Content uploaded by Raymond De Young
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Raymond De Young on Dec 30, 2013
Content may be subject to copyright.
Farmers' Attitudes about Farming and the
Environment: A Survey of Conventional and
Organic Farmers
SHANNON SULLIVAN
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
430 East University Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1115 USA
ELIZABETH MCCANN
College of Natural Resources
University of Wisconsin Stevens Point
Stevens Point, Wisconsin 54481-3897 USA
RAYMOND DE YOUNG and DONNA ERICKSON
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
430 East University Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1115 USA
Abstract
Farmers have been characterized as people whose ties to the
land have given them a deep awareness of natural cycles, appreciation
for natural beauty and sense of responsibility as stewards. At the same
time, their relationship to the land has been characterized as more
utilitarian than that of others who are less directly dependent on its
bounty. This paper explores this tension by comparing the attitudes and
beliefs of a group of conventional farmers to those of a group of organic
farmers. It was found that while both groups reject the idea that a farm-
er's role is to conquer nature, organic farmers were significantly more
supportive of the notion that humans should live in harmony with nature.
Organic farmers also reported a greater awareness of and appreciation
for nature in their relationship with the land. Both groups view
independence as a main benefit of farming and a lack of finaneial reward
as its main drawback. Overall, conventional farmers report more stress
in their lives although they also view themselves in a caretaker role for
the land more than do the organic farmers. In contrast, organic farmers
report more satisfaction with their lives, a greater concern for living
ethically, and a stronger perception of community. Finally, both groups
are willing to have their rights limited (organic farmers somewhat more
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1996, 9(2), 123-143
124 S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
so) but they do not trust the government to do so.
Keywords: environmental attitudes, organic farming, environmental
ethics.
Introduction
Until recently, the United States has been a fundamentally agrarian society. Be-
cause of this, agriculture has always been central in debates about land-use ethics.
The agrarian tradition and the land ethic comprise two distinct and conflicting
threads of thought regarding agriculture. The first is rooted in Thomas Jefferson's
concept of a stable democracy of yeoman farmers, where "... those who labor in the
earth are the chosen people of God... whose breasts he has made his peculiar deposit
for substantial and genuine virtue" (Meine, 1987; Jefferson in Peterson, 1991: 293).
The second philosophical thread may have been born when humans initiated a
struggle with nature by purposely cultivating certain plant species as crops (Wojcik,
1989). The American tradition of mythicizing this struggle, and sanctioning the ex-
ploitation of natural resources, began with the pioneers. However, almost concur-
rently, some writers and philosophers began questioning the ethics of gaining do-
minion over nature. This philosophy was initiated by Tocqueville and Cooper,
justified by Darwin, articulated poetically by the transcendentalists and refined to
a science by Aldo Leopold. Contemporary literature- both philosophical and scien-
tific-has attempted to define further and even operationalize these competing
views.
While the tension between these two traditions may be abstract, its impact is not.
These competing philosophies have become encoded in our language and have
formed the foundations of how Americans think about and act toward the environ-
ment (Peterson, 1991). Today, these confl/cting philosophies are at the root of a policy
debate regarding the sanctity of private property, the value of family farms, and the
effectiveness of agricultural education and incentive programs for farmers.
Jeffersonian Agrarianism and the American Frontier
Agrarian sentiments can be traced as far back as Aristotle and Cicero, but Thomas
Jefferson is the best known American exponent of these ideals (Molnar and Duffy,
1987). Jefferson believed agriculture was fundamental to the American way of life,
and that small landholders were civilization's caretakers (Peterson, 1991; Little,
1985). An important part of the agrarian or Jeffersonian creed is that farmers have
a right to use the land as they please, and that society's and individual property
owners' interests are one and the same (Bultena et al., 1981). The French-bern Amer-
ican St. John Crevecoeur also wrote idealistically of the virtues of agricultural life
in America. As a farmer, he was proud to be part of a community of"freeholders, the
possessors of the soil they cultivate, members of the government they obey, and the
framers of their own laws by means of their representative" (Crevecoeur,
1904).
125 Farmers' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
The agrarian values espoused by Jefferson and Crevecoeur also formed the basis
of rugged individualism in the west (Molnar and Duffy, 1987), where the pioneers
were pitted against nature in a struggle for their very survival. As Alexis de Toc-
queville observed in
Democracy in America,
the pioneers lived too close to the wilder-
ness to appreciate it; their main concern was the utility of the land (Nash, 1982).
Wherever the pioneers "... encountered wild country they viewed it through utili-
tarian spectacles: trees became lumber, prairies farms, and canyons the sites of hy-
droelectric dams" (Nash, 1982). Utilitarianism was also the prevailing political
theme of the time. In his 1830 inaugural address, Andrew Jackson asked, "what good
man would prefer a country covered with forests and ranged by a few thousand sav-
ages to our extensive Republic, studded with cities, towns, and prosperous farms?"
(Nash, 1982: 41).
The Land Ethic
Aldo Leopold is though.t of as the first to write explicitly about a land ethic, espe-
cially in farming. Because his essays combined the sensitivity of a romantic with the
logic of a scientist, his influence in encouraging a new relationship between humans
and the land was arguably more profound than that of his predecessors (Nash, 1982).
Leopold was educated in the tradition of utilitarianism at the Yale Forestry School
and in the U.S. Forest Service (Hargrove and Callicott, 1990). However, as his career
progressed and his philosophy developed, Leopold rejected utilitarianism and em-
braced aesthetics.
Sometimes I think that ideas, like men, can become dictators. We
Americans have so far escaped regimentation by our rulers, but have we
escaped regimentation by our own ideas? I doubt if there exists today a
more complete regimentation of the human mind than that
accomplished by our self-imposed doctrine of ruthless utilitarianism.
(Leopold in Meine, 1987: 49)
To replace the ruthless utilitarianism born of the frontier experience, Leopold
proposed a new ethic to govern humanity's relationship with the land. He argued
for the intrinsic rights of all species, and against the Jeffersonian idea that private
property was enough to ensure sustainable land use. "In short," Leopold wrote, "a
land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community
to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow-members, and also
respect for the community as such" (Leopold, 1949: 204). Leopold's philosophy of the
land ethic developed over a lifetime, but it became focused in one parsimonious state-
ment: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty
of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise" (Leopold, 1949: xxvi).
Leopold's holistic philosophy was as radical as any that preceded him, yet he did
not reject the concept of agriculture outright. In fact, Leopold was a farmer in his
later years. Regardless of his motivation, Leopold paid special attention to the role
of farming in humanity's relationship with nature (Meine, 1987). Leopold believed
126
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
the "rightness" of farming depended on the farmer (Meine, 1987). He identified two
opposing philosophies of farm life. According to one philosophy, "the farm is a food-
factory, and the criterion of its success is salable products." According to the second
philosophy, "the farm is a place to live, and the criterion of success is a harmonious
balance between plants, animals, and people; between the domestic and the wild;
between utility and beauty" (Leopold, 1949 in Meine, 1987: 51). Forty years later,
Wojcik defined the two principles of agriculture as: farming strictly for the money
and farming for a good life (Wojcik, 1989).
The Legacy: Conflicting Views of Agriculture
Remarkably, the conflicting images of agriculture preserved in our literary tradition
have co-existed in the national psyche for over two centuries. This cultural tradition
of simultaneously mythicizing the farmer as steward and the pioneer as conqueror
has leR a legacy of internal confict for farmers and non-farmers. An adversarial re-
lationship between environmentalists and agricultural producers has also emerged
from this tradition.
Indeed, both the frontier myth of the pioneer as the creator of civilization and
the agrarian myth of the farmer as steward are alive and well in contemporary Amer-
ican thought (Peterson, 1991; Nash, 1982; Piasecki, 1982; Bultena et al., 1981; Lewi-
sohn, Ludwig in Crevecoeur, 1904). Although the children and grandchildren of the
pioneers began to sense the ethical and aesthetic values of wilderness, the prejudice
against wilderness is deeply embedded in American history and continues to in-
fluence people's attitudes (Nash, 1982). The farmer is the living example of pioneer
spirit: "Just as the frontiersman cleared a trail for civilization to follow, today's
farmer recivilizes the land year after year, dredging sustenance for city dwellers
from the soil. Each season brings renewed encroachment from 'wild' plants or ani-
mals, and each season farmers fight back with sophisticated tools provided by the
civilization they make possible" (Peterson, 1991: 298).
If asked, "Is there something special about farmers and the farm way of life?" and
then separately, "Do you think agriculture is contributing to this country's en-
vironmental problems?" many Americans would not have to think long before re-
sponding "Of course and, well, yes." It is increasingly common to see publications
such as a 1982 U.S. Department of Commerce report titled "Diverging Interests in
Soil Conservation and Water Quality: Society vs. the Farmer" (Crosson, 1982). At
the same time, the country's romance with farming is easily seen. In New York City,
people pack the farmers' markets, eager for contact with the farmer and thereby a
connection to the earth and the labor that produces sustenance. As one buyer puts
it, "When you buy this food.., you get the sense that life is still good, that life makes
sense" (Hall, 1992). This somewhat romantic view of farmers even softens criticism
about their behaviour. As Westmacott (1983: 14) observes, "In view of the history of
land exploitation one might expect Americans to have a deep distrust of farmers but
it isn't so. Perhaps it is because of belief in the ethic that land ownership includes
the right to use or misuse the land... It is ironic that in the United States, where
there has never been a tradition of conservation farming, the farmer is trusted as
127 Farmers " Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
the steward of the rural landscape."
These conflicting images of farming may have been internalized by the farmers
themselves, creating what Peterson (1991) calls a dysfunctional perspective toward
conservation. She argues that farmers simultaneously see themselves as stewards-
with a duty to care for the soil-and frontiersmen-with a responsibility to manipu-
late and control the soil. These conflicting values constantly compete for pre-emi-
nence within the farmer. Efforts to encourage conservation often confound this
struggle by failing to take into account farmers' conflicting motives (Peterson, 1991).
Despite the hold agriculture has on the nation's collective imagination, the rela-
tionship between agricultural and environmental groups today is far from a ro-
mance. The contemporary environmental movement's moral foundation is the
minority tradition of thinkers like Leopold, not the agrarianism of Jefferson (Cai-
licott, 1987; Flader, 1987; Stegner, 1985; Nash, 1987). Although it may be changing,
the movement's traditional followers have also been a minority of young, wealthy
urbanites (Nash, 1982). Philosophically, the division has been between those who
argue for appreciation and preservation ('beauty," as Leopold would call it) versus
those who advocate utilization of natural resources (Bultena et al., 1982; Hendee,
1969; Nash, 1982). In a nation divided between those who depend on the harvesting
of natural resources for their livelihoods, and those who work in industries far re-
moved from the natural environment, the resiliency of this historic argument is un-
derstandable, if unfortunate.
Exploring Farmers' Values and Beliefs
It would be useful, then, to examine how these competing philosophies express them-
selves in modern farmers values and beliefs. For only if we fully understand the
attitudes and motives of farmers can we ever hope to promote more environmen-
tally sound agriculture. Numerous studies have concluded that farmers are gener-
ally less concerned about the environment than non-farmers, but the variation
among farmers is great (Buttel et al., 1981). Only a few studies have attempted to
explain this variation by examining the basic beliefs and values of conventional and
alternative agriculturists (Beus and Dunlap, 1991; Harris et al., 1980; Buttel and Gil-
lespie, 1988).
Beus and Dunlap (1990; 1991) suggest that the fundamental rift between sup-
porters and critics of modern industrialized agriculture is rooted in conflicting
worldviews. They have measured the two perspectives- the "alternative agriculture
paradigm" and the "conventional agriculture paradigm"- using six dimensions. The
dimensions included Domination of Nature vs. Harmony with Nature, and Exploi-
tation vs. Restraint. In their study to determine what factors discriminate between
known groups of farmers, the alternative agriculturists differed significantly from
conventional agriculturists and a statewide farmer sample on all items measured,
with the alternative agriculturists tending toward the "alternative agriculture par-
adigm." The greatest discrepancy was found on items measuring whether farming
is first and foremost a business or a way of life, whether agriculture is a major or
minor cause of ecological problems, and whether farming involves trying to imitate
128
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
nature or overcome nature's limits.
Although Beus and Dunlap's findings support the theory that alternative and
conventional farmers have fundamentally different values and beliefs, conventional
growers are not uniformly anti-environmental. In Molnar and Duffy's (1987) study,
farmers generally agreed that "farming involves understanding and working with
nature." Most British farmers interviewed by Carr and Tait (1991) had favourable
attitudes toward conservation when it was discussed in general terms. Anderson's
(1990) research revealed that conventional farmers are deeply concerned about the
potential effects of groundwater pollution on their families' health. However, But-
tel et al. (1981) found conventional farmers to he less concerned about agricultural
chemical pollution than alternative farmers. Based on their findings that concern
with agricultural chemical pollution and concern with soil erosion are virtually in-
dependent, Buttel et al. (1981) concluded that "agrarian environmentalism" is not a
singular construct or dimension.
This paper builds from this previous research by exploring two main themes.
First, we hypothesize that beth organic and conventional farmers demonstrate an
appreciation of nature in a general sense, and view particular signs of nature as im-
pertant to their farming practices. Second, we expect that organic and conventional
farmers exhibit fundamentally different values with regard to the land. Specifically,
we expect conventional farmers to embrace the frontier mentality that humans
should overcome nature, and the Jeffersonian belief in the rights of landholders. We
expected organic farmers to believe in living harmoniously with nature and to be
less concerned with their rights as landholders.
Method
A personal interview was administered to a sample group of 25 farmers in south-
eastern Michigan. A list of farmers' names and addresses was purchased from the
Washtenaw County office of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (previously
the Soil Conservation Service). The list included all those individuals who were farm
owners and/or farm operators in the county, and these were considered to be "con-
ventional" in their farming practices. Twenty-four names were chosen at random.
The organic farmers' names and addresses were derived from the 1991 roster of the
Southeast Chapter of the Organic Growers of Michigan (OGM). "Organic" farmers
are defined, for the purposes of this study, as "farmers who avoid use of any syn-
thetic or manufactured substances in growing their crops and managing their land"
(Esseks et al., 1990). All the organic growers listed in the OGM roster with addresses
within or near Washtenaw County were contacted to be interviewed.
A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods were used. For the quan-
titative method (covered in the first three tables discussed below), groups of five-
point Likert scale statements were examined using factor analysis and the t-test
statistic. The remainder of the findings were derived from the qualitative analysis
of standardized, open-ended questions. Following a pre-test of the survey instru-
ment, the farmers were contacted by letter to explain the study and to invite their
participation. Mailed at the end of March, the letter was then followed by a phone
129 Farmers" Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
call to determine agreement about being interviewed and to set up a meeting time
and place. Interviews occurred during an eight week period, from April through
June. A total of 39 farmers were asked to participate. Of these, some farmers de-
dined to be interviewed or were retired from farming. The final sample size was 25
farmers, of whom 13 were conventional and 12 were organic farmers.
As recommended by Patton (1990), the qualitative analysis was performed in two
parts: a descriptive case study of each farmer, and a cross-case interpretation of farm
operators' responses to each open-ended question. The case study provides a descrip-
tion of each farmer; a profile constructed from their responses and the interviewer's
strong impressions of the interview as a whole. The cross-case interpretation was
based on a series of categories derived from the data. The categories were created
from patterns found in responses to each question, with an emphasis on indigenous
concepts (concepts specifically named by the participants, such as "Enjoying being
outdoors"). Categories were constructed such that they were internally homogenous
(i.e.the data in a category clearly belonged together) and externally heterogeneous
(i.e.the categories were clearly different from each other) (Patton, 1990). In ana-
lysing the data, concepts that were included with markedly different frequency in
responses given by organic and conventional farmers, and concepts that were highly
endorsed by both groups of farmers, were reported as findings of the study.
Results
Demographic Profile of the Sample
The farmers surveyed differed in terms of their years farming, farm size, land
tenure, and number of crops. They were similar along several other dimensions, in-
cluding age, education, and percentage of income derived from farming in 1991. Mean
ages were 46 and 50 years for organic and conventional farmers, respectively. The
lack of any significant difference between the ages of the organic and conventional
farmers is consistent with Napier and Forster's (1982) conclusion that age has no
influence on a farmer s inclination to adopt new conservation practices. The typical
farmer in this study had some college education, but less than a college degree.
Roughly half of the income from the farm families studied came from farming (43.6%
for organic farmers and 58.2% for conventional farmers).
There was a significant difference between the two groups with regard to the
number of years farming, with conventional farmers having a mean of 30.2 years
and organic farmers having a mean of 15.5 years (t = 2.98,
df=
22.9, p <_ .01). The
findings regarding farm structure also reveal several differences within this sample.
The data suggest the organic farmers typically had smaller farms with greater crop
diversity than conventional farmers. Conventional farmers also differed signifi-
cantly from organic farmers in the number of acres owned. While conventional
farmers had a mean of 229.4 acres owned, organic farmers had a mean of 74.1 acres
owned (t = 2.58,
df=
16.5, p < .05). Similarly, conventional farmers differed signifi-
cantly (t = 2.17,
df=
13.7, p < .05) from organic farmers in the numbers of acres
leased; conventional farmers leased more acres (mean = 482) than organic farmers
130
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
(mean = 65). Organic farmers and conventional farmers also differed significantly
in the number of crops grown in 1991 (t = 2.92,
df= 20.1, p <_ .01); organic farmers
grew a greater variety of crops (mean=6.25) than did conventional farmers
(mean = 3.92}.
For the most part, the conventional farmers studied were from a family tradition
of farming, while organic farmers tended to be relatively new to farming as a career.
All conventional farmers were from families that had almost always been involved
in farming. In contrast, only 25% of the organic farmers were from such a back-
ground.
Frontier Mentality Attitudes
Using factor analysis, four categories were derived from a series of 14 "frontier men-
tality" questions. I These include a Harmony category, a Disaster category, a Right
category, and an Order category (see Table 1). Pairwise t-tests indicate that higher
means for the Harmony category and the Disaster category suggests that farmers
were inclined to agree more strongly with the statements within those categories.
The Harmony and Disaster categories did not differ significantly from one another
(p -< .05), suggesting that farmers tended to answer similarly to these statements.
Likewise, the means for the Right and Order categories were not significantly differ-
ent from one another (p -< .05).
Alpha values were also calculated for the four new "frontier mentality" attitude
categories (see Table D. Alpha is Crenbach's (1951) coefficient of internal consistency
and reflects the degree of cohesiveness among a group of items. Two of the catego-
ries (i.e. Disaster, Right) have only one item and, therefore, no alpha value. Har-
mony had five items and an alpha value of 0.82, indicating that the category is very
coherent. The Order category has three items and a relatively low alpha of 0.49 which
indicates the items are not as tightly connected.
Comparisons between organic and conventional farmers were made with regard
to the aforementioned categories using a Student's t-test (see Table 2). Organic
farmers had a significantly higher mean for the Harmony category than conven-
tional farmers (t ~-4.17,
df= 21.2, p - .0001), suggesting that organic farmers en-
dorsed the statements within that category more strongly. Organic and conventional
farmers did not differ significantly with regard to the Disaster, Right, and Order
categories.
Among organic farmers, pairwise t-tests indicate that the mean responses for the
Harmony and Order categories were significantly different from one another at p <-
.05. Although their responses for the Harmony, Disaster, and Right categories were
not significantly different (p _< .05), all three of these items varied significantly from
the Order category. And while organic farmers mean responses to the Right and
Order categories did not differ atp. < 05 their responses to the Harmony and Right
categories barely missed being significantly different (p <_ .06). All pairwise mean
comparisons among conventional farmers' responses were not significant at p. <
05. Thus, while the conventional farmers' responses were generally close to neutral
for all four categories, organic farmers tended to endorse Harmony and Disaster
131 Farmers ' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
Table 1
Categories of '!frontier mentality" attitudes
Category Name and Items Included Mean (a) S.D. Alpha
HARMONY 3.72 a 0.78 0.82
- Humans must live in harmony with nature in order to survive
- Humankind was created to rule over the rest of nature (b)
- Farm operators do not have the right to farm land in a manner
that will cause damage to the resource
- Humans have the power to improve upon nature, by
cultivating it and making it productive (b)
- Humans need not adapt to the natural environment because
they can remake it to suit their needs (b)
DISASTER
3.75 a 1.11
- When humans interfere with nature it often produces
disastrous consequences
RIGHT
3.00 b 1.20
- Humans have the right to modify the natural environment
to suit their needs
ORDER
3.03 b 0.77 0.49
- Agriculture brings order to land that was once wilderness
- No one has the right to tell farmers what practices to use
on their land
- The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset
(a) Scale was 1-- strongly disagree, 2 = agree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
(b) Item scale reversed for analysis.
Means not sharing a superscript are significantly different from one another atp < .05.
Table 2
Mean scores on "frontier mentality" attitudes categories
Organic Conventional T-Test
Category Farmers (a) Farmers (b) Statistic
Mean = 4.24 a 3.24 t = 4.17,
df= 21.2,
HARMONY S.D. = 0.66 0.53 p_ .0001
Mean = 4.09 a 3.46
DISASTER S.D. = 0.83 1.27 not significant
Mean ~ 3.20 a, b 2.83
RIGHT S.D. ffi 1.32 1.12 not significant
Mean -- 2.81 b 3.24
ORDER S.D. = 0.85 0.65 not significant
(a) Means not sharing a superscript are significantly different from one another atp _< .05, with
Harmony and Right significantly different at p <- .06.
(b) All pairwise mean comparisons are not significant at p- .05
(means=-4.24 and 4.09, respectively) more strongly than Right (mean = 3.20) and
Order (mean = 2.81).
132
S. Sullivan, K McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
Table 3
Mean scores on farmer's appreciation of nature items
Stem Question / Item (a)
Organic
Farmers
Conventional
Farmers
T-Test
Statistic
How closely do you observe
the following on your farm?
RAINFALL
Mean =
S.D. =
4.67
0.49
5.00
0.00
(b)
Mean = 3.75 3.69
CLOUD TYPES S.D. = 0.96 0.85 not significant
Mean ffi 4.83 4.69
SOIL QUALITY S.D. = 0.39 0.48 not significant
Mean = 4.33 3.77
INSECT POPULATIONS S.D. ffi 1.15 1.01 not significant
Mean ffi 4.50 4.00
WILDLIFE S.D. ffi 0.67 0.91 not significant
Mean = 4.75 4.08 t ffi 1.88, df= 19.1
CHANGE OF SEASONS S.D.= 0.62 1.12 p < 0.08
Mean ffi 4.83 4.54
SOIL EROSION S.D. = 0.58 0.52 not significant
Mean = 4.08 4.38
WATER QUALITY S.D. ffi 1.38 0.77 not significant
(a) Scale was lfnot at all, 2ffinot very closely, 3ffineutral, 4=semewehat closely, 5=very
closely.
(b) Due to the lack of varianes among conventional farmers, the t-test statistic could not be cal-
culated.
Appreciation of Nature
The respondents were asked about some of the signs of nature that matter to them
as farmers. Table 3 shows the results from Student's t-test analyses with regard to
eight Appreciation of Nature items measured using a Likert scale. Both organic and
conventional farmers scored relatively high on all eight items, indicating that those
signs of nature are clearly noticed on their farms. There was no significant differ-
ence between the organic and conventional responses with regard to Cloud Types,
Soil Quality, Insect Populations, Wildlife, Soil Erosion, or Water Quality atp --_ .05.
Given the lack of variance among conventional farmers with regard to Rainfall (i.e.
8]] conventional farmers answered "very closely"), it was not possible to calculate the
t-test statistics. The organic farmers also scored high on this item (mean=4.65).
With regard to the Change of Season item, the analysis suggested a possible, al-
though statistically non-significant, trend for organic farmers to be more sensitive
to changes of seasons than conventional farmers (t = 1.88,
df=
19.1, p _< 0.08).
133
Farmers ' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
Table 4
Attitudes regarding the benefits of farming
Stem Question / Item Organic Farmers Conventional Farmers
What do you like most
about farming?.
LIVING ETHICALLY 33% 8%
COMMUNITY 25% 0%
THE WORK ITSELF 17% 31%
HERITAGE AND IDENTITY 0% 15%
Most Common responses of all Farmers
INDEPENDENCE 52%
NATURE 36%
BEING OUTDOORS 36%
PRIDE IN PRODUCT 24%
Benefits of Farming
When asked what they liked most about farming, the qualitative analysis suggested
that farmers from both sample groups responded similarly (see Table 4). 2 Farmers
typically gave more than one answer, so it was not possible to discern which of the
themes cited was
most
liked.
Two themes distinguished the organic from conventional growers. Among or-
ganic growers, "living ethically" was cited as what they liked most about farming
with the same frequency (33%) as "nature" and "being outdoors," second only to ~in-
dependence (50%). As one organic farmer explained, "Farming allows me to be of
service to the earth, contributing to a healing process." In contrast, only one (8%)
conventional grower mentioned the ethics or spirituality of farming as one of the
things liked most. Additionally, one-fourth (25%) of the organic growers made ref-
erence to enjoying the farming community- sharing and participating with farmers
and the people who purchase their products. None of the conventional farmers men-
tioned community in their response. In contrast, heritage and identity, mentioned
by 15% of the conventional farmers received no mention by the organic farmers.
The most frequent response for both groups was the independence farming al-
lows and "being one's own bess" (52% of all the farmers interviewed). Over one-third
of all the farmers (36%) referred to some aspect of nature in their response while an
equally common response (36%) was being outdoors. Nearly a quarter of all farmers
(24%) expressed pride in the products produced. There were a couple of other items
at a much lower level of endorsement. Twenty percent liked the process itself, "just
seeing things grow." The same number (20%) enjoyed the sense of control farming
gives.
134 S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
Table 5
Attitudes about leaving their farms
Stem Question / Item Organic Farmers Conventional Farmers
If you had to leave your farm,
what would you miss the most?
THE COUNTRYSIDE 33%
8%
BEING OUTDOORS 25% 8%
OPEN SPACES 8%
23%
Most Common Responses of all Farmers:
NATURE 28%
INDEPENDENCE 20%
Hindsight: Farmers' Attitudes about Leaving Their Farms
Farmers were asked what they would miss the most if they had to leave their farms
(see Table 5). Logically, one would expect farmers would miss the same things they
had stated they liked most in their responses to the earlier question discussed above.
In some respects, the answers did correspond. In general, however, responses to this
question were more poetic than responses to the previous one, with more descrip-
tive references to nature and less emphasis on individual actions as a farmer. Na-
ture was the most frequently occurring concept in responses from organic and con-
ventional farmers (28%), and was said with almost equal frequency by both (33% of
organic farmers and 23% of conventional farmers). Independence was also highly
endorsed by both groups of farmers answering this question (20%), but appeared
with less frequency than it had in response to the earlier question. Likewise, the
sense of control over one's destiny and resources that had been important to both
groups of farmers in answering what they liked about farming was almost
completely absent from their responses regarding what they would miss about farm-
ing (17% of organic growers and 23% of conventional growers liked the control farm-
ing gives them; 8% of organic growers and none of conventional growers would miss
the control). Essentially, what farmers in general like most about farming is the in-
dependence it gives them, but what they imagine they would miss most is nature.
In addition, none of the themes that distinguished the two groups of farmers on
the earlier question was prominent when farming was viewed in hindsight. For one-
third (33%) of the organic farmers, "living ethically" was one of the things they liked
most about farming. When farming was viewed in hindsight, however, only 8% of
the organic farmers mentioned they would miss "living ethically" if they had to leave
their farms. This finding makes sense because leaving the farm would not prevent
a person from living an ethical lifestyle. Also in contrast to their responses to the
earlier question, none of the organic growers mentioned the farming community as
135
Farmers" Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
Table 6
Attitudes regarding the drawbacks of farming
Stem Question / Item Organic Farmers ConventionalFarmers
What do you like least
about farming?.
EQUIPMENT
25% 8%
STRESS/DEALING WITH
THE UNEXPECTED
8% 31%
EXPENSE
8% 23%
Most Common Responses of all Farmers:
INADEQUATE FINANCIAL
REWARD 52%
something they would miss if they no longer farmed.
In response to this question, the two groups of farmers distinguished themselves
by how they depicted the setting they would miss. Organic farmers were most likely
to respond that they would miss nature, the countryside and being outdoors (33%,
33% and 25%, respectively). Conventional farmers were most likely to respond that
they would miss nature (23%) and the open spaces (23%). while organic farmers
frequently made reference to the quiet, peace and fresh air of the country, conven-
tional farmers were more likely to talk about just being outdoors and to make specific
reference to the "open spaces."
Drawbacks of Farming
As with the benefits of farming question, farmers from both groups particularly dis-
liked one aspect of farming (see Table 6). Over half (52%) of all farmers cited lack
of financial reward as the main drawback of farming. While this was the most com-
mon response given by both groups of farmers, it was mentioned with greater
frequency by the conventional growers (62%) than by the organic growers (42%).
An additional 23% of the conventional growers responded that the expense for in-
puts, equipment, etc. was what they liked least about farming. Only 8% of the or-
ganic growers gave this response. In total, 85% of the conventional farmers men-
tioned some sort of financial consideration, compared with 50% of organic farmers.
Among conventional growers, the stress associated with the unexpected (such as
weather) was the next most frequently cited drawback of farming. Almost one-third
(31%) of conventional growers included "stress" in their response, compared to only
8% of organic growers. After "lack of financial reward," the next most frequent re-
sponse
among organic growers (25%) involved equipment (maintenance, noise, etc.).
While disliking farming equipment was not unique to organic growers (8% of con-
ventional growers mentioned equipment), it was only the organic farmers who men-
tioned having considered draft animals as a superior alternative. One conventional
136
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
Table 7
Attitudes regarding satisfaction with farm life
Stem Question / Item Organic Farmers Conventional Farmers
How satisfying would you say your
life has been compared to other
people you know? What makes it
more or less satisfying?.
MORE SATISFYING 33%
15%
NOT HAVING ANY DEBT 25% 0%
FEEL FORTUNATE 17% 0%
LACK OF FINANCIAL SUCCESS 0% 31%
LIFE IS SATISFACTORY 0% 15%
~ENJOY" WHAT THEY DO 0%
15%
FRUSTRATED BY LACK 0% 15%
OF FREEDOM
FARMING IS NOT A CHOICE 0%
15%
Most Common Responses of all Farmers:
SATISFYING (but can't 56%
judge others' lives)
DOING WHAT THEY 24%
WANT TO BE DOING
farmer's response summed up many of the farmers' concerns: "... expeuse- I don't
know why I worry about money so much. Probably because I don't have any. The
unexpected-like breakdowns and the weather. Trying to get everything to work
right is quite a job. You expect it, but it never happens."
Satisfaction with Farm Life
Responses to the question, "How satisfying would you say your life has been com-
pared to other people you know?" were almost unanimously positive (see Table 7).
Most farmers from both groups (56%) expressed satisfaction with their lives, but
were reluctant to judge how satisfied other people they knew were. About one-fourth
of the farmers (24%) felt their lives were more satisfying than others they knew,
though this response was more common among organic farmers (33% for organic
farmers and 15% for conventional farmers). An equally frequent response (24%) was
simply that they were doing what they wanted to do.
Although answers for both groups were similar, conventional farmers were
generally less enthusiastic in their responses. For example, whereas over one-fourth
of the organic growers used more positive terms like "luckf and ~fortunate ~ to de-
137
Farmers " Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
Table 8
Attitudes regarding relationship with the land
Stem Question / Item Organic Farmers Conventional Farmers
Do you believe farmers have a
different relationship with the land
that those who don't farm? How?
FARMERS ARE IN CLOSER CONTACT
WITH THE LAND 33%
15%
SOME NON-FARMERS ARE LIKE
FARMERS 25%
15%
MENTIONED SOIL 8% 38%
PROTECT OR TAKE CARE OF THE
LAND 8%
38%
FARMERS RESPECT THE LAND 0%
15%
Most Common Responses of all Farmers:
YES, THEY DO HAVE A DIFFERENT
RELATIONSHIP
80%
FARMERS HAVE GREATER
AWARENESS AND APPRECIATION OF
SURROUNDINGS
32%
LAND IS SEEN AS A FARMER'S
LIVELIHOOD
28%
scribe how they felt about their occupations, almost one-third of the conventional
farmers used somewhat less positive terms like ~satisfactory" or "fairly happy" to de-
scribe their lives as farmers. Some conventional farmers even seemed to have re-
signed themselves to farming. Paradoxically, while they valued the independence of
farming, they resented the lack of freedom and leisure associated with their occupa-
tion. Independence and lack of freedom seem to co-exist in farming and farmers'
minds, each an outcome of the enormous responsibility individual farmers bear for
the "success" of their operation. As one conventional farmer said, "I've got this am-
bivalence about it [farming]... There's some joy in it, but it's mostly just a resig-
nation that this is what I'm going to spend the rest of my life doing. Farming is very
unforgiving. I don't like not having the freedom." Additionally, financial considera-
tions
seemed to factor differently into the satisfaction both groups felt with farm-
ing. For instance, nearly one-third (31%) of the conventional sample mentioned their
failure to achieve financial success as a factor negatively affecting their satisfaction
with their lives. In contrast, one-fourth (25%) of the organic farmers positively re-
lated not owing money on their farm to their personal satisfaction.
138
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
Farmers" Relationship with the Land
Farmers were asked if they believed farmers have a different relationship with the
land than those who don't farm (see Table 8). A majority of all farmers interviewed
(80% overall; 75% of organic farmers and 85% of conventional farmers) believed they
do have a different relationship with the land. All of the farmers interviewed believed
at least some
farmers have a different relationship with the land than non-farmers.
In explaining the difference between farmers and non-farmers, nearly one-third
(32%) of all farmers indicated that farmers have a greater awareness and apprecia-
tion of their surroundings than non-farmers. As one conventional farmer described
the relationship, 'Tee tend to admire nature more because we're closer to it. We pick
up on the little things. When other people go down the road and see a tree, we see
an oak or maple." This sense of awareness and appreciation was more often men-
tioned by organic farmers (42%) than by the conventional farmers (23%). A large
number (28%) also attributed the difference to farmers' seeing the land as their live-
lihood- something they
use
to grow crops and earn a living.
Organic farmers were more likely than conventional farmers to believe that farm-
ing is not a necessary prerequisite to appreciating the land. One-fourth of them
(25%) acknowledged that some non-farmers also have a very special relationship
with the land, whereas only 15% of the conventional farmers included this in their
response. This belief in the primacy of farming could be accounted for by conven-
tional farmers' endorsement of two additional concepts in explaining the difference
between farmers and non-farmers. First, 38% of conventional farmers specifically
mentioned the soil in answering this question. They frequently made references to
touching the soil- actually making contact with it. Only 8% of the organic farmers
included "the soil" in their response. Second, 38% of the conventional farmers de-
fined farmers' relationship with the land as a caretaker role. They spoke of"protect-
ing ~ and "caring for" the land. Some even anthrepomorphized the land, comparing
it to a member of the family. Again, only 8% of the organic farmers made similar
references.
Discussion
Farmers' Conflicted Attitudes
The findings shown above help to explain the paradoxical nature of farmers atti-
tudes about farming. The farmers we interviewed have a strong appreciation for na-
ture and the rural environment. They view contact with nature as a benefit of farm-
ing, would miss this contact if they didn't farm, and generally believe that people
should live in harmony with nature. Being outdoors and experiencing nature were
the second most frequently cited benefits of farming. Perhaps more telling, nearly
all farmers we interviewed mentioned some aspect of nature as what they would
miss most if they stopped farming. In addition, they believe that farmers have a
different relationship with the land from that of non-farmers, with a greater aware-
ness and appreciation of natural phenomena. This appreciation was very apparent
139 Farmers' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
in the interviews, as the most laconic of farmers waxed poetic in describing what
would be missed about farming. Even the conventional farmer whose overall score
on conservation practices was the lowest of the sample spoke mystically of the
change of seasons, recounting stories of perfectly-coloured trees observed while
harvesting. Most of these people report being satisfied with their lives as farmers.
These factors support the notion of a land ethic in operation whereby farmers see
themselves as stewards of the rural landscape.
Our hypothesis that all farmers would appreciate and attend to nature was drawn
primarily from the philosophical and historical literature, rather than empirical
data. The image of farmers as people living close to nature is deeply embedded in
several philosophical traditions in the U.S., but little empirical research has looked
at how closely farmers live with nature. This study supports Molnar and Duffy s
(1987) findings that farmers see themselves as understanding and working with na-
ture. While orientation towards nature has frequently been considered to fall on a
spectrum between utilitarian and appreciative (Bultena et al., 1982; Tremblay and
Dunlap, 1978), research efforts have focused on measuring utilitarianism rather
than appreciation. For example, Van Liere and Dunlap (1981), Arcury et al. (1986),
and Buttel and Flinn (1974; 1978) all concluded that urbanism was positively related
to environmental concern. They attributed these findings to the utilitarian orienta-
tion of rural residents, who are more likely to be engaged in extractive occupations
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 1996, 9(2~, 93-113
propriate characterization of environmental orientation.
At the same time, the farmers in this study view independence as a main bene-
fit of farming. In addition, they view a lack of financial reward as a main drawback
of farming. The simultaneous force of an independent spirit and a financial hard-
ship forces important compromises in the stewardship ideal. The notion of the family
farm is an important aspect of American heritage and encompasses those values that
many believe to be what this country stands for-rugged individualism and self-
sufficiency to name but two. Yet, with the increase in large-scale, capital-intensive
agriculture we have seen this family farm ideal threatened, questioned, and debated.
This ambivalence is reflected here in the way farmers are simultaneously vulnera-
ble to outside market forces and persistent in their farming independence. As Con-
stance et al. point out (1990), the historical farming problem of excess supply, and
the associated problems of low prices and unstable incomes, have shifted to prob-
lems of increased financial risk from incurred debt, product price instability, high
inflation from input costs, and concentrated input and product markets. Con-
sequently, farmers are faced with a variety of difficult decisions, coupled with a need
to understand and often adapt to the changes and new technologies inherent in mod-
ern agriculture. It is no wonder that farmers attitudes about farming as a profes-
sion and a lifestyle are complex.
Organic and Conventional Farmers
This study suggests some important differences between conventional and organic
140
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
farmers in the way they relate to farming and the natural environment. We pre-
dicted these two groups of farmers would have fundamentally different values with
regard to the land and indeed this is supported by our results. Regarding the
economic factors discussed above, conventional farmers report more stress in their
lives. They have a greater concern for the financial aspects of farming and report
stress as a major drawback of farming. In describing satisfaction with their lives,
they mention financial considerations as a worry more than do the organic farmers.
On the other hand, the conventional farmers view themselves in a caretaker role for
the land more than do the organic farmers, this is illustrated most vividly by their
greater concern for the soil as a resource.
However, the organic farmers showed a somewhat different profile. They re-
ported a greater concern for living ethically, a stronger perception of community,
and more satisfaction with their lives. Their awareness and appreciation for nature
and their relationship with the land were even stronger than among the conven-
tional farmers. We had hypothesized that conventional farmers would embrace the
frontier mentality that humans should overcome nature, and the Jeffersonian belief
in the rights of landholders. We also predicted that organic farmers would believe
in living harmoniously with nature and be less concerned with their rights as land-
holders. These predictions are supported by our findings on the frontier mentality
portion of the survey. While both groups somewhat reject the frontier mentality of
conquering nature, organic farmers were significantly more supportive of the idea
that humans should live in harmony with nature.
Finally, we also predicted that conventional farmers would feel more strongly
about their rights as landholders than organic farmers. The data generally support
this prediction. Organic farmers are not very concerned about their absolute rights,
while conventional farmers are basically neutral on this issue. On a more practical
level, qualitative analysis indicated organic and conventional farmers in agreement
that, regardless of their rights as property holders, government should have only a
limited role in regulating farming practices. Organic farmers generally agreed that
farmers do not have the right to damage the land. In addition, they tended to dis-
agree with or were neutral about the statement that no one has the right to tell
farmers what to do. Conventional farmers means on both categories were only
slightly above neutral. Taken together, these findings suggest that organic farmers
are willing to have their rights limited but do not necessarily trust the government
to do so, while conventional farmers are less willing to have their rights limited and
also distrust government limitations.
In conclusion, no simple pattern of attitudes or beliefs characterizes the farmers
in this study. Instead we are left with a tension at the level of individual farmers
that mirrors the broader cultural and philosophical debate over the interaction of
environmental and agricultural values and beliefs. And while organic and conven-
tional farmers do differ, their similarities may be as, or more, important. It would
seem that promoting environmentally sound agriculture need not target only one
subgroup of farmers.
Farmers' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
14/
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the farmers interviewed for their insightful comments and ac-
knowledge funding support from the University of Michigan School of Natural Re-
sources and Environment.
Notes
A copy of the survey instrument can be obtained by contacting the third author at the
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 430 East Univer-
sity Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1115.
All tables describing qualitative results are constructed using the same format. Concepts
that appear with markedly different frequency in responses given by organic and conven-
tional farmers are reported in the top portion of the tables. Concepts that appeared with
greater frequency in organic farmers' responses are reported first, followed by concepts
more common in conventional farmers' responses. When certain concepts were highly en-
dorsed by both groups of farmers, those concepts are reported in the lower portion of the
tables.
References
Anderson, Molly. 1990. Farming with Reduced Synthetic Chemicals in North
Carolina.
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture
5(2): 60-68.
Arcury, Thomas A., Timothy P. Johnson, and Susan J• Scollay. 1986. Ecological
Worldview and Environmental Knowledge: The "New Environmental Para-
digm." Journal of Environmental Education
17: 35--40.
Beus, Curtis E., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1990. Conventional Versus Alternative Agri-
culture: The Paradigmatic Roots of the Debate.
Rural Sociology
55(4): 590-
616.
•1991. Measuring Adherence to Alternative Vs. Conventional Agricultural Par-
adigms: A Proposed Scale.
Rural Sociology
56(3): 432-460.
Bultena, Gordon, Eric Hoiberg, Don Albrecht, and Peter Nowak. 1982. Land Use
Planning: A Study of Farm and City Perspectives.
Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation
37(6): 341-344.
Bultena, Gordon, Peter Nowak, Eric Hoiberg, and Don Albrecht. 1981. Farmers'
Attitudes toward Land Use Planning.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
36(1): 37--41.
Buttel, Frederick H., and William L. Flinn. 1974. The Structure of Support for the
Environmental Movement, 1968-1970.
Rural Sociology
39: 56-69.
--. 1978 Economic Growth Versus the Environment: Survey Evidence.
Social
Science Quarterly
57(September): 410-420.
Buttel, Frederick H., and Gilbert W. Giliespie, Jr. 1988. Preferences for Crop Pro-
duction Practices among Conventional and Alternative Farmers.
Journal of
Alternative Agriculture
3: 11-17.
Buttel, Frederick H., Gilbert W. Gillespie, Jr., Oscar W. Larson III, and Craig K.
Harris. 1981. The Social Bases of Agrarian Environmentalism: A Comparative
Analysis of New York and Michigan Farm Operators.
Rural Sociology
46(3):
391-410.
Callicott, J. Baird. 1987. The Scientific Substance of the Land Ethic. In
Aldo Leopold:
The Man and His Legacy,
edited by Thomas Tanner, pp. 87-106• Ankeny, IA:
142
S. Sullivan, E. McCann, R. De Young and D. Erickson
IA: Soil Conservation Society of America.
Carr, Susan, and Joyce Tait. 1991. Differences in the Attitudes of Farmers and Con-
servationists and their Implications.
Journal of Environmental Management
32: 281-294.
Constance, Douglass H., Jere L. Gilles, and William D. Heffernan. 1990. Agrarian
Policies and Agricultural Systems in the United States. In
Agrarian Policies
and Agricultural Systems,
edited by Alessandro Bonanno, pp. 9-75. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Crevecoeur, J. Hector St. John. 1904 [1784].
Letters from an American Farmer.
New
York: Fox, Duffield & Company.
Cronbach, L.J. 1951. Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests.
Psycho-
metrika
16: 297-335.
Crosson, Pierre. 1982. Diverging Interests in Soil Conservation and Water Quality:
Society vs. the Farmer. In
Perceptions, Attitudes and Risk: Overlooked Varia-
bles in Formulating Public Policy on Soil Conservation and Water Quality.
Washington, DC: Economic Research Service. (February).
Esseks, J. Dixon, Steven E. Kraft, and Lucy K. Vinis. 1990.
Agriculture and the En-
vironment: A Study of Farmers' Practices arid Perceptions.
Washington, DC:
The American Farmland Trust.
Flader, Susan. 1987. Aldo Leopold and the evolution of a land ethic. InAldo
Leopold:
The Man and His
Legacy, edited by Thomas Tanner, pp. 3-24. Ankeny, IA:
Soil Conservation Society of America.
Hall, Trish. 1992. In 90's Cuisine, the Farmer is the
Star. The New York Times.
(July
8), p.
C1.
Hargrove, C. Eugene, and J. Baird Callicott. 1990. Leopold's "Means and Ends in
Wildlife Management": A Brief Commentary.
Environmental Ethics
12: 333-
337.
Harris, Craig K., Sharon E. Powers, and Frederick H. Buttel. 1980. Myth and Real-
ity in Organic Farming: A Profile of Conventional and Organic Farmers in Mi-
chigan.
Newsline 8: 33-43.
Hendee, John C. 1969. Rural-Urban Differences Reflected in Outdoor Recreation
Participation. Journal of Leisure Research 1(Autumn): 333-341.
Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press,
1949; reprint ed., New York: Robert Finch, 1987.
Little, Charles E. 1985. In a Landscape of Hope. Wilderness (Spring): 21-30.
Meine, Curt. 1987. The Farmer as Conservationist: Leopold on Agriculture. In Aldo
Leopold: The Man and His Legacy, edited by Thomas Tanner, pp. 39-52.
Ankeny, IA: Soil Conservation Society of America.
Molnar, Joseph J., and Patricia A. Duffy. 1987. Urban and Suburban Residents' Per-
ceptions of Farmers and Agriculture. In Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities,
edited by W. Lockeretz, pp. 119-131. Boston: Soil and Water Conservation
Society of America.
Napier, Ted L., and D. Lynn Forster. 1982. Farmer Attitude and Behavior Associated
with Soil Erosion Control. In Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and In-
centives, edited by H.G. Halcrow, E.O. Heady and M.L. Cotner. Ankeny, IA:
Soil Conservation Society of America.
Nash, Roderiek. 1982. Wilderness and the American Mind. Binghamton, NY: Vail-
Ballou
Press.
.1987. Aldo Leopold and the Limits of American Liberalism. In A/do
Leopold:
The Man and His
Legacy, edited by Thomas Tanner, pp. 53-86. Ankeny, IA:
143 Farmers' Attitudes about Farming and the Environment
Soil Conservation Society of America.
Patton, M.Q. 1990.
Qualitative Evaluation and research Methods.
Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Peterson, Tarla Rai. 1991. Telling the Farmers' Story: Competing Responses to Soil
Conservation Rhetoric.
Quarterly Journal of Speech
77: 289-308.
Piasecki, Bruce. 1982. Pastoral Ideals and Environmental Problems: An Interview
with Leo Marx.
The Amicus Journal
(Fall): 56--61.
Stegner, Wallace. 1985. Living on Our Principal.
Wilderness
(Spring): 15-20.
Tremblay, Kenneth R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. Rural-urban Residence and Con-
cern with Environmental Quality: A Replication and Extension.
Rural Soci-
ology
43(3): 474-491.
Van Liere, Kent D., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1981. Environmental Concern: Does it
Make a Difference How it's Measured?
Environment and Behavior
13(6): 651-
676.
Westmacott, Richard. 1983. The Conservation of Farmed Landscapes: Attitudes and
Problems in the United States and Britain.
Landscape Design
(August): 11-
14.
Wojcik, Jan. 1989.
The Arguments of Agriculture: A Casebook in Contemporary Ag-
ricultural Controversy.
West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
