Dataset Information

An approach for comparing agricultural development to societal visions.

ABSTRACT: There is broad agreement that agriculture has to become more sustainable in order to provide enough affordable, healthy food at minimal environmental and social costs. But what is "more sustainable"? More often than not, different stakeholders have opposing opinions on what a more sustainable future should look like. This normative dimension is rarely explicitly addressed in sustainability assessments. In this study, we present an approach to assess the sustainability of agricultural development that explicitly accounts for the normative dimension by comparing observed development with various societal visions. We illustrate the approach by analyzing farm- and landscape-scale development as well as sustainability outcomes in a Swiss case study landscape. Observed changes were juxtaposed with desired changes by Avenir Suisse, a liberal think tank representing free-market interests; the Swiss Farmers Association, representing a conservative force; and Landwirtschaft mit Zukunft, an exponent of the Swiss agroecological movement. Overall, the observed developments aligned most closely with desired developments of the liberal think-tank (72%). Farmer interviews revealed that in the case study area farms increased in size (+ 57%) and became more specialized and more productive (+ 223%) over the past 20 years. In addition, interpretation of aerial photographs indicated that farming became more rationalized at the landscape level, with increasing field sizes (+ 34%) and removal of solitary field trees (- 18%). The case study example highlights the varying degrees to which current developments in agriculture align with societal visions. By using societal visions as benchmarks to track the progress of agricultural development, while explicitly addressing their narratives and respective systems of values and norms, this approach offers opportunities to inform also the wider public on the extent to which current developments are consistent with different visions. This could help identify mismatches between desired and actual development and pave the way for designing new policies.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13593-021-00739-3.

SUBMITTER: Helfenstein J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8758632 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Agricultural development must integrate multiple objectives at the same time, including food security, income, and environmental sustainability. To help achieve these objectives, development practitioners need to prioritize concrete livelihood practices to promote to rural households. But trade-offs between objectives can lead to dilemmas in selecting practices. In addition, heterogeneity among farming households requires targeting different strategies to different types of households. Existing diversity of household resources and activities, however, may also bear solutions. We explored a new, empirical research method that identifies promising options for multi-objective development by focusing on existing cases of strong multi-dimensional household performance. The "Positive Deviance" approach signifies identifying locally viable livelihood practices from diverse households that achieve stronger performance than comparable households in the same area. These practices are promising for other local households in comparable resource contexts. The approach has been used in other domains, such as child nutrition, but has not yet been fully implemented for agricultural development with a focus on the simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives. To test our adapted version of the Positive Deviance approach, we used a quantitative survey of over 500 rural households in South-Eastern Tanzania. We identified 54 households with outstanding relative performance regarding five key development dimensions (food security, income, nutrition, environmental sustainability, and social equity). We found that, compared to other households with similar resource levels, these "positive deviants" performed strongest for food security, but only slightly better for social equity. We then re-visited a diverse sub-sample for qualitative interviews, and identified 14 uncommon, "deviant" practices that plausibly contributed to the households' superior outcomes. We illustrate how these practices can inform specific recommendations of practices for other local households in comparable resource contexts. The study demonstrates how, with the Positive Deviance approach, empirical observations of individual, outstanding households can inform discussions about locally viable agricultural development solutions in diverse household context.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is increasing interest in expanding the elements of value to be considered when making health policy decisions. To help inform value frameworks, this study quantified preferences for disease attributes in a general public sample and examined which combination of attributes (disease profiles) are considered most important for research and treatment.MethodsA discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted in a US general population sample, recruited through online consumer panels. Respondents were asked to select one of a set of health conditions they believed to be most important, characterized by attributes defined by a previous qualitative study: onset age; cause of disease; life expectancy; caregiver requirement; symptom burden (characterized by the Health Utilities Index with varying levels of ambulation independence, dexterity limitations, and degree of pain and discomfort); and disease prevalence. A fractional factorial DCE design was implemented using R, and 60 choice sets were generated (separated into blocks of 10 per participant). Data were analyzed using a mixed-logit regression model, and results used to assess the likelihood of preferring disease profiles. Based on individual attribute preferences, overall preferences for disease profiles, including a profile aligned with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD), were compared.ResultsFifty-two percent of respondents (n = 537) were female, and 70.6% were aged 18-54 years. Attributes considered most important were those related to life expectancy (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.88 [1.56-2.27] for a 50% reduction in remaining life expectancy vs no impact), and symptom burden (OR [95% CI] 1.84 [1.47-2.31] for severe vs mild burden). Greater importance was also found for pediatric onset, caregiver requirement, and diseases affecting more people. As an example of disease profile preferences, a DMD-like pediatric inherited disease with 50% reduction in life expectancy, extensive caregiver requirement, severe symptom burden, and 1:5000 prevalence had 2.37-fold higher odds of being selected as important versus an equivalent disease with adult onset and no life expectancy reduction.ConclusionsOf disease attributes included in this DCE, respondents valued higher prevalence of disease, life expectancy and symptom burden as most important for prioritizing research and treatment. Based on expressed attribute preferences, a case study of an inherited pediatric disease involving substantial reductions to length and quality of life and requiring caregiver support has relatively high odds of being identified as important compared to diseases reflecting differing attribute profiles. These findings can help inform expansions of value frameworks by identifying important attributes from the societal perspective.

Project description:UNLABELLED: The widespread availability of microarray technology has driven functional genomics to the forefront as scientists seek to draw meaningful biological conclusions from their microarray results. Gene annotation enrichment analysis is a functional analysis technique that has gained widespread attention and for which many tools have been developed. Unfortunately, most of these tools have limited support for agricultural species. Here, we evaluate and compare four publicly available computational tools (Onto-Express, EasyGO, GOstat, and DAVID) that support analysis of gene expression datasets in agricultural species. We use AgBase as the functional annotation reference for agricultural species. The selected tools were evaluated based on i) available features, usage and accessibility, ii) implemented statistical computational methods, and iii) annotation and enrichment performance analysis. Annotation was assessed using a randomly selected test gene annotation set and an experimental differentially expressed gene-set--both from chicken. The experimental set was also used to evaluate identification of enriched functional groups.Comparison of the tools shows that they produce different sets of annotations for the two datasets and different functional groups for the experimental dataset. While DAVID, GOstat and Onto-Express annotate comparable numbers of genes, DAVID provides by far the most annotations per gene. However, many of DAVID's annotations appear to be redundant or are at very high levels in the GO hierarchy. The GOSlim distribution of annotations shows that GOstat, Onto-Express and EasyGO provide similar GO distributions to those found in AgBase while annotations from DAVID show a different GOSlim distribution, again probably due to duplication and many non-specific terms. No consistent trends were found in results of GO term over/under representation analysis applied to the experimental data using different tools. While GOstat, David and Onto-Express could retrieve some significantly enriched terms, EasyGO did not show any significantly enriched terms. There was little agreement about the enriched terms identified by the tools. CONCLUSION: Different tools for functionally annotating gene sets and identifying significantly enriched GO categories differ widely in their results when applied to a test annotation gene set and an experimental dataset from chicken. These results emphasize the need for care when interpreting the results of such analysis and the lack of standardization of approaches.

Project description:ObjectivesComparison of real time teledermatology with outpatient dermatology in terms of clinical outcomes, cost-benefits, and patient reattendance.DesignRandomised controlled trial with a minimum follow up of three months.SettingFour health centres (two urban, two rural) and two regional hospitals.Subjects204 general practice patients requiring referral to dermatology services; 102 were randomised to teledermatology consultation and 102 to traditional outpatient consultation.Main outcome measuresReported clinical outcome of initial consultation, primary care and outpatient reattendance data, and cost-benefit analysis of both methods of delivering care.ResultsNo major differences were found in the reported clinical outcomes of teledermatology and conventional dermatology. Of patients randomised to teledermatology, 55 (54%) were managed within primary care and 47 (46%) required at least one hospital appointment. Of patients randomised to the conventional hospital outpatient consultation, 46 (45%) required at least one further hospital appointment, 15 (15%) required general practice review, and 40 (39%) no follow up visits. Clinical records showed that 42 (41%) patients seen by teledermatology attended subsequent hospital appointments compared with 41 (40%) patients seen conventionally. The net societal cost of the initial consultation was pound132.10 per patient for teledermatology and pound48.73 for conventional consultation. Sensitivity analysis revealed that if each health centre had allocated one morning session a week to teledermatology and the average round trip to hospital had been 78 km instead of 26 km, the costs of the two methods of care would have been equal.ConclusionsReal time teledermatology was clinically feasible but not cost effective compared with conventional dermatological outpatient care. However, if the equipment were purchased at current prices and the travelling distances greater, teledermatology would be a cost effective alternative to conventional care.

Dataset Information

An approach for comparing agricultural development to societal visions.

Supplementary information

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets