environmental issues as they relate to vested interest and social distance.
Hypothesis 1: Attitudes toward agriculture (measured by preservation of scenic quality of rural places, agricultural attitudes, and trust of farmer variables) will vary based on social distance (measured by residence, social connection, and social activities).
-4 3 -
In other words, people who are in closer proximity to agriculture will exhibit more positive attitudes than those who are at greater social distance to agriculture.
Hypothesis 2: Attitudes toward environmental issues (measured by the environmental concern variables) will vary based on social distance. In other words, people who are in closer proximity to environmental issues will exhibit more positive attitudes than those who are at greater social distance to such issues.
2.13 MODEL SUMMARY
Vested interest, as measured by place of residence, social connection, and social activities, is hypothesized to play a role in differential perceptions among Ohioans on a range of agricultural and related environmental issues. Figure 2.1 presents a model that summarizes the hypothesized relationships. Residence has been the traditional measure of differences and in this study, it is expected that respondents who reside in rural areas are closer to agriculture, and will therefore exhibit more positive views about agricultural issues than respondents who live farther away from farming.
Social connectivity is also seen in a similar way to residence because it deals with proximity to agriculture, but in this case, attempts to measure social proximity, not physical proximity, to agriculture. It is expected that those respondents who have social connections to agriculture will have more positive opinions about the issues than those who do not have any social connections with farming. The social activities variables measure how involved respondents are toward rural-located social and leisure activities.
-4 4 -
THE CONCEPT OF INDEPENDENT DEPENDENT VARIABLES: VESTED VARIABLES: MEASURES AGRICULTURE & INTEREST OF VESTED INTEREST ENVIRONMENT ATTITUDES
Residence Place currently live Place prefer to live Place grew up Agriculture And Environmental
Social Connection issues VESTED Parents own a farm 1) Preserve scenic INTEREST Friends own a farm quality Maintain a garden 2) Agricultural attitudes 3) Environmental attitudes 4) Trust of Farmers Social Activities Visit small town for shopping Go to rural place to visit friends Hunt or fish Visit a farm for recreation Buy farm produce at farmers market
Figure 2.1: Model of Hypothesized Relationships
-4 5 -
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION
The data used in this research are derived from the Ohio statewide survey of food, agriculture and environmental issues (Appendix), conducted by the department of Human and Community Resource Development, and funded by the Ohio State University
Extension, the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development (OARDC) and the College of Food, Agriculture and Environmental Sciences at the Ohio State University.
3.2 SAMPLING METHOD
Data were collected during June to September of 2002. Using mail survey techniques, a random probability sample of 7,976 Ohioans was drawn. The sample was stratified according to the state’ s five extension districts and metropolitan core counties.
The stratified sample provided adequate numbers of Ohioans for analysis within each extension district and for comparisons among various other sub-populations. The Dillman
(2000) tailored design method for mail questionnaires was utilized for administration of the survey. This included five contacts with each potential respondent. As an incentive to participate in each questionnaire that was mailed, two $1 bills were included. A total of
-4 6 -
4,030 Ohioans completed and returned questionnaires, for a response rate of 56%. When compared to the U.S. census, characteristics of the sample were similar to the population distribution in the state (Sharp 2003).
The sample was, however, weighted (Table 3.1) for under-representation and over-representation. After weighting the sample size was adjusted to 4,014. The analysis and results for this study are derived from the weighted sample.
STRATA POP. Pop. In each Respondents in Proportion Weight* strata each strata of sample
Metro core 2,238,424 0.6563 1407 .3506 1.87
NW Dist 214,558 .0629 541 .1348 .467
SW Dist 266,185 .0780 533 .1328 .588
South District 178,255 .0523 484 .1206 .433
East District 249,505 .0731 525 .1308 .559
NE 263,977 .0774 523 .1303 .594 District *Weight – proportion of population in each strata/proportion of sample in each strata.
TABLE 3.1: RESULTS OF THE WEIGHTED SAMPLING
3.3 OPERATIONALIZING THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
This study investigates the role vested interest plays in determining people’ s attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues in the state of Ohio. As a
-4 7 -
consequence, several independent variables representing the respondents’ socio- economic status and social interactions are expected to have an impact on these attitudes.
The standard demographic and background variables such as age, gender, education, employment and income as well as the vested interest items of residence and location, social connection to farming, and social activities (as measured by participation in rural activities), were identified in the literature review.
3.3.1 Demographic Variables
The demographic variables are as follows:
(a) age (b) sex (c) education (d) employment (e) marital status (f) income
In the literature on attitudes concerning agriculture and the environment, these standard demographic measures frequently have been found to be co-variant. Age often has a positive relationship to agriculture and environmental attitudes: older people are more likely to hold positive views about agriculture and environmental issues, possibly because they had more experience with farming in their childhood. The same relationship exists with the education variable; educated respondents are expected to be more knowledgeable about the issues than their less educated counterparts.
For the regression analysis, in some cases, dummy variables were created and some independent variables were truncated or categories combined. Since age, education and
-4 8 -
gross household income are continuous variables, the original categories were used in the analysis (i.e. number of years of age, number of years of education and amount of income respectively). For gender, female was chosen as the reference category and coded zero.
The status of employment was originally classed in five categories:
(a) Employed full-time (b) Employed part-time (c) Retired (d) Full-time homemaker (e) Student (f) Unemployed
These six items were truncated into two categories, employed or not-employed, to avoid skewing data in the direction of employed full-time. Those who are employed full- time and part-time were truncated into a new category called “ employed”. Those respondents who were retired, full-time home makers, students, or the unemployed were collapsed into a new category called “ unemployed”. The dummy for the employment category was “ employed” . Table 3.2 shows that 67% of respondents are currently employed full-time or part-time.
The marital status variables were first classed in five categories:
(a) now married (b) living together (c) never married (d) divorced/separated (e) widowed/widower
These five categories were combined into two items; “ married” or “ not married”. Marital status was disproportionately skewed in the direction of currently “ married” (63.4%). The first two categories, those who are “ now married” or “ living together” were combined
-4 9 -
into a new category called ‘married’ and all other categories were combined into a category called “ not married” . “ Married” was used as a dummy for the marital status variable and coded zero.
-5 0 -
Actual Number Percent Marital status Married 1934 64.7 Not-married 1057 35.3 Employment status Employed 2020 67.5 Not employed 971 32.5 Place currently live Currently lives in a city 669 22.4 Currently lives in a suburb 737 24.6 Prefer to live in a small town 792 26.5 Currently lives in a countryside 638 21.3 Currently lives on a farm 155 5.2 Place prefer to live Prefer to live in a city 306 10.2 Prefer to live in a suburb 609 20.4 Prefer to live in a small town 644 21.5 Prefer to live in the countryside 1113 37.2 Prefer to live on a farm 319 10.7 Place grew up Grew up in a city 763 25.5 Grew up in a suburb 523 17.5 Grew up in a Small town 818 27.3 Grew up in the countryside 425 14.2 Grew up on a farm 462 15.4 Parents own or operate a farm No 2188 73.2 Yes 803 26.8 Close friends own or operate farm No 1758 58.8 Yes 1233 41.2 Maintain vegetable garden No 1644 55.0 Yes 1347 45.0 Gross Household Income Less than $9,999 97 3.2 $10,000-$19,999 327 10.9 $20,000-$34,999 590 19.7 $35,000-$49,999 543 18.2 $50,000-$74,999 736 24.6 $75,000-$99,999 351 11.7 $>$100,000 347 11.6 N=2991
Table 3.2: Frequency Distribution of Other Independent Variables -5 1 -
3.3.2 Vested Interest Variables
Social distance variables were chosen on the middle-range theory of vested interest and measured by residence, social connection and social activities.
The next group of vested interest independent variables measured the level of social connection to agriculture and response category was reduced to two groups: (1)
Yes (those who have at least one connection); and (2) No (those with zero social connections to farming), by scoring one for respondents’ with a farm connection and zero for non-farm connection.
The final vested interest variable examined in this model is social activities. The original variable included four items. A factor analysis was conducted with all factors loading above a 0.4 cut-off. A reliability test was also conducted which yielded a
Cronbach’ s Alpha of 0.629, which is slightly below 0.650, the generally accepted level for reliability. However, the decision was made to treat this as a scale (Table 3.3). The four items were combined into a new scale, a measure of respondents’ level of participation in rural social activities.
-5 2 -
Social Activities Scale Alpha=.629
Visit small town for recreational shopping/sightseeing .695
Travel to a rural place to visit friends/relatives .718
Visit a farm for social recreational reasons .713
Purchase farm produce at farmers market or roadside stand .622 Standard cut-off point of .4 for factor loadings
Table 3.3: Factor Loadings for the Social Activities Scale
3.4 OPERATIONALIZING THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Utilizing questions in the survey that were originally developed for other purposes, four scales were constructed to measure the dependent variables:
(1) preservation of the scenic quality of rural places; (2) agricultural attitudes; (3) environmental concern; and (4) trust of Ohio farmers to protect the environment.
3.4.1 Preservation of Scenic Quality of Rural Places
The preservation of scenic quality scale consists of two items that ask respondents to determine on a Likert-type scale what they think about preservation of farmland and open space, from a response category of “ not important” to “ important” . The item read:
Q. There are many reasons for preserving farmland and open space. Please rate on a scale of 1 to 7 (1 =not important, 7 =very important) how important each of the reasons are for protecting farmland and other underdeveloped land in Ohio
(a) Preserve scenic quality of rural places (b) Preserve rural character of countryside.
-5 3 -
A factor analysis was conducted on these two items to determine if they measured a single attitudinal dimension, as indeed seems to be the case (see Table 3.4). A single summated scale, when subjected to a reliability test utilizing Cronbach’ s Alpha, produced a reliability score of 0.836.
-5 4 -
Survey items Factor loadings Preservation of Scenic Quality Scale Alpha=.836 Preserve the scenic quality of rural places .925 Preserve the rural character of countryside .925 Agricultural Attitudes Scale Alpha=.735 Ohio economy will suffer if the state continues to lose farmers .764 Ohio’ s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture .762 Overall, farming positively contributes to the economy of Ohio .756 The loss of farmland is acceptable if it creates econ growth and jobs .502 There should be limits on residential development in Ohio .769 Trust of Farmer Alpha=.592 I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment .669 Ohio farmer are generally sensitive to concerns of non-farm neighbor’ s .478 Environmental protection laws regulating farming are too on laws .523 Environmental Concern Scale Alpha=.728 Industrial activities .695 Agricultural activities .519 Urban sprawl .658 Disposal of waste in landfills .663 Residential use of chemicals on lawns .691 Logging or mining .685 Standard cut-off point of 0.4 for factor loadings
Table 3.4: Factor Loadings for all Dependent Scaled Items.
-5 5 -
3.4.2 Agricultural Attitudes
An agricultural attitudes scale utilized five items in a Likert-type scale with response categories ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree (Table 3.4). The question asked to measure agricultural attitudes had a five part response pattern as follows: (see appendix, survey question # 5).
Q. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements related to agriculture and the environment by circling the appropriate numbered responses.
a) Ohio’ s economy will suffer if the State continues to lose farmers. b) Ohio’ s most productive farmland should be preserved for agriculture c) Overall, farming positively contributes to the quality of life in Ohio. d) The Loss of farmland is acceptable if it creates economic growth & jobs. e) There should be Limits on residential development to protect farmland.
The factor analysis on the five items indicates unidimensionality, when using a cut- off point of 0.4 or greater as factor indicators. A Cronbach’ s Alpha of (0.735) was obtained, which is above the 0.65 cut-off point.
3.4.3 Trust of Farmer
Three items address the issue of trust of farmers on a Likert-type scale that ranged from: strongly disagree to strongly agree (see appendix, survey question # 5).
Q. Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements related to agriculture and the environment by circling the appropriate numbered responses.
a) I trust Ohio farmers to protect the environment b) Ohio farmers are generally sensitive to the concerns of non-farm neighbors. c) Environmental protection laws regulating farming are too strict.
-5 6 -
Cronbach’ s Alpha was 0.592 below the acceptable level of 0.650 (Table 3.4). The consequent inability to create a one-dimensional scale, meant that trust of farmer was not used as a dependent variable. However, each item was used separately.
3.4.4 Environmental Concern
The environmental concern scale was created utilizing six environmental risk factors in response categories ranging in degree over a seven-point response from, none to serious. (see appendix, survey question # 5B).
Q. We would like to know how much risk you think the following activities or issues pose to Ohio’s environmental quality and natural resources. For example, if you think industrial activities pose no environmental risk, circle 1; if you think industrial activities pose serious risk, circle 7.
a) Industrial activities b) Agricultural activities c) Urban sprawl d) Disposal of waste in landfills e) Residential use of chemicals on lawns f) Logging or mining
Factor analysis (Table 3.4) shows a Cronbach’ s Alpha of 0.728, which indicates the scale is reliable.
The descriptive statistics for each item in each scale, plus the scale scores are shown in Tables 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7. Graphic representations of these variables are also presented in Figures 3.1 to 3.7. Average age is 49 years and the youngest and oldest respondents were 18 and 94 years, respectively (Table 3.5). Average years of education attained is about 14 years so that most respondents have more than a high school
-5 7 -
education (Table 3.5). There are slightly more males than females in the sample (51.4%).
Tables 3.6 and 3.7 present the scale description of all variables in the model. Preservation of the rural character of countryside and environmental concern show higher means (see
Table 3.5).
-5 8 -
Demographics MEAN S.D MAX MIN Age 49.42 15.613 94 18 Education 13.96 2.636 27. 0.0 Residence Currently lives in a city .2237 .41677 0 1 Currently lives in a suburb .2464 .43099 0 1 Currently lives in the countryside .2133 .40971 0 1 Currently lives on a farm .0518 .22170 0 1 Prefer to live in a city .1023 .30310 0 1 Prefer to live in a suburb .2036 .40275 0 1 Prefer to live in the countryside .3721 .48345 0 1 Prefer to live on a farm .1067 .30872 0 1 Grew up in a city .2551 .43599 0 1 Grew up in a suburb .1749 .37991 0 1 Grew up in the countryside .1421 .34920 0 1 Grew up on a farm .1545 .36145 0 1 Social connection variables Parents ever owned/operate a farm .27 .443 0 1 Close friends own/operate a farm .41 .492 0 1 Maintain vegetable garden in household .45 .498 0 1 Social activities variables Visit a small town for recreational sightseeing 2.82 .829 1 4 Travel to rural place to visit friends/relatives 2.74 .863 1 4 Visit a farm for social/recreational reasons 1.90 .897 1 4 Purchase farm produce at a farmer’ s market 2.83 817 1 4 N=2991
Table 3.5: Means and Standard Deviations for Independent Variables in Model.
-5 9 -
Rural character of countryside MEANS S.D. Min Max
Preserve scenic quality of rural places 5.89 1.281 1 7
Preserve rural character of countryside 5.77 1.352 1 7
Agricultural attitudes
Economy will suffer if state continues to lose farmers 4.13 .864 1 5 productive farmland should be preserved for Agriculture 4.42 .716 1 5
Farming positively contributes to the quality of life 4.40 .664 1 5
Loss of farmland acceptable if it creates econ growth
Limits on residential development to protect farmland 4.22 0.867 1 5
Individual trust of farmer variables
I trust Ohio farmers to protect environment 3.67 .991 1 5
Environment protection laws about farming too strict 3.08 .876 1 5
Farmers sensitive to the concerns of non-farm neighbors 3.44 .823 1 5
Environmental Risk variable
Industrial activities 5.54 1.393 1 7
Agricultural activities 3.62 1.548 1 7
Urban sprawl 5.20 1.475 1 7
Disposal of waste in landfills 5.94 1.332 1 7
Residential use of chemicals on lawns 5.10 1.542 1 7
Logging/Mining 4.99 1.583 1 7
N=2991
Table 3.6: Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables in the Model.
-6 0 -
Dependent variables Means S.D Min Max
Rural character of countryside variable 5.8312 1.22026 1 7
Preserve scenic quality of rural places 1 7
Preserve rural character of countryside 1 7
Agricultural attitudes variable 4.1319 .59026 1 5
Economy will suffer if state loses farmers 1 5
Productive farmland preserved for agriculture 1 5
Farming positively contributes to quality of life 1 5
Loss of farmland acceptable if it creates economic growth 1 5
Limits on residential development to protect farmland 1 5
Environmental concern variable 5.0639 .96470 1 7
Industrial activities 1 7
Agricultural activities 1 7
Urban sprawl 1 7
Disposal of waste in landfills 1 7
Residential use of chemicals on lawns 1 7
Logging/Mining 1 7
Social Activities toward Agriculture 2.460 .60417 1 4
Visit a small town for recreational shopping 1 4
Travel to a rural place to visit friends/relatives 1 4
Visit a farm for social/recreational reasons 1 4
Purchase farm at produce at farmers market or roadside 1 4
N=2991
Table 3.7: Means and Standard Deviations of all Scales in the Model
-6 1 -
30
25
20 t n e
c 15 r Series1 e P
10
5
0 city suburb small town countryside farm Currently live
Figure 3.1: Place Respondent Currently Lives
In terms of the place where respondents currently live (Figure 3.1), those who currently live in small towns were the largest percentage of respondents, a reason why it was chosen as the reference category. Farm residents constituted the smallest proportion of respondents in any category. This residential distribution in the sample mimics the actual population of the state in terms of urban and rural residence.
-6 2 -
40
35
30
25 t n e
c 20
r Series1 e P
15
10
5
0 city suburb small town countryside farm Prefer to live
Figure 3.2: Place Respondent Prefers to Live
Figure 3.2 shows the preferred place of residence for respondents in this survey.
The results confirm current trends. A majority of the respondents preferred to live in the countryside.
-6 3 -
30
25
20 t n e c
r 15 Series1 e P
10
5
0 city suburb small town countryside farm Place grew up
Figure 3.3: Place Respondent Grew Up
Figure 3.3 demonstrates the place where respondents spent most of their childhood, most often a small town or a city. Those who grew up in the countryside or on farms made up the smallest percentages of the sample.
30
25
20 t n e c
r 15 Series1 e P
10
5
0 <9999 10000-19999 20000-34999 35000-49999 50000-74999 74000-99999 100000+ Gross household income Figure 3.4: Gross Household Income of Respondents.
-6 4 -
Figure 3.4 shows distribution of gross household income among respondents.
Almost one in four respondents earned between $50,000-$75,000 and less than 3% of respondents earned below $10,000 annually. A majority of respondents fell in the earning range of $20,000 and $75,000. Social connection variables measured three items: whether respondent’ s parents ever owned or operated a farm (figure 3.5), whether respondent’ s close friends own or operate a farm (figure 3.6), and whether respondent maintains vegetable garden in household (figure 3.7). The response categories were reduced to two: those who answered yes or no to any of these social connection variables. As shown below, 73% of respondent’ s parents never owned or operated a farm, 58.8% never had close friends who owned or operated a farm, and 55% never maintained a vegetable garden at household (figures: 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7)
yes no
Figures 3.5: Did Respondent’s Parents Ever Own or Operate a Farm?
-6 5 -
yes no
Figure 3.6: Does Respondent’s Close Friends Own or Operate a Farm?
yes no
Figure 3.7: Does Anyone in Respondent’s Household Maintain a Vegetable Garden?
-6 6 -
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
In this study, the relationship between vested interest, measured by residence, social activities and social connectivity, is analyzed using the Ohio Survey of Food,
Agriculture, and Environmental issues. It is a statewide representative sample of 4,031 randomly selected Ohio households. The final sample size was reduced to 2,991 because of the use of listwise deletion, which is the exclusion of all respondents with a missing value on any given variable in the analysis. Therefore, the number of observations for each analysis is identical.
This research hypothesizes that the three indicators of vested interest namely - residence, social connection and social activities - indicate differences in attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues.
A regression analysis was conducted for all dependent variables in the scales for preservation of scenic quality, agricultural attitudes, environmental concern, and the individual items for trust of farmer (trusting farmers to protect the environment, sensitivity of farmers to the concerns of non-farm neighbors, and attitudes towards environmental regulation laws). These dependent items were regressed on all the independent items in the model. The statistical package for social science (SPSS) was
-6 7 -
used for the analysis. The model was significant at the 0.01 level. This chapter deals with a discussion of the bivariate and multi-variate correlations among dependent and independent variables in the model.
4.1 RESULTS OF THE BIVARIATE CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Table 4.1 presents bivariate correlations of the independent variables in the model. This section first gives the results of the bivariate correlations of the six dependent variables against all the independent variables in the model, and then presents the results of the bivariate correlations of the dependent variables with other dependent variables in the model. The associations presented in Table 4.1 indicate that many independent variables are significantly related to the dependent variables.
4.1.1 CORRELATES OF PRESERVATION OF SCENIC QUALITY VARIABLE
Table 4.1 (column 1) presents bivariate correlations of preservation of scenic quality of rural areas and all the independent variables in the model. The result suggests initial support for the hypothesis. Among the demographic variables, age, marital status, and employment status have a significant and positive effect on the preservation of scenic quality, while years of schooling, gender and gross income are significantly but negatively related to the preservation of scenic quality. In terms of current residence, only those who live in the countryside and suburb had a significant but contrary association with the preservation of scenic quality of rural areas. Those who reside in suburbs were negatively associated with the preservation variable, while those who live in the
-6 8 -
countryside agreed with the preservation variable. When preferred residence variable is considered, there is more support for the hypothesis. Those who prefer to live in the city and suburb show negative and significant associations with the preservation of scenic quality of rural areas. However, those who prefer to live in the countryside had a positive and significant relationship with the preservation variable. The variable for place where respondent grew up had no significant relationship with the preservation variable.
Some social connection variables have positive effects on the preservation of scenic quality variable, but only among those whose close friends own a farm and those who maintain a vegetable garden in household have positive and significant effects on the preservation variable.
All the social activities variables presented in Table 4.1 are positive and significantly associated with the preservation variable: respondents who take part in activities that are in closer proximity to agriculture are more likely to agree with the preservation of the scenic beauty of rural areas.
-6 9 -
Scenic Agric. Environ Trust of farmer Envir. Quality Attitude Concern Farmers Sensitivity .laws Scale Scale Scale Item Item Item Age .057** .128** .086** .118** .086** .100** Education -.083** -.123 .037* -.223** -.046* -.171** Gender (female %) -.115** -.096** -.108** -.077** -.052** -.013 Married .071** .082** .069** .050** .030 .052** Employed .005 .057** .033 .062** .043* .000 Gross income -.101** -.138** -.038* -.178** -.067** -.097** Place currently live City .003 -.004 .036 .043*- -.007 .026 Suburb -.044* -.092** -.013 -.072** -.078** -.033 Countryside .072** .068** .017 .032 .068** .013 Farm -.010 .072** -.009 .074** .083** .076** Place prefer to live City -.071** -.081** -.003 -.033 -.037* -.039* Suburb -.125** -.166** -.053** -.087** -.087* -.053** Countryside .145** .094** .046* .027 .020 .003 Farm .019 .137** .001 .128** .108** .130** Place grew up City -.004 -.012 .030 .004 -.044* -.001 Suburb -.025 -.087** -.011 -.107** -.078** -.068** Countryside .032 .027 -.022 .020 .009 .013 Farm .001 .098** -.022 .120** .104** .102** Social connection Parent own a farm .008 .091** -.022 .097** .079** .087** Friends own a farm .037* .106** .013 .087** .122** .066** Maintain garden .067** .074** .061** .015 .053** -.015 Social activities scale Visit small town for .174** .159** .082** .088** .089** .063** recreation Travel to rural to visit .101** .127** .056** .094** .107** .042* friends Visit a farm for recreation .123** .130** .057** .078** .106** .052** Purchase farm produce .183** .185** .132** .089** .099** .063**
*** Significant at the 0.001 level of probability ** Significant at the 0.05 level of probability
Table 4.1: Bivariate Correlations of Dependent and Independent Variables
-7 0 -
4.1.2 CORRELATES OF AGRICULTURAL ATTITUDES VARIABLES
The agricultural attitudes variables exhibit patterns similar to the preservation of scenic quality variable as discussed above. Among the demographic items, age, marital status, and employment status have positive effects on agricultural attitudes (Table 4.1 column 2). Female gender and gross household income are negatively and significantly associated with the overall attitude toward agriculture.
In terms of current residence, only those who live in the countryside, suburb or farm have significant but contrary associations with the agricultural attitudes variable.
Suburban residence was negatively associated with the agricultural attitudes variable, while countryside or farm residence was positively associated with the agricultural attitudes variable. This suggests initial support for the hypothesis that those who have vested interest in agriculture (by physical proximity) exhibit more positive attitudes towards agricultural issues than those who are physically far removed from agriculture.
In terms of preferred place of residence, all items are significantly associated with the agricultural attitudes variable. Those respondents who prefer to live in the city and suburb have negative and significant associations with the agricultural attitudes variable, while those respondents who prefer to live in the countryside and farms have a positive and significant association with the agricultural attitudes variable. Again, this suggests initial support for the vested interest hypothesis: that preferred physical proximity to agriculture influences attitudes. Only two items connected with the place where respondent grew up were significantly associated with the agricultural attitudes variable.
Suburban residence in childhood had a negative effect on the agricultural attitudes
-7 1 -
variable while farm residence in childhood had a positive association. Again, there is some support for the hypothesis on place of childhood residence.
All the social connection variables have positive effects on the agricultural attitudes variable and the effects were statistically significant. Those who have at least one social connection to agriculture exhibit more positive attitudes towards agricultural issues than those who have no social connections to agriculture. The same is true for all the social activities variables, which also have significantly positive relationships with the agricultural attitudes variable: those who participate in activities related to rural society and farming are more likely to hold positive views about the issues than those who do not participate in such activities (see column 2).
4.1.3 CORRELATES OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Table 4.1 (column 3) presents bivariate correlations for the summated environmental concern scale and all the independent variables in the model. The results of the bivariate analysis continue to show initial support for the hypothesis. Among the demographic variables age, education and marital status, have positive and significant effects on overall environmental concern. Female gender and gross household income were negatively and significantly associated with the environmental concern variable.
Among the residence variables, current place of residence has no significant association with the environmental concern variable. Among the preferred place of residence items, only suburban and countryside residence have significant associations with the environmental concern variable in negative and positive directions, respectively,
-7 2 -
again in partial support of hypothesis. Place respondent grew up had no significant effect on the environmental concern variable.
Among the social connection variables, maintaining a vegetable garden has a significantly positive association with the environmental concern variable. The other two social connection items were non-significant.
Finally, the social activities variables showed support of hypothesis. All social activities related to agriculture have a positive effect on environmental attitudes (see
Table 4.1, column 3).
4.1.4 CORRELATES OF TRUST OF FARMER
Table 4.1 (column 4) gives bivariate correlations of the respondents’ trust of farmers. When respondents were asked if they trusted Ohio farmers to protect the environment, responses were mixed. All the demographic variables have a significant association with the trust of farmer variable. However, years of education, female gender, and higher gross household income have negatively significant associations with trust of farmers while age, marital status, and employment status have significantly positive effects on trust of farmers.
Among the residence variables the results are mixed. Currently residing in the city or living on a farm have positive associations, while living in the suburb has a negative association with trust of farmer. Amongst the preferred place of residence items, only those respondents who prefer to live in suburbs and on farms have a significant but contrary association with trust of farmer. Those who prefer to live in suburbs were
-7 3 -
significantly more negative on trust of farmers, while those who live on farms were significantly more positive. Place respondent grew up behaves in a similar fashion. Those who grew up in the suburbs were significantly more negative than those who grew up on farms in trusting farmers to protect the environment.
Among the social connection variables, those whose parents own a farm and those whose close friends own a farm have significantly positive associations with the issue of trusting farmers. This supports the hypothesis that those who have social connections to agriculture will tend to exhibit positive attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues.
All the social activities variables have significantly positive relationships with trust of farmer. Those who take part in activities related to farming and rural society will exhibit more positive attitudes about the issues than those who do not take in any rural- related social activities (Table 4.1, column 4).
4.1.5 CORRELATES OF FARMERS SENSITIVITY TO NON-FARM NEIGHBORS
Table 4.1 (column 5) shows bivariate correlations for the variable that asked if
Ohio farmers were generally sensitive to the concerns of non-farm neighbors. Among the demographic variables, age and employment have significantly positive effects on sensitivity, while education, female gender and higher gross household income have negative effects on the sensitivity item.
-7 4 -
Among the residence variables, currently residing in a suburb has a significantly negative association with farmers’ sensitivity, while residing in the countryside or on a farm have significantly positive associations (Table 4.1 column 5). Among the preferred place of residence items, a preference for cities and suburbs has a significant negative association with farmers’ sensitivity, while preference for farm living has a significantly positive association with farmers’ sensitivity. Again, the suggestion is that those with vested interest do hold positive attitudes toward agriculture and related environmental issues. The item on “ place respondent grew up” shows a similar pattern: those who grew up in the cities and suburbs were significantly more negative than those who grew up on farms about farmers’ sensitivity, in support for the vested interest hypothesis.
All the social connection variables have significantly positive effects on the sensitivity of farmers (Table 4.1, column 5). Those respondents who have social connections to agriculture through family or friends are likely to trust Ohio farmers to be more sensitive to the concerns of their non-farm neighbors.
Furthermore, with the exception of hunting and fishing, all the social activities variables have significantly positive effects on the sensitivity of farmers to the concerns of non-farm neighbors. Once again, those who partake in activities related to agriculture were more trusting of farmers to be sensitive to their neighbors.
-7 5 -
4.1.6 CORRELATES OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF FARMING
Table 4.1 (column 6) presents bivariate correlations for the dependent variable that asks whether environmental laws regulating farming are too strict. Again the results show a similar demographic pattern: age and marital status have significantly positive effects on the perception that environmental regulation of farming was too strict. Years of education and higher gross household income have significantly negative effects, so that these respondents are less likely to agree that environmental regulations on farming are too strict.
Among the residence variables, results were mixed. Only currently residence on a farm has a significant relationship and the direction of association is positive. As expected, these respondents tend to agree that environmental laws regulating farming are too strict (Table 4.1, column 6). Among the preferred place of residence items, those respondents who prefer to live in cities and suburbs have a significantly negative association, meaning that they do not see environmental laws regulating farming as too strict. However, those who prefer to reside on farms hold a more positive attitude about environmental laws, meaning that they do view environmental laws regulating farming as too strict.
Among the social connection variables, those whose parents owned a farm and those whose close friends own a farm have significantly positive effects on the environmental regulation variable. Those in closer social proximity to agriculture will exhibit positive views about agriculture and tend to see environmental regulations on
-7 6 -
farming as too strict. All the social activities variables showed significantly positive effects on the environmental regulation variable with implications similar to those for social proximity (Table 4.1, column 6).
Dependent variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
Preserve scenic quality 1.00
Agricultural attitudes .465** 1.00
Environment concern .304** .330** 1.00
Trust of farmers .246** .348** -.041* 1.00
Farmer sensitivity .159** .228** -.008 .370** 1.00
Environmental protection laws .069** .167** -.090** .656** .223** 1.00
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .001 level
TABLE 4.2: Inter-Correlations of Dependent Variables
The inter-correlations among the dependent variables were statistically significant, and were generally of a higher magnitude than the relationships between them and the various independent variables (see Table 4.2). Agricultural attitudes have a significant positive correlation with the preservation of scenic quality. Environmental concern was also significantly positively associated with the preservation of scenic quality and agricultural attitudes. The trust in farmers to protect the environment variable also has a significant positive association with scenic quality and agricultural attitudes, but has a significantly negative association with environmental concern. Farmer -7 7 -
sensitivity and environmental protection laws regulating farming both had significantly positive associations with all other dependent items except for environmental concern.
4.2 RESULTS OF THE MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
Because the relationships between the six dependent variables and all the independent variables are significant but the level of magnitude of the zero order correlations was low, multiple regression analysis was used to determine the amount of variance explained by the independent variables. This analysis was conducted for the three scales and the three individual trust of farmer dependent items in the model.
4.2.1 REGRESSION MODEL FOR PRESERVATION OF SCENIC QUALITY
Table 4.3 presents the results of the multiple regression for the preservation of scenic quality variable, while simultaneously controlling for all the independent variables. Age, female gender, employment status, and gross household income have significant relationships with the preservation question. However, only age has a positive effect on scenic quality; as age increases, agreement with the preservation of rural areas for scenic quality increases. Females were significantly more negative than males on the question of preservation of scenic quality. Also, as gross household income increases, agreement with preservation of scenic quality decreases.
Among the residence variables, respondents who currently live in the city and suburbs were significantly positive on preservation of scenic quality of rural areas, while those who prefer to live in a city or suburb were significantly more negative on
-7 8 -
preservation of scenic quality. Those who prefer to live in the countryside were significantly more positive on preservation of scenic quality (Table 4.3). This result supports the vested interest hypothesis in that physical proximity to agriculture tends to coincide with positive attitudes.
Even though the social connection variables were not significant, the direction of association was negative, which means that those with social connections to farming do not agree with the preservation of scenic quality of rural areas. However, social activities show a strong positive and significant association with preservation of scenic quality.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.3, the strongest predictor of agreement on preservation of scenic quality of rural areas is social activities The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.086, meaning that 8.6% of the variance in preservation of scenic quality can be explained by this model. The standard error of estimate was 1.16825, the model f-value was 13.7, and the model is significant at the 0.5 level.
-7 9 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .008*** .099 .002 4.575 Sex (female=0) -.303*** -.124 .045 -6.792 Education completed -.007 -.015 .009 -.732 Married .083 .032 .051 1.605 Employed -.132** -.051 .056 -2.345 Gross household Income -.052*** -.068 .017 -3.008 Currently lives in the city .189*** .065 .074 2.554 Currently lives in a suburb .207*** .073 .076 2.721 Currently lives in countryside .071 .024 .075 .941 Currently lives on a farm -.028 -.005 .133 -.210 Prefer to live in city -.260*** -.065 .096 -2.712 Prefer to live in suburb -.290*** -.096 .082 -3.539 Prefer to live in countryside .187*** .074 .070 2.669 Prefer to live on a farm .110 .028 .107 1.027 Grew up in a city .025 .009 .064 .396 Grew up in a suburb .051 .016 .071 .713 Grew up in the countryside -.051 -.015 .074 -.688 Grew up on a farm -.120 -.035 .088 -1.365 Parents own/operate a farm -.026 -.010 .064 -.413 Close friends own/operate farm -.059 -.024 .049 -.1.204 Maintain vegetable garden .066 .027 .045 1.465 Social Activities .399*** .186 .043 9.244
R-Square .093
S.E.E. 1.16825
Model F-value 13.701
Adjusted R-Squared .086
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .001 level
Table 4.3: Regression Model for the Preservation of Scenic Quality
-8 0 -
4.2.2 REGRESSION MODEL FOR AGRICULTURAL ATTITUDES
Table 4.4 presents the multiple regression analysis for agricultural attitudes. Age, female gender and gross household income have significant associations with agricultural attitudes. As age increased, agreement with agricultural attitudes increased. Females were significantly less positive than males on agricultural attitudes. Also, as gross household income increased, respondents displayed more positive agricultural attitudes.
Among residence variables, residency among those who currently live in cities and suburbs, as well as those who prefer to live on farms was significantly positively related to agricultural attitudes. However, residency for those who prefer to live in cities or suburbs was significantly negatively associated with agricultural attitudes. Those who prefer to live on a farm were significantly more positive toward agricultural attitudes than those who prefer living in a small town. Growing up on a farm or countryside, preferring to live in the countryside, and currently living in the countryside all have positive effects on agricultural attitudes as expected, but these effects are not statistically significant.
Even though social connection variables were not significant in this model, the directions of associations are positive. The social activities variable showed a significantly positive association with agricultural attitudes.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.4, the strongest predictor of agricultural attitudes is social activities. The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.113, meaning that 11.3% of the variance in agricultural attitudes could be explained by this model. The standard error of estimate was 0.555, the model f-value was 18.17, and the model is significant at the 0.5 level.
-8 1 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .005*** .132 .001 6.215 Sex (female=0) -.138*** -.117 .021 -6.536 Education completed -.007 -.030 .004 -1.545 Married .044 .036 .024 1.792 Employed -.020 -.016 .027 -.755 Gross household Income -.025*** -.068 .008 -3.016 Currently lives in the city .086** .061 .035 2.446 Currently lives in a suburb .081** .059 .036 2.242 Currently lives in countryside .012 .008 .036 .338 Currently lives on a farm -.038 -.014 .063 -595 Prefer to live in city -.159*** -.082 .046 -3.498 Prefer to live in suburb -.184*** -.126 .039 -4.720 Prefer to live in countryside .042 .034 .033 1.245 Prefer to live on a farm .204*** .107 .051 4.011 Grew up in a city .031 .023 .030 1.008 Grew up in a suburb -.004 -.002 .034 -.112 Grew up in the countryside .003 .002 .035 .079 Grew up on a farm .010 .006 .042 .244 Parents own/operate a farm .009 .007 .030 .291 Close friends own/operate farm .020 .017 .023 .873 Maintain vegetable garden .021 .018 .022 .966 Social Activities .164*** .159 .020 8.006
R-Square .119
S.E.E. .55477
Model F-value 18.166
Adjusted R-Squared .113
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .01 level
Table 4.4: Regression Model for Agricultural Attitudes
-8 2 -
4.2.3 REGRESSION MODEL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
Table 4.5 gives the multiple regression analysis for environmental concern.
Among the demographic variables, age, gender and education have significant associations with environmental concern. As age increased, agreement with environmental concern also increased. Female gender showed a significantly positive association with environmental concern. Also, as level of education increased, environmental concern increased.
Among the residence variables only current residency in the city had a significant effect on environmental concern, and the direction of the effect is positive. As hypothesized, those who reside in cities, who tend to be in physical proximity to environmental issues, also tend to see environmental concern as a major problem. The other residence and social connection variables do not have significant associations with environmental concern even though the directions of the effects were mostly negative
(see Table 4.5). The social activities variable had a significantly positive effect on environmental concern; those who partake in rural social activities were likely to be positive on environmental concern.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.5, the strongest predictors of environmental concern were social activities and gender. The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.045, meaning that only 5% of the variance in environmental concern could be explained by this model. The standard error of estimate was 0.944, the model f-value was 7.30, and the model was significant at the 0.5 level.
-8 3 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .008*** .123 .001 5.605 Sex (female=0) -.230*** -.119 .036 -6.393 Education completed .030*** .081 .007 3.984 Married .064 .031 .042 1.530 Employed -.030 -.015 .046 -.658 Gross household Income -.016 -.027 .014 -1.144 Currently lives in the city .161*** .069 .060 2.686 Currently lives in a suburb .113 .051 .061 1.842 Currently lives in countryside .055 .023 .061 .912 Currently lives on a farm .010 .002 .108 .091 Prefer to live in city -.059 -.018 .077 -.757 Prefer to live in suburb -.118 -.049 .066 -1.778 Prefer to live in countryside .073 .036 .057 1.278 Prefer to live on a farm .078 .025 .087 .897 Grew up in a city .012 .005 .052 .230 Grew up in a suburb -.016 -.006 .057 -.280 Grew up in the countryside -.112 -.040 .060 -1.866 Grew up on a farm -.122 -.046 .071 -1.725 Parents own/operate a farm -.047 -.022 .052 -.907 Close friends own/operate farm -.022 -.011 .040 -.557 Maintain vegetable garden .085 .044 .037 2.312 Social Activities .196*** .115 .035 5.607 R-Square .052
S.E.E. .94404
Model F-value 7.304
Adjusted R-Squared .045
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .01 level
Table 4.5: Regression Model for Environmental Concern
-8 4 -
4.2.4 REGRESSION MODEL FOR TRUST OF FARMER
Table 4.6 presents the multiple regression analysis for trust of farmers. Age has a significantly positive association with trust of farmers. Older respondents were more likely to believe that farmers could be trusted to protect the environment. Females were significantly less trusting of farmers than males. Education was negatively associated with trust of farmers. Also, as income increased, there was significantly less trust of farmers. Among the residence variables, current residency in the city had a significantly positive association with trust of farmers, which means that city residents tend to trust farmers to protect the environment. However, the preferred residence item indicated that those who prefer to live in the city were significantly more negative on trusting farmers, while farm residency is significantly positively associated with trust of farmers. This result supports the hypothesis that physical residence plays a role in attitudinal differences among people. Among the social connection variables only respondents whose close friends own and operate a farm had a significantly positive tendency on trust of farmers. The social activities variable also has a significantly positive effect on trust of farmers, meaning that those who take part in rural social activities were likely to trust farmers to protect the environment.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.6, the strongest predictors of trust of farmers were education, social activities, and gender. The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.096. The standard error of estimate was 0.940, the model f-value was 15.30, and the model was significant at the 0.5 level.
-8 5 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .006*** .093 .001 4.330 Sex (female=0) -.180*** -.091 .036 -5.032 Education completed -.057*** -.152 .007 -7.705 Married -.082** -.039 .041 -1.969 Employed -.049 -.023 .045 -1.078 Gross household Income -.064*** -.105 .014 -4.634 Currently lives in the city .247*** .104 .060 4.149 Currently lives in a suburb .114 .050 .061 1.855 Currently lives in countryside .032 .013 .060 .530 Currently lives on a farm -.084 -.019 .107 -.784 Prefer to live in city -.183** -.056 .077 -2.366 Prefer to live in suburb -.067 -.027 .066 -1.015 Prefer to live in countryside -.053 -.026 .056 -.944 Prefer to live on a farm .199** .062 .086 2.307 Grew up in a city .037 .016 .052 .725 Grew up in a suburb .018 .007 .057 .307 Grew up in the countryside .111 .039 .060 1.867 Grew up on a farm .085 .031 .071 1.206 Parents own/operate a farm .056 .025 .052 1.078 Close friends own/operate farm .078** .039 .039 1.964 Maintain vegetable garden -.034 -.017 .036 -.927 Social Activities .178*** .103 .035 5.127 R-Square .102
S.E.E. .940
Model F-value 15.297
Adjusted R-Squared .096
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .01 level
Table 4.6: Regression Model for Trust of Farmers to Protect the Environment
-8 6 -
4.2.5 REGRESSION OF FARMERS SENSITIVE TO NON-FARM NEIGHBORS
Table 4.7 presents the multiple regression analysis for sensitivity of Ohio farmers for the concerns of non-farm neighbors. Among demographic variables, age was significantly and positively associated. Older people were more positive about the sensitivity of farmers toward neighbors. Females were significantly less positive about trusting farmers than males. Among the residence variables, respondents who currently live in the city and those who live in the countryside held similar significantly positive views about the sensitivity of farmers.
Among the social connection variables, those whose close friends own and operate a farm held views that were significantly and positively associated with sensitivity of farmers. As in all the other models, social activities have a significantly positive association with the sensitivity of farmers. This result supports the vested interest theory that those who take part in activities related to agriculture and rural society were more positive about the sensitivity of Ohio farmers to the concerns of their non-farm neighbors.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.7, the strongest predictors of the sensitivity of Ohio farmers to the concerns of non-farm neighbors in this model were social activities and gender. The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.045, meaning that about 5% of the variance in the dependent variable could be explained by this model.
The standard error of estimate was 0.805, the model f-value was 7.342, and the model was significant at the 0.5 level.
-8 7 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .004*** .073 .001 3.329 Sex (female=0) -.126*** -.076 .031 -4.100 Education completed .004 .014 .006 .694 Married -.002 -.001 .035 -.060 Employed -.001 -.001 .039 -.031 Gross household Income -.022 -.044 .012 - 1.886 Currently lives in the city .125** .063 .051 2.449 Currently lives in a suburb .067 .035 .052 1.281 Currently lives in countryside .137*** .068 .052 2.646 Currently lives on a farm .149 .040 .092 1.622 Prefer to live in city -.096 -.036 .066 -1.460 Prefer to live in suburb -.098 -.048 .057 -1.725 Prefer to live in countryside -.053 -.031 .048 -1.101 Prefer to live on a farm .094 .035 .074 1.265 Grew up in a city -.078 -.041 .044 -1.764 Grew up in a suburb -.094 -.043 .049 -1.919 Grew up in the countryside -.041 -.017 .051 -.808 Grew up on a farm .057 .025 .061 .937 Parents own/operate a farm -.030 -.016 .044 -.669 Close friends own/operate farm .102*** .061 .034 3.019 Maintain vegetable garden .016 .010 .031 .528 Social Activities .127*** .088 .030 4.252 R-Square .050
S.E.E. .805
Model F-value 7.342
Adjusted R-Squared .045
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .01 level
Table 4.7: Regression of Farmers Sensitivity to Non-farm Neighbors
-8 8 -
4.2.6 REGRESSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION OF FARMING
Table 4.8 shows the multiple regression analysis concerning environmental regulation of farming. Among the demographic variables, age has a positive effect: as age increased, agreement that environmental laws are too strict slightly increased. Education level and employment status have significantly negative effects. As educational level increased, and among those employed versus unemployed, people were less likely to agree that environmental rules were too strict.
With respect to the residence variable, respondents who currently live in a city or suburb or prefer to live on a farm were significantly more positive on this item, as were respondents who maintain a vegetable garden at home among the social connection variables. Social activities were also positively and significantly associated with the view that environmental regulation of farming was too strict.
Based on the t-values provided in Table 4.8, the strongest predictors of attitudes toward environmental regulation of farming were education completed, age, and preference to live on a farm. The adjusted R-squared for this model was 0.059, meaning that only 6% of the variance in the dependent variable could be explained by this model.
The standard error of estimate was 0.849, the model f-value was 9.46, and the model was significant at the 0.5 level.
-8 9 -
UnStandardized Standardized Standard t-vales Coefficients Coefficients error Age .006*** .107 .001 4.917 Sex (female=0) -.061 -.035 .032 -1.887 Education completed -.044*** -.134 .007 -6.644 Married -.017 -.009 .037 -.449 Employed -.151*** -.081 .041 -3.671 Gross household Income -.021 -.039 .013 -1.706 Currently lives in the city .164*** .078 .054 3.043 Currently lives in a suburb .123** .061 .055 2.233 Currently lives in countryside .017 .008 .055 .310 Currently lives on a farm -.022 -.006 .097 -.227 Prefer to live in city -.114 -.039 .070 -1.632 Prefer to live in suburb -.056 -.026 .060 -936 Prefer to live in countryside -.010 -.006 .051 -.199 Prefer to live on a farm .306*** .108 .078 3.930 Grew up in a city .017 .008 .047 .358 Grew up in a suburb -.013 -.006 .052 -.249 Grew up in the countryside .046 .019 .054 .865 Grew up on a farm .094 .039 .064 1.475 Parents own/operate a farm .029 .015 .047 .631 Close friends own/operate farm .030 .017 .036 .828 Maintain vegetable garden -.081** -.046 .033 -2.451 Social Activities .093*** .061 .031 2.968 R-Square .066
S.E.E. .849
Model F-value 9.459
Adjusted R-Squared .059
**Significant at the .05 level ***Significant at the .01 level -1.706
Table 4.8: Regression Model for the Variable: Environmental Protection Laws Regulating Farming are too Strict.
-9 0 -
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND RESULTS
Results of this study suggest that residence, social connections and social activities to agriculture and environmental issues play an important role in the formation of perceptions and attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. I have employed functionalism and conflict theories plus rational and exchange theories to develop a middle-range approach of vested interest in understanding varying attitudes about agriculture and environmental issues in the state of Ohio.
Decline in the number of farmers has a tendency to marginalize farmers and other people involved in agriculture. Most farmers are part-time and only a small proportion of farmers produce most of the food and other agricultural products, and these are large, mechanized and highly specialized operations. In essence, the distribution of farms is bi- modal: many small and a few large farms. National surveys as well as some statewide surveys have failed to capture the importance of this marginalization by merely stating that there are differences in perceptions based on where people live.
Although the statistical results for the social indicators have not explained great proportions of variance, this study provides a framework for further investigation based on a vested interest approach. It was expected that vested interest would play a significant
-9 1 -
role in explaining differing perceptions, and in this study the strongest predictors of vested interest were age and social activities.
5.1 THE VESTED INTEREST HYPOTHESIS.
5.1.1 RESIDENCE
Table 5.1 summarizes associations between dependent and independent variables in the model. Place of current, preferred, and childhood residence was not necessarily a good predictor of differing perceptions and attitudes about agriculture and environmental issues in Ohio. It is my contention that occupation rather than residence could have provided a better picture of vested interest in understanding attitudes toward agriculture.
However, the secondary data analyzed in this study did not have a variable on occupation. Further investigation into the residence issue is necessary in the future for more clarification of the independent variables used in this model. Occupation, past occupational history, and past residential history may be important areas for future research.
5.1.2 SOCIAL CONNECTION
There were no residual categories for social connection and in this study, and it was assumed that social connection would be an adequate measure of vested interest.
Clearly the effects of social connection on the dependent variables used in this study have been weak. However, there are many types of social capital in every community, so the concept of social connection could be measured by additional social aspects - for
-9 2 -
example, membership in a farmers’ organization or an environmental organization when examining perceptions and attitudes about agriculture and related issues in the future.
5.1.3 SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
The social activities variable had the strongest positive association with all the dependent variables in the model. Those who participate in activities related to agriculture and rural society are more likely to have positive views about agriculture and environment. Overall, age and social activities were the strongest predictors of attitudes toward agriculture and environmental issues in the state of Ohio.
-9 3 -
Scenic Agric. Environ. Trust of Sensitivity Environ. quality Attitudes concern farmers of farmers laws Age +/* +/* +/* +/* +/* +/* Sex( female) -/* -/* -/* -/* -/* - Education - - +/* -/* + -/* Married + + + -/* - - Employed -/* - - - - -/* Gross income -/* -/* - -/* - - Currently Live City +/* +/* +/* +/* +/* +/* Suburb +/* +/* + + + +/* countryside + + + + +/* + farm - - + - + - Prefer to live City -/* -/* - -/* - - Suburb -/* -/* - - - - countryside +/* + + - - - farm + +/* + +/* + +/* Place grew up City + + + + - + Suburb + - - + - - countryside - + - + - + farm - + - + + + Social connection Parents own a farm - + - + - + Close friends own a farm - + - +/* +/* + Maintain garden in home + + + - + -/* Social activities +/* +/* +/* +/* +/* +/*
+ = positive, - = negative, *=significant
Table: 5.1 Observed Associations Between Dependent and Independent variables
-9 4 -
5.1.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The concept of vested interest holds that the more the amount of vested interest in a social phenomenon, the more likely one is to participate in that phenomenon.
Borrowing from economic theory, rational choice and exchange theories in sociology utilize the concept of maximum utility. Maximum utility simply states that human actors try to maximize rewards, while minimizing costs in their interactions with others.
This theory has been adapted in various ways and sociologists have applied it to many kinds of sociological phenomena, calling it social distance theory or vested interest approach. It typically states that the closer you are to a phenomenon, the more knowledgeable you are about the issues related to that phenomenon.
Past studies about agricultural attitudes have generally been descriptive. This study may give clues to the formulation of more standardized measures to capture attitudes about agriculture, related environmental issues, and other social phenomena.
However, limitations to this study stem from the use of secondary data, forcing pre-defined variables in pre-coded questions in the survey. For example, the occupation of respondents could have been a strong measure of vested interest but was not included among the survey items. The roles of vested interest, in addition to occupation, residential history, occupational history, and affiliations with social groups/organizations were variables that might have been profitably employed in this study, had they been available.
Future research could benefit from qualitative research that utilizes focus groups within communities to discuss the concepts related to vested interest such as social
-9 5 -
connection and social activities, to help develop and better define these concepts. By doing so, we might have a better understanding of how these concepts are viewed and interpreted within local contexts.
Another limitation of this study may have been the response rate (56%). The non- response rate (44%) may be due to many factors including but not limited to the quantitative nature of the data. Some human actors are passionate about certain issues related to agriculture and environment, and would tend to see a quantitative survey as inadequate in fully explaining the range of phenomena. It is possible that attitudes toward agriculture and the environment may differ among respondents and non-respondents.
Future studies could benefit by utilizing more tools in examining the relationship between vested interest and human perceptions of social phenomena. There is need to further explore the residence, social connection, and social activities variables to see how they may be better used as measures of vested interest in understanding attitudes. The measures used in this study were novel in some respects, and more studies are needed to understand their meanings. Attempts could be made to incorporate more socio- psychological variables such as why respondents decide to reside where they do, or why they have decided to actively participate in activities related to agriculture and rural society.
5.1.5 IMPROVING THE INDEPENDENT MEASURES
The three measures of vested interest used in this study could perhaps be improved. Residence has always been the traditional and most frequently used measure in
-9 6 -
explaining attitudinal differences among people on the assumption that there are (or may be) differences between rural and urban residents. Perhaps so, but where a person lives may now have little to do with affiliation with farming. For example, a person living in the city, who works in food production plant, may have more positive views about agriculture than someone living in the country who has no other relationship to farming.
Testing residence as a measure of vested interest in relation to agriculture, therefore, should recognize the complexity of the situation. Qualitative studies could be useful in providing detailed background information that could then be used to develop concepts to describe vested interest or social distance.
The same argument could apply to the variables involving place respondent prefers to live, or place they grew up. There are respondents who may have spent some or most of their childhood in the countryside or on farms, who currently live or once lived in the city, who have since returned to the countryside, and who may not share the same attitudes about farming as lifetime city or farm residents.
The concept of social connectedness was not fully measured in this study because of the secondary nature of the data. As noted earlier, measures of social connection might benefit from a consideration of direct involvement in organizations that promote farming or other organization that support (or oppose) environmental laws regulating farming and rural land use. Political orientation may also play a role as a measure of vested interest.
Future studies may be able to incorporate diverse areas of social connectedness in order to understand differences in attitudes.
-9 7 -
The concept of social activities has not been adequately measured in this study. In retrospect, for example, political aspects of social activities might have been measured: someone may visit a rural place for recreational activities, or purchase farm produce from a farmers’ market, but still hold political and social views different from someone who is an agricultural or environmental activist. Future studies might benefit from the inclusion of both aspects of social activities (social activities and social activism) as measures of vested interest.
5.1.6 IMPROVING THE DEPENDENT MEASURES
The dependent variables used in this study were derived largely from the literature and the assumption that there may be differences among respondents based on their social distance from agriculture. The six dependent variables may not have been adequate in explaining variations in attitudes. For example, people who have moved from the city to the country to escape the negative aspects of city life maybe more likely to have similar attitudes about the preservation of the scenic quality of rural places than those who currently live in the city. In retrospect, this study might have been improved if the dependent variables were more focused on food as well as agricultural and environmental issues: for example, the use of pesticides on farms, food safety issues, soil erosion due to run-off from farming, the quality of food, the availability of organically produced food, and contamination of drinking water. In this study, mixed agricultural attitudes may be partly attributable to the lack of a clear distinction between agricultural attitudes and agriculturally related environmental issues.
-9 8 -
It is also important to note that agriculture involves poultry and livestock production as well as more traditional crop and dairy. To capture the differences among respondents on agriculture and related environmental issues might mean consideration of factors related to the environmental impact of large scale livestock operations, the location of livestock operations, the role of livestock agriculture in the local or state economy, the threat of livestock production to water and stream quality, and other agro- environmental questions.
5.1.7 MEDIATING VARIABLES
Variables not examined in this study are the mediating variables that may influence perceptions irrespective of residence, social connection and social activities.
The first issue is one of value orientations, principles of right or wrong strongly upheld by an individual or social group, as socialized through the family, the school or religious institutions.
In his introduction to Agrarianism in American Literature, Inge (1969) defines agrarianism thus:
Cultivation of the soil has with it a positive spiritual good, and from it, the cultivator acquires the virtues of honor, manliness, self-reliance, courage, moral integrity and hospitality. These result from a direct contact with nature and through nature a close relationship to God. The agrarian is blessed in that he follows the example of God in creating order out of chaos. Agrarianism is a social and political philosophy. Agrarianism also refers to the fact that urban life, capitalism and technology destroy independence and dignity while fostering vice and weakness. The best way to describe agrarianism is that it is a movement that advocates back to earth fundamentals.
-9 9 -
Agrarianism, as a longstanding (or at least residual) set of values, might mediate attitudes about farming or rural society. Other mediating factors stem from actual steps people take to go beyond usual behavior. An example is the willingness of some members of society to pay more for food that is produced in an environmentally sound way. Other people may be willing to see tax increases in food items to guarantee environmentally-sound agricultural production.
In retrospect, vested interest as explored here was more interpretive than predictive. The two major subjects that the vested interest approach failed to consider are issues of general values orientation as discussed above, and consumerism. The issue of consumption rather than production has become increasingly prevalent in agri-food dialogue (Goodman, 2002, Goodman and Dupuis 2002, Guthman 2002, Lockie et al
2002, Mielle and Murdoch 2002, Goureia and Juska 2002, Fine 1994, 2004 and
Whatmore 2002). Locke et al (2002) suggest that the role of the consumer may become even more important:
This is not to say that consumers will dictate that future, but that the success of strategies to create and stabilize organic food networks will be dependent on the ability to mobilize people as “ organic consumers” by providing foods that materially and symbolically satisfy or influence those peoples needs, desires, pleasures and terrors.
According to Whatmore (2000), “ Until very recently, the last link in the chain of agro-food system… (food consumption) has been given little attention by agricultural geographies… It has tended to be treated by default as an unproblematic and socially undifferentiated process whereby everyone has to eat”.
-10 0 -
Goodman (2002) suggested that greater awareness of mad cow disease and other actual or potential food-borne illnesses have brought consumption into sharper focus. He claims that this new emphasis on consumption derives from the 1980’ s, when the focus was on commodity production and the issue of agrarianism, with little attention to the individual actor, so that indigenous knowledge was ignored in pursuing agricultural development. Goodman and Dupuis (2002) also argued that consumption “ has been neglected, under-theorized, treated as an exogenous structural category and granted
‘agency’ or ‘transformative’ power only in the economistic, abstract terms of demand.
Lockie et al. (2002) claim that consumption is important because food consumption is not as easy as it appears. Consumers, they argue, are faced with “ diverse and numerous choices, different desires and varying socio-economic standing”. This power of the consumer in the agricultural production business, they say, has been largely ignored in the literature. Lockie and Kitto (2002) agree with this assertion and argue that
“ consumption involves much more than a diverse array of social cultural and economic practices that it remains a more than worthwhile focus for research in its own right”.
These several authors thus suggest that there may be a shift in focus of the agri-food industry both conceptually and politically.
In conclusion, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between vested interest and various agriculture and related environmental issues in the state of
Ohio. It found that differences based on residence and social connection do not play a major or simple role in attitudes about agriculture. However, age and social activities were found to have significantly positive effects.
-10 1 -
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alabama Cooperative Extension System. (2002) “ Public Attitudes about Agriculture”. A preliminary report by the AU center for governmental services. AU/Butler Cunningham Endowment in Agriculture and the Environment.
Blau, Peter M. (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. London. Sydney.
Blau, Peter M. (1974) On The Nature of Organizations. New York: The Free Press.
Busch, Anne Gravsholt. (2002) ‘Farmer’ s Landscape Decisions: Relationships between Farmer’ s values and Landscape Practices’ . Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(3), p.233-249
Buttel, Frederick H.; Olaf F. Larson.; & Gillespie, Gilbert W. (1990) The Sociology of Agriculture. Greenwood Press.
Buttel, Frederick H.; Flinn, William. (1974) “ The Structure of the Support for the Environmental Movement, 1968-1970”. Rural Sociology, Vol. 39, p. 56-59
Buttel, Frederick H.; Flinn, William. (1978) “ Social Class and Environmental Beliefs: A Reconsideration” . Environment and Behavior, Vol. 10, p. 433-450
Cook, Karen S. & Emerson, R.M. (1978). “ Power, Equity and Commitment in Exchange Networks” . American Sociological Review. Vol. 43, p. 721-739.
Dahrendorf, Ralph. (1937) Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press
Dillman, Don A. (2000) Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. J. Wiley, New York, NY.
DuBois, W.E.B. (1973) The Philadelphia Negro. New Introduction by Herbert Aptheker Library of congress, USA
DuBois, W.E.B. (1901) The Negro landholder of Georgia. [Microform]. Washington: Bulletin of the [U.S.] Dept. of Labor, 1901
Durkheim, Emile. (1951) Suicide. Glencoe, 111, The Free Press.
-10 2 -
Durkheim, Emile. (1965) The Rules of Sociological Method. New York, Free Press
Fine, B. (1994) “ Towards a Political Economy of Food”. Review of International Political Economy. Vol. 1(3), p.579-586
Freudenburg, William R. (1991) “ Rural –Urban Differences in Environmental Concern: A Closer Look” . Sociological Enquiry, Vol. 61, No. 2, p.167-198
Fyle, Magbaily C. History and Socio-Economic Development in Sierra Leone: A Reader. Freetown, Sladea, 1988.
Goodman, David. (2002) “ Rethinking Food Production-Consumption: Integrative Perspectives” . Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(4), p.271-277
Goodman, David.; & E.M. DuPuis. (2002) “ Knowing Food and Growing Food:Beyond the Production-Consumption Debate in the Sociology of Agriculture”. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(1), p.6-23
Gouveia, L. and A. Juskas (2002) “ Taming Nature, Taming Workers: Constructing the Separation Between Meat Consumption and Meat Production in the U.S
Guthman, Julie. (2002) “ Commodified Meanings, Meaningful Commodities: Rethinking Production-Consumption Links Through the Organic System of Provision” . Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(4), p.295-311
Harris, Jonathan M. (1990) World Agriculture and the Environment. Garland publishing Inc, New York and London.
Heath, Anthony. (1976) Rational Choice and Social Exchange. A Critique of Exchange Theory. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Homans, George C. (1950) The Human Group. New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, Inc.
Homans, George Caspar. (1961) Social Behavior, Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt, Brace and World Inc, New York.
Inge, Thomas M. (1969) Agrarianism in American Literature. The Odyssey Press, New York
Lawler, Edward. & Yoon, Jeong Koo. (1996) “ Commitment in Exchange Relations: Test of a theory of relational cohesion”. American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, p. 89-108
-10 3 -
Van Liere,; Kent D.; & Dunlap, Riley E. (1981) “ Environmental Concern: Does it Make a Difference How it's Measured?” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 13(6), p.651-676
Lobao, Linda. (1990) Locality and Inequality: Farm Structure, Industry Structure, and Socioeconomic Conditions, Albany: The State University of New York Press
Lockie et al. (2002) “ Eating ‘Green’ : Motivations behind Organic Food Consumption in Australia” . Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(1), p.23-40
Mann, S.A. and James M. Dickinson. (1978) “ Obstacles to the Development of a Capitalist Agriculture. Journal of Peasant Studies. Vol. 5(4), p. 466-481
Mann, Susan A. and James M. Dickinson. (1987) "Collectivizing our Thoughts: A Reply to Mooney". Rural Sociology, Vol. 52(2) p. 296-303
Mann, Susan A. and James M. Dickinson. (1987) "One Furrow Forward, Two Furrows Back: A Marx-Weber Synthesis for Rural Sociology". Rural Sociology, Vol. 52(2), p. 264 -285
Mannion, A.M. (1995) Agriculture and Environment Change; Temporal and Spatial Dimensions. John Wiley and sons, New York
Marx, Karl. & Frederick Engels. (1948) The Communist Manifesto; Authorized English translation ; Ed. and annotated by Frederick Engels New York : New York Labor News
Merton, Robert K. (1949) Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged Edition. New York: Free Press,
Miele, M. & J. Murdoch. (2002) The Practical Aesthetics of Traditional Cuisines: Slow Food in Tuscany. Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 42(4), p. 312-328
Mooney, Patrick H. (1983) “ Toward a Class Analysis of Mid-Western Agriculture.” Rural Sociology, Vol. 48 (4), p. 563-84
Mooney, Patrick H. (1987) "Desperately Seeking: One-Dimensional Mann and Dickinson". Rural Sociology, Vol. 52(2), p. 286-295
Moser, Bobby D. (2002) “ Economic Facts about Ohio Agriculture”. Carroll County Agricultural Newsletter, Dollars & Sense. Practical Information for Innovative Farm Managers. July-August Issue.
Newby, Howard. (1983) Restructuring Capital: Recession and Reorganization in Industrial Society / edited by Howard Newby. Basingstoke : Macmillan
-10 4 -
North Carolina Co-operative Extension Service Professionals (2000). “ Attitudes Toward Sustainable Agriculture” . Journal of Extension, Vol. 38(1)
Parsons, Talcott. (1937). The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc.
Sharp, Jeff S. (1998) ‘The International Community: A Structure Network Analysis of Community Action in Three Midwestern Towns’ . Dissertation Document, Iowa State University, Ames
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, (2000) “ An Attitudinal Survey of Pennsylvania’ s Rural Residents” . Center for Survey Research and the Institute of State and Regional Affairs, Penn State University.
The Pennsylvania Study. (1996) “ Agricultural Attitudes in Regions of Pennsylvania” . The Center For Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania general assembly.
The World Bank Group. (2002) World Development Report 2003:Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World. http://econ.worldbank.org/wdr/
Tremblay, Kenneth J.; Dunlap, Riley E. (1978). “ Rural–Urban Residence and Concern with Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension”. Rural Sociology, 43(3), p. 474-491
United Nations Development Programme. (2003) “ World Development Report, Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World
United States. Census Office. 12th census, 1900 U.S. Census Reports
United States. Census Office. 2003 U.S. Census Reports
United States Department of Agriculture. (1992) “ National Survey of Food, Farming, and the Environment” . Cooeperative State Research Service Study Committee
United States Department of Agriculture, (1999) 1997 Census of Agriculture, Ohio State and County Data. Vol. 1, Geographic Area Studies, Part 35
Van Dam, Frank.; Heins, Saskia.; & Elbersen, Berien S. (2002) “Lay Discourses of the Rural and Stated and Revealed Preferences for Rural Living. Some Evidence of the Existence of a Rural idyll in the Netherlands”. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 18, Issue 4 , p. 461-476
-10 5 -
Wallace, Ruth A.; & Wolf, Alison. (1999) Contemporary Sociological Theory. Expanding the Classical Tradition. Prentice Hall Inc. U.S.A
Weber, Max. (1958) The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons. New York: Scribner’ s
Weber, Max (1949) The Methodology of the Social Sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Pp. 1-47.
Whatmore, S. (2002) Hybrid Geographies. London:Sage
World Watch Institute. Global 2000 Report: State of the World 1984-1990. W.W. Norton,
Zeitlin, Irving M. (1973) Rethinking Sociology; A Critique of Contemporary Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall
-10 6 -
APPENDIX A
THE OHIO SURVEY
-10 7 -
-10 8 -
-10 9 -
-11 0 -
-11 1 -
-11 2 -
-11 3 -
-11 4 -
-11 5 -
-11 6 -
-11 7 -