Lawrence Soosai‐Nathan and Antonella Delle Fave
Farmers are indispensable, as they cater to a basic human need – food. It is claimed that the agricultural sector will remain significant as long as humans eat. In 2014, people living in rural areas accounted for 47% of the world population and about 38% of the planet consisted of agricultural land (World Bank, 2015). Almost one billion people are officially employed in the agricultural sector, but the real amount is difficult to estimate, due to the large number of part‐time and full‐time workers (especially women and children) who provide an unpaid though substantial contribution in many parts of the developing world (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2015).
Notwithstanding both their indispensable role and their populous nature, farmers are a largely neglected category in industrial/organizational research. Only during the last two decades have the new and compelling challenges posed by the climate changes and worsening conditions of the planet’s ecosystem drawn the attention of scientists from different disciplines toward the health of the natural environment and of the people living and working in rural areas.
The problems of nutrition and planet resources were identified as the central theme of the 2015 Universal Exposition, which took place in Milan, Italy under the motto “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life.” The Milan Charter, the official manifesto of the event, emphasizes the need for raising awareness of rural workers’ conditions, and for balancing tradition with innovation in agriculture: “farmers, livestock keepers and fishers all play a crucial role in nutrition; they have equal rights and duties in their work, whether they are small‐scale enterprises or large‐scale businesses”; “knowledge and practical experience of both traditional and advanced production methods is critical to the efficiency of agricultural systems, from family farms to industrial farms” (Milan Charter, 2015).
Responding to this gross neglect of the most populous working class of our planet, this chapter provides a review of the available literature, underscoring the importance of urgent and varied explorations of farmers’ well‐being that go beyond the traditional economic and sociologic measures. It offers some hints on the resources and potentials of the people working in the agricultural sector from the eudaimonic and hedonic perspectives of well‐being. More specifically, though limited in number, studies conducted among farmers highlight the important role of positive relationships, mastery and self‐efficacy, connection with nature, and resilience in facing the unpredictability of natural changes that directly affect work outcomes. It also points to some challenges and problems that could greatly benefit from interventions focused on well‐being promotion.
Farmers represent a paradoxical workforce on three levels. First, agriculture is ancient yet modern. As early as 8000 BCE, humans shifted to dependence on cultivated crops and domesticated animals for their subsistence. Evidences show that by 3500 BCE, the agricultural sector in the Middle East could support sufficient numbers of non‐cultivating specialists to give rise to the first civilizations (Balter, 2013). After replacing the hunter‐gatherer economy, agriculture was the major human occupation across millennia. It preserved this role even after the industrial revolution, by virtue of the increasing demand for food production due to overall population growth. In many African and Asian countries, agriculture remains the most prominent work opportunity even in the 21st century (World Bank, 2015).
Second, the agricultural workforce is populous yet neglected. Although the number of people employed in agriculture varies widely on a per‐country basis (ranging from less than 2% in the US and Canada to over 80% in many African and Asian nations), the agricultural sector remains the largest global employer, engaging one third of the available work force (International Labour Organization, 2011). In addition, agriculture remains the main source of income and employment for the 70% of the world’s poor who live in rural areas (World Bank, 2015). Nevertheless, in many countries farm workers represent one of the most neglected categories of citizens as evidenced by inadequate housing, poor health and education facilities, low income, and relative social isolation.
Third, the agricultural sector is peaceful yet endangered. Farming often elicits an image of a peaceful and healthy way of life surrounded by nature and its beauty. In contrast to this idealized and partial image, farmers are considered as the most endangered working class today due to their exposure to physical injuries, malnutrition, acute and chronic diseases, adverse events due to both natural causes and human modifications of the ecosystem, and aggressive competition including the pervasive use of genetically modified organisms (GMO).
Taking into account these three paradoxes, it is not surprising that farming ranks among the 10 most stressful occupations in the world (Kolstrup et al., 2013), leading to negative consequences at the psychological level. Several studies have explored this issue across countries, though most of them were focused on the assessment of mental disorders and ill‐being, rather than mental health and well‐being (Crain et al., 2012; Dongre & Deshmukh, 2012; Feng, Ji, & Xu, 2015; Judd, et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2003). Special attention was given to the increasing incidence of farmers’ suicides across nations. This worrying phenomenon is related to the progressive worsening of farmers’ financial conditions caused by the aggressive market dominance of multinational companies and large‐scale food producers, as well as natural challenges such as drought or epidemics affecting farm animals (Fraser et al., 2005; Miller & Burns, 2008; Mishra, 2007; Peck, 2005). Despite the populous nature of this working class, the potential impact of farmers’ suicides on families and larger communities has not been substantially investigated yet (Kennedy, Maple, McKay, & Brumby, 2014).
An additional risk factor for farmers’ (and consumers’) health and well‐being is represented by the widespread use of potentially toxic substances in agriculture. Scientists, commercial companies, technicians, and policymakers often do not provide farmers with complete and correct information on the risks and benefits of procedures and instruments (such as mechanical tools, agrochemicals, and food supplements for animals) that affect both the amount and quality of products, as well as the health and well‐being of workers, animals, and consumers. This aspect is often overlooked, though its consequences can be harmful for humans, animals, and whole ecosystems. For example, a study conducted among Thai rice farmers based on the health belief model (Raksanam, Taneepanichskul, Robson, & Siriwong, 2014) showed that participants held several erroneous beliefs regarding perceived safety of agrochemicals and pesticides, maintenance of spraying equipment, and use of appropriate clothing while performing related operations.
Given the manifold challenges that farmers face in their daily life, the importance of developing studies, policies, and interventions aimed at exploring and promoting their well‐being is increasingly perceived by international institutions. Unfortunately, these initiatives prominently focus on economic factors and stop with economic well‐being, disregarding the multidimensional nature of the concept (Nimpagaritse & Culver, 2010). It is often ignored that farmers’ psychological resources may promote the capacity to thrive at work and make good financial decisions, regardless or in spite of environmental and social conditions. In an extensive review of literature very little was found on the enabling factors within the agricultural sector (Goffin & ACC Policy Team, 2014). The potential of this work domain in contributing to individual and community well‐being seems still unexplored.
Nevertheless, thanks to the efforts of a few, there is a growing emphasis on a broader outlook of well‐being within farming communities. In particular, studies on the mental health of farmers are pitching for a multidimensional approach as farmers are subjected to complex, intertwined, and multiple stressors. Researchers suggest that a wider area of exploration – such as the content and organization of work, workers’ competence, their needs, cultural beliefs and practices, and personal issues – is needed to understand farmers’ physical and mental health, work performance, and satisfaction (Kolstrup et al., 2013).
One of the pioneer studies on this topic (Wozniak, Draughn, & Knaub, 1993) involved U.S. husband and wife farm residents, who were asked to rate their level of satisfaction in eight life domains. Perceived control of one’s own life and family emerged as the domains characterized by the highest levels of satisfaction, while the lowest ratings were reported for financial aspects.
A more recent study was conducted among South African farmers (Thekiso, Botha, Wissing, & Kruger, 2013). Participants reported remarkably low levels of satisfaction with life, positive affect, vitality (measured through the Subjective Vitality Scale [SVS]; Ryan & Frederick, 1997), and fulfillment of the three basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000). At the same time, they described some positive resources, such as interpersonal relationships, support derived from religious beliefs and practice, as well as flow‐like experiences of deep absorption and enjoyment related to the practice of crafts and sports. Nevertheless, these participants seemed to be constrained in a vicious cycle of poverty and dependence that seriously affected their physical and mental health.
The importance of objective outcomes for promoting farmers’ well‐being was further confirmed, though in a very different setting, among Australian dryland farmers and irrigators (Peel, Berry, & Schirmer, 2015). Data were selected from the Regional Well‐being Survey 2013, and were collected through the Personal Wellbeing Index (PWI, International Wellbeing Group, 2013). Findings highlighted a significant relationship between higher farm profitability, greater well‐being levels, and lower distress. A three‐wave longitudinal study conducted among Dutch farmers partially contradicted this evidence (Gorgievski‐Duijvesteijn, Bakker, Schaufeli, & van der Heijden, 2005), showing that well‐being levels were more stable than perceived financial conditions at the intra‐individual level, and that an increase in financial problems led to an only temporary increase of distress levels, without affecting self‐reported illness.
The relationship between well‐being and physical health was also explored. A study conducted in New Zealand among livestock farmers highlighted that satisfaction with work was positively related to higher incidence of loss of control events while driving quad bikes (Clay, Treharne, Hay‐Smith, & Milosavljevic, 2014). This rather surprising finding could be related to the assessment strategy. Workplace satisfaction was measured through a 15‐item scale, extrapolated from the Whole Body Vibration Health Surveillance Questionnaire (WBVHSQ; Pope et al., 2002). The analysis of item loadings led to the identification of three factors: job satisfaction, colleague support, and job demands. Only job demands was significantly associated with loss of control events, and especially among self‐employed farmers. As substantiated by several models (such as the job demands‐resource model; Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001), work demands may represent gratifying opportunities for engagement and flow experiences, but also sources of distress. The self‐employed participants in this study faced more stressful demands compared with employees, in relation to higher financial pressures, responsibilities toward employed personnel, and complex decision‐making management. Due to these demands, and in line with the literature (Personick & Windau, 1995), they were more at risk of driving accidents. This finding further highlights the importance of assessing different facets of well‐being at work, including aspects – such as perceived challenges and demands – that may have a twofold valence when referred to a specific occupation or work role.
The impact of socio‐economic conditions on the well‐being of agricultural workers was more clearly highlighted by comparative studies investigating well‐being indicators among rural and urban groups within the same country. Several studies showed that that farmers have higher rates of mental illness (Fraser et al., 2005; Hounsome, Edwards, Hounsome, & Edwards‐Jones, 2012). Even farmers scoring positively on mental health or well‐being measures appear more likely than non‐farmers to feel hopeless about the future, have suicidal ideation, or commit suicide – a contradiction not yet fully understood but apparent in several countries (Thomas et al., 2003).
In South Africa, four cross‐sectional studies conducted between 1998 and 2010 on urban and rural populations identified recurrent constellations of well‐being patterns in each group (Wissing, Temane, & Khumalo, 2013). Across studies, the hedonic dimensions of satisfaction with life (measured through the Satisfaction with Life Scale [SWLS]; Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) and hedonic balance (measured through the Affectometer 2; Kammann & Flett, 1983) were steadily and significantly lower among rural participants. Similar findings were detected for social well‐being, measured through the Mental Health Continuum (MHC‐SF; Keyes, 2005), contradicting the stereotype of higher levels of social support, cohesion, and solidarity in rural communities compared with cities. As concerns eudaimonic dimensions, the pattern was more complex. Spiritual well‐being, measured with the JAREL Spiritual Well‐Being Scale (SWS), which is prominently focused on the feeling of interconnectedness (Hungelmann, Kenkel‐Rossi, Klassen, & Stollenwerk, 1996), was steadily higher among rural participants. Sense of coherence (SOC; Antonovsky, 1993) did not significantly differ between groups in one of the studies, and the same was true of general self‐efficacy and psychological well‐being, the latter (assessed through MHC‐SF) attaining significantly higher values in the rural group in the 2010 study. In contrast, in the same study rural participants reported significantly lower levels of global mental health (assessed through The Warwick‐Edinburgh Mental Well‐Being Scale [WEMWBS]; Tennant et al., 2007), while urban participants (especially women) reported higher levels of distress and depression across studies. These findings suggest that rather than urbanization per se, its positive implications in terms of better infrastructures and opportunities in the domains of jobs, health, and leisure may explain the higher levels of well‐being (including its social components) reported by urban participants. The findings also provide suggestions for intervention, highlighting that improving the objective working and life conditions of farmers could promote their hedonic well‐being and general mental health, capitalizing on eudaimonic resources already available, such as self‐efficacy, feelings of interconnectedness, and sense of coherence.
Another cross‐sectional study was conducted with the PWI in a group of Australian farmers facing a period of drought, compared with participants selected from the general population (O’Brien, Berry, & Hogan, 2012). Findings showed that in both groups the levels of satisfaction perceived in eight different life domains loaded onto two separate supra‐domains: satisfaction with connectedness, and satisfaction with efficacy; moreover, analyses highlighted that efficacy mediated the link between connectedness and global satisfaction. The authors suggested that strengthening individuals’ connectedness to the community may foster higher efficacy and thus drive satisfaction with life as a whole. These findings are especially relevant for interventions addressed to farmers, who live in relative isolation and have limited access to social services and health facilities.
The studies reported in the previous sections have identified relationships as one of the major sources of well‐being for farmers. This finding is consistent with the bulk of literature focused on positive relations, which imply strong feelings of empathy and affection for all human beings and the capacity for greater love, deeper friendship, and warm relationships to others (Ryff, 1989). From birth until old age, relationships play a crucial role in meeting basic needs that range from personal care to affiliation. The importance of relationships for well‐being was emphasized in various theories and models in well‐being research (Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006; Delle Fave, Wissing, Brdar, Vella‐Brodrick & Freire, 2013; Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern & Seligman, 2011; Ryff & Singer, 2008).
The agricultural sector offers opportunities for relationships at a unique and complex level, as the individual roles between work, home, and family are more intertwined and integrated than in industrial and service occupations. Unlike any other workforce, varied human spheres merge and interact within the agricultural sector. An individual farmer is located in the centre of the micro sphere of farming and family, closely embedded in the meso‐level sphere of community, ecology/place (the natural and physical elements of the environment), and industry. In turn these are embedded in the macro sphere of government, economy, and society (Greenhill, King, Lane, & MacDougall, 2009). These peculiar features are highlighted by the increasing number of urban people who choose farming as a job out of personal interest. They have been discussed through the concept of “ambiguity work,” using Swedish horse‐farmers as an exemplary case (Andersson Cederholm, 2015). The analysis of narratives collected among self‐employed women who provide service work with and through horses highlighted that these workers are engaged in a continuous balancing act between family roles, personal interests, and the commercial aspects of their job. In so doing, they are able to overcome the work/life juxtaposition in favor of a positive spillover and blurring of boundaries between the different life spheres and components of personal identity.
Although some studies identify the “dark side” of social capital as the reciprocal burden that strong social bonds bring to those with poor resources or resilience (Berry, 2008; Schulman & Anderson, 1999), relationships are mostly found to enhance mental health and well‐being among farmers (Berry & Welsh, 2010). Qualitative studies based on interviews showed that positive relations and community connectedness represented a unique resource for farm workers, significantly contributing to their well‐being along with health, standard of living, and self‐efficacy (Berry, Hogan, Ng, & Parkinson, 2011; Greenhill et al., 2009).
Social support was found to be an important variable in the relationship between agricultural stress and job satisfaction. Farmers reported that they handled stress effectively through the search for support from others working in the agricultural sector, such as veterinary surgeons (Peck, 2005). In contrast, farmers experiencing a highly demanding work environment coupled with low control and low social support reported stress and strain, mental health problems, and depression (Kolstrup et al., 2013). Perceived community bonds and social cohesion represent both a strategy for sustaining well‐being and a resource under adverse circumstances, when they need a boost (King, Lane, MacDougall, & Greenhill, 2009). Kilpatrick, Willis, Johnsa, and Peek (2012) found that health interventions addressed to rural workers were most successful if access to them was facilitated by local community groups and industry associations. Suicide rates were lower among Indian farmers who perceived higher social support (Mishra, 2007). Australian drought‐stricken farmers perceived social capital and social cohesion as the prominent adaptive resources and resilient boosters helping their families to handle the adverse climatic conditions (Caldwell & Boyd, 2009; Rolfe, 2006).
The relational dimension of farmers’ life further stretches to the ecosystem, as the agricultural sector has to evolve in harmony with nature and its dynamics. Some studies have highlighted that farmers develop a unique, close, and strong sense of connection to the land as a part of their identity, so that caring for their land is part of caring for themselves (Albrecht et al., 2007; Berry et al., 2011). Their sense of worth is dependent on their success as stewards of land and agricultural producers (Burton & Wilson, 2006; Schirmer, Berry, & O’Brien, 2013). Australian farmers experiencing severe drought expressed readiness to cope with social and economic challenges in order to maintain their generational bond to the property, based on the belief that the well‐being of themselves and their families should only be addressed after addressing the well‐being of the farm (DPRESP, 2008).
The opportunity for connections extends still further, as the mutuality of religion and agriculture has been repeatedly described (Zeder, 2008). In fact, from antiquity sowing seed, tending fields, and harvesting crops are often done seeking divine guidance and help. In Asian traditions, nature itself is considered as God. In a qualitative study conducted among Australian farmers, participants reported that family relationships, gardening, and the environment in which they lived all contributed to their sense of connection with life beyond themselves (Greenhill et al., 2009).
The concept of environmental mastery was first introduced by Phillips (1961), who described it as an instinct that progresses through five stages: isolation, dependency, autonomy, cooperation, and independence. However, the concept received significant attention through its inclusion in Ryff’s (1989) construct of psychological well‐being. According to Ryff’s formulation, environmental mastery is defined as the “capacity to manage effectively one’s life and surrounding world” (Ryff & Keyes, 1995, p. 720). It is an ability to manipulate, control, and effectively use resources and opportunities, creating environments suitable to one’s psychic conditions. It is a state of mind, rather than a just a behavior, that serves as an antidote to feelings of helplessness. Environmental mastery has gained increased attention in the health and social science research as it is considered an important psychological resource.
The uncertainty and unpredictability of agricultural processes and outcomes may lead to the claim that farmers enjoy less environmental mastery in comparison to other working sectors. Suicides, for example, are often related to financial difficulties and subsequent loss of control and a sense of helplessness. This apprehension calls for a clarification of the concept that can better delineate the type of mastery characterizing the agricultural sector.
Western philosophical traditions propose a hierarchical model of environmental mastery where humans, and especially men, are the masters of the universe, called forth to direct and shape the entire natural realm. Within such a perspective, mastery is primarily perceived as a capacity to manipulate, modify, and use the environment according to the needs and wants of humans because the world is made to serve them. Consequently, self‐efficacy (Bandura, 1997) represents the perceived ability to control and master environmental challenges. In contrast, Eastern philosophical traditions underscore a circular model of mastery, wherein man is not the master on the top of the universe, but is part of it. Such a worldview is synthesized in the concept of Ŗta found in Rg Veda. Ŗta in Sanskrit means “that which is properly joined” – order, rule, truth, and the principle of natural order that regulates and coordinates the activities of the universe and of its components (Mahony, 1998). It refers to the ultimate cosmic order that knits together everything, from galaxies to atomic subparticles, influencing their nature and course. This worldview of interconnectedness is currently supported by studies in systems biology, epigenetics, and biocultural evolution (Jablonka & Lamb, 2014; Richerson & Boyd, 2005). Within such a perspective, environmental mastery is not control, but adaption and collaboration, and studies in cross‐cultural psychology have repeatedly highlighted its prominence among non‐Western participants (Bond, 2013; Markus & Kitayama, 1991).
The hierarchical model can be credited for its technological advancement in predicting, manipulating, and modifying the environment, making life comfortable and easy. However, it has adverse effects as well, as highlighted by the growing concerns for the future of the planet expressed by international agencies, scientists, and politicians. According to the circular model of mastery, instead, humans are endowed with a mindset to cope with and adapt to the environment, rather than a superior capacity over nature. Within this model, self‐efficacy is not the capacity for control and manipulation of the environment, but for collaboration and coordination.
Given its dependency on nature, the agricultural sector is a “work‐with” nature process, prominently based on a circular or collaborative environmental mastery. Farming requires, for example, a constant decision‐making process with large financial and material implications. Farmers have to make decisions within a world that is not entirely certain or knowable, and is almost always complex. Farmers make their decisions on bounded rationality (Greenhill et al., 2009), a cognitive strategy that underscores a circular mastery, as decisions must be made considering various interconnected variables.
Industrialization and modernization of farming have introduced a hierarchical mastery model, in the attempt to transform farming from being a lifestyle to a business. However, a business‐oriented farm is expected to make utilitarian decisions, while a lifestyle‐oriented farm will make decisions based on identity and family concerns (Davis‐Brown & Salamon, 1987). Most of the crucial problems that farmers are facing today represent side effects of the hierarchical control–mastery approach. A collaborative model of mastery is useful not only to deal effectively with the current environmental concerns, but also to enhance the well‐being of farmers. Within such a paradigm, mastery does not merely consist of a person’s capacity for autonomy or control over life, but also of the capacity to gracefully adapt to life as it unfolds (Schirmer et al., 2013).
Moreover, the “workmanship of risk” (Schwalbe, 2010) that characterizes the agricultural sector due to nature’s unpredictability presents opportunities for developing openness, creativity, satisfaction, and personal growth. Australian farmers participating in a qualitative study showed a healthy skepticism and preparedness for the worst, reporting openness to change and readiness to work on continued improvement (Greenhill et al., 2009). These features are components of resilience, defined as the process wherein individuals display positive adaptation despite experiences of significant adversity. Various studies find that the resilience process of farmers across countries is significantly higher than average, and that farmers, in general, nurture a realistic optimism (Caldwell & Boyd, 2009; Sobels, 2007).
Within the assessment of population well‐being conducted at regular intervals by the UK Office of National Statistics, farmers emerged as the happiest working category, compared with any other profession (Hope, 2012). Could this make sense, notwithstanding the varied hardships that farmers currently face in several countries and world regions? As repeatedly highlighted in this chapter, these workers live outside the urban environment in which most industrial/organizational research studies are conducted. Findings must therefore be contextualized within the socio‐economic and cultural milieu in which these people live and work, taking into account the facilities and social services available to them, their social status, as well as the features of the natural and built environment surrounding them.
In fact farmers, unlike any other profession, have the unique privilege of closely associating with nature. Nature relatedness is found to have psychological benefits, predicting happiness regardless of other psychological factors. Practicing activities connected with nature is described by farmers as an inherently satisfying task, and part of their own personal identity (King et al., 2009; Schirmer et al., 2013).
The role of nature in enhancing physical and psychological well‐being has been repeatedly ascertained, and a whole new field of eco‐psychology is emerging to delineate the link between well‐being and the nature. Being in natural places fosters recovery from mental fatigue, improves outlook and life satisfaction, helps one to cope with and recover from stress, improves ability to recover from illness and injury, restores concentration, and improves productivity (Burls, 2007). Multiple studies have shown that natural areas such as community gardens grant a variety of mental health benefits, and that connection to nature is correlated with most measures of well‐being and physical health (Butler & Friel, 2006; Chevalier, Sinatra, Oschman, Sokal, & Sokal, 2012; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). Exposure to green space reduces stress and increases a sense of wellness and belonging (Bremer, Jenkins, & Kanter, 2003). Crime decreases in communities as the amount of green space increases, and vegetation alleviates mental fatigue, one of the precursors to violent behavior (Kuo & Sullivan, 2001). Simply viewing plants was shown to reduce fear, anger, blood pressure, and muscle tension (Ulrich, 1979, 1986).
The restorative effects of natural environments on cognitive functioning were specifically studied in two experiments based on attention restoration theory (ART; Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008). According to ART, nature offers stimuli that modestly grab attention in a bottom‐up fashion, fostering replenishment of top‐down directed‐attention abilities. Urban stimuli instead capture attention dramatically, and ceaselessly require its quick and selective direction.
International agencies, local institutions, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of the ecosystem’s critical conditions, and of the challenges faced by the endangered population of farmers. As discussed in the previous pages, a major problem hindering farmers’ well‐being is related to the poor socio‐economic conditions they experience in most countries. This awareness has given rise to a number of governmental and non‐governmental initiatives, prominently aimed at developing sustainable and ecologically respectful food production, as well as a participatory approach to farming, fostering the empowerment, social recognition, financial emancipation, and ultimately well‐being of the people working in the agricultural sector. Other initiatives, prominently launched in Western countries, capitalize on the well‐being potential of farming activities to offer farmers a way to diversify their source of income through agritourism and occupational therapy opportunities.
Participatory farming programs, often supported by international agencies, are spreading across countries, and their potential for promoting rural populations’ empowerment has been highlighted by several studies. A study conducted among 29 stakeholders practicing organic family farming in Brazil investigated the workers’ quality of life through the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale (WHOQoL Group, 1998) and a semi‐structured interview (Queiroz Pessoa & Alchieri, 2014). While participants’ monthly income was remarkably lower compared with other occupations, housing facilities and the participatory and collaborative organization of work represented environmental assets. Participants reported an overall positive quality of life in the psychological domain of WHOQoL. This finding was confirmed through the interviews, in which 82% of the participants reported having a positive view of their life and social relationships. When asked to describe the prominent feeling associated with reflections about life as a whole, 41% of the interviewees reported hope, 31% pleasure/satisfaction, 12% wishes and joy of living, and only 13% referred to financial worries.
Another study was conducted among Cambodian farmers enrolled in an organic farming program (Beban, 2012), with the aim of understanding their view of the “good life,” and the extent to which their expectations were congruent with the local development initiatives. Participants described happiness as a set of different capabilities, ranging from objective resources (good health, access to land, adequate income) to psychological assets, such as internal locus of control, autonomy in decision‐making, and self‐sufficiency.
In developing countries, farming programs are often specifically addressed to women, identified by a variety of studies as the most vulnerable members of poor farming communities (Armendariz & Morduch, 2005; World Bank, 2001). Innumerable microcredit projects in Asian, African, and Latin American countries involve women, based on the consideration that, compared to men, they are characterized by lower mobility, higher risk averseness, and spending patterns more oriented to family needs and children’s health and education (Farnworth, 2009; Lott, 2009; Mahmud, Parvez, Hilton, Kabir, & Wahid, 2014; Nussbaum, 2001; Rahman & Milgram, 1999). Women’s relational skills and their contribution to the development of social capital within rural communities of the developing world were explored through interviews involving 385 heads of household in Zimbabwe (Mupetesi, Francis, Gomo, & Mudau, 2012). Findings highlighted women’s higher competences in building trustful relations with family members, friends, neighbors, and formal institutions compared to men. In light of this evidence, several participatory projects purposefully involved women farmers. An ethnographic study (Galie, 2014) discussed the positive outcomes of a plant breeding program launched in Syria with the aim of enhancing women’s recognition as farmers, and facilitating their access to agricultural knowledge and decision‐making.
Another participatory approach is represented by Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). CSA is an alternative agricultural system that emphasizes organic and environmentally friendly farming and a direct connection between consumers and farmers (Brown & Miller, 2008). The approach is gaining momentum in several countries, as consumers are increasingly turning toward local food systems that are built around an ethos of food security, self‐reliance, and community (Hunt, Geiger‐Oneto, & Varca, 2012). CSA aims at making consumers aware of and more directly engaged with the process of food production. Two different models of CSA have been implemented, the distribution share and the working share (Shi, Cheng, Lei, Wen, & Merrifield, 2011). In the former, customer members regularly receive a box of produce according to the farm’s cultivation plan. They thus develop a sort of value‐laden partnership with the farmers through their commitment to purchase a share of the food products (Charles, 2011). In the latter, a household rents a plot of land at the farm, receives technical guidance, material equipment, seeds, and organic fertilizers from the farm, and becomes directly responsible for cultivation and production. Interviews involving consumer members of farms adopting the distribution share showed that participants derive a sense of ethical value and civic responsibility through their support of farmers and local communities (Hayden & Buck, 2012). Another study explored the values perceived in CSA by members of units based on the working share model (Chen, 2013). The author identified five distinct dimensions: functional value, emotional value, social value, epistemic value, and educational value for children. In particular, the emotional value, rated as the most important of the five dimensions, included components such as happiness, freedom, life enrichment, stress relief, and sense of accomplishment.
Opportunities for incrementing income and enhancing the socio‐economic conditions of farmers are provided by the spreading phenomenon of agritourism or farm tourism, matched with the increasing awareness of the need for an ecologically sustainable food economy. This is especially true in post‐industrial societies, where the agricultural labor force is steadily decreasing, its costs are growing, large‐scale farming enterprises are becoming predominant and family farms cannot compete with them at the production and business levels (Di Domenico & Miller, 2012). Hosting tourists and volunteers represents for small‐scale farmers a profitable solution, allowing them to preserve their jobs and even improve the quality of their products by adopting organic cultivation strategies (Haugen & Vik, 2008). A related phenomenon is the so‐called volunteer tourism, or “voluntourism,” in which tourists are expected to more actively participate in the farm work for a certain amount of time (ranging between 20 and 30 hours per week), receiving free food and lodging. In order to promote but also regulate the diffusion of this kind of initiative a specific organization was founded, the “World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms” (WWOOF), that presently operates in over 60 countries with the aim of matching host farms with tourist volunteers (WWOOF‐USA, 2013). An increasing number of studies are currently devoted to the investigation of this practice, from the perspective of both farm tourists and farmers.
Tourists report a variety of benefits from spending free time in an agricultural context, ranging from enjoying a closer contact with nature to physical exercise, agricultural skill acquisition, and increased ecological awareness. As concerns farmers, hosting tourists provides them with benefits at the economic level, but also at the psychological and social levels, with local variations related to climate, production patterns, cultural specificities, and socio‐economic conditions (Forbord, Schermer & Grießmair, 2012; Sharpley & Vass, 2006).
Most of the related literature is based on qualitative findings, collected through narratives and semi‐structured interviews. A study conducted in the USA (Tew & Barbieri, 2012) highlighted that through agritourism farmers were able to achieve a variety of goals related to economic, social, and personal dimensions of well‐being, such as capturing new farm customers, educating the public about agriculture, and enhancing the quality of life of their family. Another U.S. study involving farmers who host volunteers for more or less prolonged periods (Terry, 2014) highlighted benefits at the financial, relational, and emotional levels. Participants enjoyed the collaboration of young and enthusiastic people, the chance to teach them farming skills, and the sense of responsibility derived from this role. A UK‐based study involving farm families was focused on the impact of farm tourism on family organization and lifestyle through the conceptual lens of experiential authenticity. The findings highlighted participants’ perception of a creative and positive convergence between the changes required to adapt the traditional farm activities to the tourism goals and organization, on the one hand, and the changes in personal and family identity, on the other hand (Di Domenico & Miller, 2012).
The potential of farming activities as rehabilitation and therapeutic tools has been repeatedly confirmed by the positive outcomes of collaboration projects between health and social services and farmers developed in European countries. Farming activities are included in treatment programs aimed at the most vulnerable members of the society, such as people diagnosed with mental disorders, people recovering from substance abuse and addiction, and people released from prison. In these contexts, farming activities may help to achieve the twofold outcome of promoting clients’ well‐being and farmers’ empowerment, knowledge expansion, social recognition, and socio‐economic conditions (Hassink, Grin, & Hulsink, 2015).
The therapeutic effects of farming activities were investigated among users of UK mental health services, who were administered scaled questionnaires and interviews before and after a “care farm program” (Leck, Upton, & Evans, 2015). The WEMWBS (Tennant et al., 2007) was used to quantitatively measure changes in well‐being; the interviews helped to identify which features of the farm experience primarily contributed to these changes. Significant positive relationships were detected between length of participation in the program and well‐being enhancement. Reported benefits included empowerment, personal growth, and positive social interactions. The real‐life context and the possibility of customizing activities based on the individual’s health conditions and potentials are major strengths of these programs, together with the opportunity to promote collaboration between productive sectors of society – farmers and health services – which otherwise seldom interact (Iancu, Zweekhorst, Veltman, van Balkom, & Bunders, 2015).
As repeatedly highlighted throughout this chapter, the well‐being and quality of life of farmers are largely neglected topics in psychology. Awareness of the importance to address this issue is nevertheless increasing among psychologists, based on the acknowledgment of the variety of psychosocial facets that influence the quality of life of rural workers as risk factors or resources, and that cannot be adequately investigated from other disciplinary perspectives (Landini, Leeuwis, Long, & Murtagh, 2014).
Interventions to promote the well‐being of farmers should be designed, taking into account their living conditions and exposure to specific local risk factors, related to both the features of the natural environment and the availability of social and health services (Hossain, Eley, Coutts, & Gorman, 2008; Robinson et al., 2009). Intervention programs should be focused on the enhancement of collaborative mastery and self‐efficacy (Roy, 2014), and the promotion of adaptive strategies to successfully cope with the economic challenges and structural social changes that undermine the traditional work organization of the agriculture sector worldwide.
The need for more exhaustive studies, taking into account the various dimensions of farmers’ well‐being together with ill‐being indicators, is further corroborated by meta‐analyses showing the lack of conclusive data regarding the incidence of mental health problems among farmers compared with non‐farmers (Fraser et al., 2005). Despite the relatively stable and well‐defined features of farming activities and related risk factors, specific attention must be devoted to the variety of local conditions, cultural attitudes, and unexplored social and personal resources that may counterbalance the impact of these risks, or increase farmers’ resilience and personal development, as their broad variations across countries and societies do not allow for easy generalizations.
In order to adequately investigate the facets and components of farmers’ well‐being, researchers should carefully take into consideration the cultural milieu in which data are collected, and interpret findings from a culture‐fair perspective. More than other occupations, agriculture is strongly rooted in local traditions, habits, and relationship with land. In developing societies, characterized by a higher degree of social stratification than post‐industrial ones, farmers’ status is often disadvantaged, thus requiring a broader, interdisciplinary approach that goes beyond the specific boundaries of psychological investigation.
As concerns methodology, in the majority of world regions farmers do not enjoy high levels of education. The use of standardized scales may thus be problematic in these contexts, and qualitative approaches based on open‐ended questions should be privileged. Language issues should be taken into account, and local researchers should be actively involved, based on both their knowledge of the language and their awareness of the socio‐cultural context in which the study is conducted.
Some specific constructs explored in positive psychology could represent good starting points to conduct studies among farmers. As suggested by the few findings summarized in this chapter, the perceived quality of interpersonal relationships in the work context (often including family members), the level of mastery and self‐efficacy perceived in work‐related decision‐making, facets of individual resilience (such as adaptive coping strategies, optimism, perceived meaning in life, goal setting and pursuit), as well as the affective balance in daily life could represent important targets of investigation, in order to obtain a global representation of farmers’ well‐being encompassing eudaimonic and hedonic dimensions. A particular component to be explored is the relationship with the natural environment that specifically distinguishes farming activities from other occupations which primarily take place within built environments.
A more general understanding of farmers’ well‐being may be obtained through cross‐cultural studies, comparing findings collected in different ecosystems and cultural contexts with the aim of identifying commonalities and differences. This approach could provide a representation of farmers’ assets and resources both exhaustive and respectful of cultural differences, specificities, and intervention needs.
An important area requiring investigation is farm animal welfare (FAW), which is inextricably connected with farmers’ attitudes to, relationships with, and behavior toward the animals they work and live with. A recent literature review (Hansson & Lagerkvist, 2014) suggests that this domain is potentially relevant for researchers and practitioners adopting a positive psychology approach, as it includes aspects such as interspecific relations and animal well‐being that are largely unexplored.
Overall, the studies reviewed in this chapter highlight that the challenges and resources perceived by workers of the agricultural sector are inextricably intertwined with the socio‐cultural environment in which these people live, thus leading to potentially broad variations in the perception of well‐being. Nevertheless, the vast majority of farmers live in developing countries, and represent one of the poorest working categories. Empowerment, social recognition, and active participation of farmers in agricultural development and sustainability are thus basic prerequisites to foster the well‐being of these workers in the long term.
To this purpose, farmers should be carefully listened to as experts in their own work. Their first‐person and tradition‐based knowledge should be taken into consideration in order to develop truly participative programs and promote their self‐efficacy, autonomy, and mastery perceptions (Horseman et al., 2014; Reyes‐García et al., 2014). This issue is far from being addressed, since barriers to knowledge exchange and collaboration between technicians/agronomists and farmers are still strong, with the former being considered as the expert holders of scientific knowledge, and the latter as low‐educated followers of unscientific traditions (Cockburn, 2015). This widespread attitude substantially prevents farmers from attaining psychological and social well‐being, in terms of personal growth, social recognition, and an active role in decision‐making. Farmers’ agency must be strengthened through their direct involvement in devising the rules and strategies to implement sustainable agriculture, food production, as well as workers and consumers’ well‐being (Farnworth, 2009).
The resourcefulness of nature, particularly that of the land, is unique and tremendous. Nature never runs out of stock. It is a pity if humanity misses such a rich reservoir. Insulated by the apparent abundance of food that has come from new technologies for growing and storing, mankind’s fundamental dependence on agriculture is often overlooked. Human communities, no matter how sophisticated, cannot ignore the importance of agriculture, which is inseparably connected to daily human survival. To be far from dependable sources of food means to risk malnutrition and starvation. Efforts to preserve and sustain the well‐being of agricultural workers will not only enhance social justice, but also offer a model of work culture to other sectors that are marked with dissatisfaction.