• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

农民受够专家了吗?

Have farmers had enough of experts?

机构信息

Centre for Rural Economy, School of Natural and Environmental Sciences, Newcastle University, Kings Road, Newcastle, NE1 7RU, UK.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, NE4 7YH, UK.

出版信息

Environ Manage. 2022 Jan;69(1):31-44. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01546-y. Epub 2021 Oct 11.

DOI:10.1007/s00267-021-01546-y
PMID:34633488
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8503873/
Abstract

The exponential rise of information available means we can now, in theory, access knowledge on almost any question we ask. However, as the amount of unverified information increases, so too does the challenge in deciding which information to trust. Farmers, when learning about agricultural innovations, have historically relied on in-person advice from traditional 'experts', such as agricultural advisers, to inform farm management. As more farmers go online for information, it is not clear whether they are now using digital information to corroborate in-person advice from traditional 'experts', or if they are foregoing 'expert' advice in preference for peer-generated information. To fill this knowledge gap, we sought to understand how farmers in two contrasting European countries (Hungary and the UK) learnt about sustainable soil innovations and who influenced them to innovate. Through interviews with 82 respondents, we found farmers in both countries regularly used online sources to access soil information; some were prompted to change their soil management by farmer social media 'influencers'. However, online information and interactions were not usually the main factor influencing farmers to change their practices. Farmers placed most trust in other farmers to learn about new soil practices and were less trusting of traditional 'experts', particularly agricultural researchers from academic and government institutions, who they believed were not empathetic towards farmers' needs. We suggest that some farmers may indeed have had enough of traditional 'experts', instead relying more on their own peer networks to learn and innovate. We discuss ways to improve trustworthy knowledge exchange between agricultural stakeholders to increase uptake of sustainable soil management practices, while acknowledging the value of peer influence and online interactions for innovation and trust building.

摘要

信息呈指数级增长,意味着我们现在理论上可以获取几乎任何我们提出的问题的知识。然而,随着未经证实的信息的增加,决定信任哪些信息的挑战也越来越大。农民在了解农业创新时,历来依赖传统的“专家”(如农业顾问)的面对面建议来指导农场管理。随着越来越多的农民上网获取信息,目前尚不清楚他们现在是否在利用数字信息来证实传统“专家”的当面建议,还是他们更愿意选择同行生成的信息而不听取“专家”的建议。为了填补这一知识空白,我们试图了解在两个具有鲜明对比的欧洲国家(匈牙利和英国),农民是如何了解可持续土壤创新以及谁影响他们进行创新的。通过对 82 名受访者的采访,我们发现两国的农民都经常使用在线资源获取土壤信息;一些农民受到农民社交媒体“影响者”的启发,改变了他们的土壤管理方式。然而,在线信息和互动通常不是影响农民改变其做法的主要因素。农民最信任其他农民来了解新的土壤做法,对传统的“专家”(尤其是来自学术和政府机构的农业研究人员)的信任度较低,他们认为这些专家不理解农民的需求。我们认为,一些农民可能确实已经受够了传统的“专家”,而是更多地依赖自己的同行网络来学习和创新。我们讨论了如何改善农业利益相关者之间值得信赖的知识交流,以提高可持续土壤管理实践的采用率,同时承认同行影响和在线互动在创新和信任建立方面的价值。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2c79/8758623/5e296ad53b83/267_2021_1546_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2c79/8758623/5e296ad53b83/267_2021_1546_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2c79/8758623/5e296ad53b83/267_2021_1546_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Have farmers had enough of experts?农民受够专家了吗?
Environ Manage. 2022 Jan;69(1):31-44. doi: 10.1007/s00267-021-01546-y. Epub 2021 Oct 11.
2
Influence of Smartphone-Based Digital Extension Service on Farmers' Sustainable Agricultural Technology Adoption in China.基于智能手机的数字延伸服务对中国农民可持续农业技术采用的影响。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Aug 5;19(15):9639. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19159639.
3
Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Farmers in Kentucky, USA.美国肯塔基州农民对可持续农业实践的采用。
Environ Manage. 2018 Dec;62(6):1060-1072. doi: 10.1007/s00267-018-1109-3. Epub 2018 Sep 22.
4
How to reduce the carbon footprint of the agricultural sector? Factors influencing farmers' decision to participate in carbon sequestration programs.如何减少农业部门的碳足迹?影响农民参与碳固存计划的因素。
J Environ Manage. 2024 May;359:121019. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121019. Epub 2024 May 2.
5
Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views.英国农民是否具备应对可持续土壤管理知识挑战的能力?对农民和顾问观点的分析。
J Environ Manage. 2008 Jan;86(1):214-28. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.036. Epub 2007 Mar 19.
6
Does the adaptation of climate-smart agricultural practices increase farmers' resilience to climate change?气候智能型农业实践的调整是否能提高农民应对气候变化的适应能力?
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2021 Jun;28(21):27238-27249. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-12425-8. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
7
Explaining the use of online agricultural decision support tools with weather or climate information in the Midwestern United States.解释在美国中西部使用带有天气或气候信息的在线农业决策支持工具的情况。
J Environ Manage. 2021 Feb 1;279:111758. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111758. Epub 2020 Dec 13.
8
The impact of digital finance use on sustainable agricultural practices adoption among smallholder farmers: an evidence from rural China.数字金融使用对中国小农采用可持续农业实践的影响。
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2022 Jun;29(26):39281-39294. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-18939-z. Epub 2022 Jan 31.
9
Adoption of Farm Management Systems for Cross Compliance - An empirical case in Germany.农场管理制度的采用——德国的一个实证案例。
J Environ Manage. 2018 Aug 15;220:109-117. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.04.087. Epub 2018 May 26.
10
Social networks influence farming practices and agrarian sustainability.社交网络影响农业实践和农业可持续性。
PLoS One. 2021 Jan 7;16(1):e0244619. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244619. eCollection 2021.

引用本文的文献

1
Associations between Support Gaps and Agricultural Stress.支持差距与农业压力之间的关联。
Rural Ment Health. 2025 Dec;49(2):134-141. doi: 10.1037/rmh0000281.
2
"Stop, Think, and Appreciate": A Qualitative Exploration of a Challenge Coin Suicide Prevention Intervention among Farmers.“停下、思考、感恩”:对农民群体中纪念币自杀预防干预措施的定性探索
Community Ment Health J. 2025 Aug 20. doi: 10.1007/s10597-025-01509-1.
3
Exploring the role of information networks in promoting sustainable rural production in Iran.探索信息网络在促进伊朗农村可持续生产中的作用。
Sci Rep. 2025 Jun 5;15(1):19822. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-03899-4.
4
Livestock farmer-reported knowledge and attitudes regarding agroforestry planning and management.畜牧养殖户报告的关于农林业规划与管理的知识和态度。
Agrofor Syst. 2025;99(1):28. doi: 10.1007/s10457-024-01115-2. Epub 2025 Jan 15.
5
Large language models can help boost food production, but be mindful of their risks.大型语言模型有助于提高粮食产量,但要注意其风险。
Front Artif Intell. 2024 Oct 25;7:1326153. doi: 10.3389/frai.2024.1326153. eCollection 2024.
6
Effective Engagement Techniques Across the Agricultural Conservation Practice Adoption Process.农业保护实践采用过程中的有效参与技术。
Environ Manage. 2024 Dec;74(6):1173-1189. doi: 10.1007/s00267-024-02043-8. Epub 2024 Sep 15.
7
Navigating agricultural nonpoint source pollution governance: A social network analysis of best management practices in central Pennsylvania.导航农业面源污染治理:宾夕法尼亚州中部最佳管理实践的社会网络分析。
PLoS One. 2024 May 23;19(5):e0303745. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303745. eCollection 2024.
8
The Social-Ecological System of Farmers' Current Soil Carbon Management in Australian Grazing Lands.澳大利亚放牧地农民当前土壤碳管理的社会-生态系统。
Environ Manage. 2023 Aug;72(2):294-308. doi: 10.1007/s00267-023-01801-4. Epub 2023 Mar 7.
9
COVID-19 vaccine coverage disparities in rural and farm children.农村和农场儿童 COVID-19 疫苗接种覆盖率的差异。
Vaccine. 2023 Jan 4;41(1):68-75. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.11.015. Epub 2022 Nov 14.
10
Soil microbial diversity and community composition during conversion from conventional to organic agriculture.从传统农业向有机农业转变过程中土壤微生物多样性和群落组成。
Mol Ecol. 2022 Aug;31(15):4017-4030. doi: 10.1111/mec.16571. Epub 2022 Jul 11.