济南大学毕业设计(论文)外文资料翻译参考格式(理工科类.doc

济南大学毕业论文外文资料翻译（如果是设计请改为设计）Agriculture and Human Values, (2006), 23: 7588农民社区的连接和生态农业的未来作者：Sonja Brodt1, Gail Feenstra2, Robin Kozloff3, Karen Klonsky4, and Laura Tourte5作者单位：1Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Davis, California, USA; 2Sustainable AgricultureResearch and Education Program, University of California, Davis, California, USA; 3Private Consultant, Davis, California, USA;4Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis, California, USA; 5Santa Cruz CountyAbstract.While questions about the environmental sustainability of contemporary farming practices and thesocioeconomic viability of rural communities are attracting increasing attention throughout the US, these two issuesare rarely considered together. This paper explores the current and potential connections between these two aspects ofsustainability, using data on community members and farmers views of agricultural issues in Californias CentralValley. These views were collected from a series of individual and group interviews with biologically oriented andconventional farmers as well as community stakeholders. Local marketing, farmland preservation, and perceptions ofsustainable agriculture comprised the primary topics of discussion. The mixed results indicate that, while manyfarmers and community members have a strong interest in these topics, sustainable community development and theuse of sustainable farming practices are seldom explicitly linked. On the other hand, many separate efforts around theValley to increase local marketing and agritourism, improve public education about agriculture, and organize grassrootsfarmland preservation initiatives were documented. We conclude that linking these efforts more explicitly tosustainable agriculture and promoting more engagement between ecologically oriented farmers and their communitiescould engender more economic and political support for these farmers, helping them and their communities to achievegreater sustainability in the long run.Key words: Californias Central Valley, Community development, Farmer-consumer connections, Farmland preservation,Local marketing, Sustainable agriculture摘 要： 虽然关于现代农业实践的环境可持续性和农村社区社会经济的可行性在全美国引起了越来越多的关注，但这两个问题很少在一起考虑过。这篇论文运用加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的区民和农民在农业问题上的观点的数据探究这两方面现在和潜在的联系。这些观点从一些个人和以生物为导向的一群组和传统农民还有社区利益相关者中收集来的。地方行销、耕地保护和可持续发展农业观点组成主要的讨论话题综合结果表明，虽然许多农民和区民对这些话题有强烈的兴趣，但可持续社区发展和可持续农业实践的利用很少明确的联系到一起。在另一方面，许多单独的努力在提高地方行政和农业旅游，提高关于农业的公共教育和组织基层农田保护倡议都已用文件证明。我们推测将这些努力联系的更明确和促进以经济为导向的农民和他们的社区更多的参与能够为这些农民产生更多经济上和政治上的支持，帮助他们和社区长远地更加可持续性。关键词 ：加利弗尼亚州的中央谷，社区发展，农民消费者关联，农田保护，地方行销，可持续发展1 IntroductionTwo increasingly important areas of public concern have emerged around US agriculture. One is the environmental have suggested that environmental sustainability and community viability are inherently linked and are most effectively addressed together (Flora, 1990; Bird et al., 1995; Campbell, 1997). This paper draws from a study of community members and farmers views of prominent agricultural issues in Californias Central Valley to explore possible beneficial connections between sustainable agriculture and rural community development, and to determine where this nationally important agriculturalregion stands in terms of making these connections.1 前言公众关注的两个日益重要的领域出现在美国农业。一个是现代农业技术带来的环境危害，另一个是农村社区和家庭农场的社会经济的持续性。显然一些以前的拙作以表明环境可持续性和社区可行性是内在ianxi在一起的，并且最为有效地一起处理，但是这两个问题经常被分割地研究。这篇论文从研究加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的社区居民和农民在突出的农业问题方面的观点的课题中推测并研究可持续农业和农场社区发展之间所存在的可能的有利联系，并依据这些联系来决定国家级重要的农业区的所在地。2 Conceptual framework and local context2.1 Conceptual framework: Sustainable agriculture and community developmentThe need for an agriculture that makes more sustainable use of natural resources has become increasingly clear. The pollution of our soil, water, and air are but a few of the detrimental environmental impacts of many agricultural practices still commonly used (Kegley et al., 1999; EPA, 2000; Griffin et al., 2002). At the same time, a need for improvements in the social and economic sustainability of farming is also gaining publicity in the wake of the continuing loss of family farms; growth of suburban sprawl (Medvitz and Sokolow, 1995); high health risks and low compensation rates to farmworkers (Villarejo et al., 2000); and resulting loss of vitality among rural communities nationwide (Allen and Sachs, 1993).Some authors have begun to address these diverse issues holistically by linking sustainable agriculture to community development, suggesting that a shift to more sustainable farming practices which rely more on natural ecological processes than on synthetic chemicalinterventions will not only protect the natural environment, but will also inherently benefit rural communities (Bird et al., 1995; Dobbs and Cole, 1992; Flora,1990, 2001). Proponents of this view have used socioeconomic as well as philosophical perspectives to argue for the community benefits of sustainable agriculture.One socioeconomic argument relates to farm structure and rests on the assumption that sustainable agriculture is more labor-, information-, and management-intensive.Therefore, it is thought to favor smaller, family run farms over larger corporate farms (for summaries of these arguments see Dobbs and Cole, 1992; Lasley et al., 1993). To our knowledge, the argument that sustainable agriculture will lead to a predominance of smaller farms has yet to be empirically substantiated and is likely to vary by crop and region. However, the second part of the argument, that smaller farm size benefits rural communities, has already been widely documented. Many scholars have shown that larger, more industrially organized farms with less personal (i.e., more corporate) forms of ownership tend to have negative socioeconomicconsequences for local communities (Goldschmidt,1947; Lobao, 1990; Welsh and Lyson, 2001). Tolbert et al. also demonstrate empirically that small and midsized firms of many types (not just farms) tend to bemore anchored to place by social and economic relationships (1998: 404) and thereby foster higher levels of civic engagement within rural communities. This engagement, in turn, enhances community welfare according to several standard socio-economic indicators. One additional economic argument is that sustainable farming practices tend to require more locally produced inputs, to replace agrochemicals obtained in distant markets, and so they will increase local trade and support businesses within communities. Preliminary evidence, however, suggests that the latter cannot happen whenlocal economies are not yet set up to provide the types of inputs alternative farmers need (Dobbs and Cole, 1992). Some authors attribute community benefits to a presumed tendency of sustainable agriculture to bring abouta more communally minded style of farming through its very philosophy. According to Lasley et al. (1993) and Kirschenmann (1992), this philosophy advocates not only working in concert with nature, but also cooperatingwith ones neighbors and fostering a communal spirit.Such claims suggest that because sustainable farmers must understand the relationships between their crops and the surrounding environment, they are also more predisposed to view themselves as embedded in local community relations that are essential to their well-being. Flora (1990) likewise argues that sustainable agriculture, with its food quality concerns, is inherently more consumer- oriented and more closely tied to local markets. Sustainable farmers, therefore, may be intrinsically more disposed towards civic participation and working together to achieve regional self-sufficiency.Civic participation, in turn, can benefit the farmers themselves by helping them to build social capital. According to Putnam (1995) and Coleman (1990), social capital is the set of resources inherent in interpersonal relationships and social organization that can be used to enhance cooperation for mutual benefit. These resources include not only family and community relationships, but also norms of reciprocity and relations of authority and trust. Social capital can facilitate effective resource mobilization and community-based problem solving (Flora, 1995). Sustainable farmers in particular need to facilitate such processes to develop alternative informationservices and knowledge networks as well as alternative input sources and stable markets for their products. Social capital that extends into the wider, non-farming community can also help rural communities and farmers. A consuming public that understands how a healthy food system works and that sees the links between its own health and the health of farm communities is more likelyto support policies beneficial to agriculture. Sustainable farmers especially need the support of educated consumers in order to survive within the dominant economic and policy framework that often still favors more industrial scale and conventional modes of production (Dahlberg, 1993). Consumers can develop an understanding of agriculture through appropriate education and by engaging with farmers in direct marketing mechanisms such as subscription farming, farmers markets, and farm-to-school programs. An already abundant literature on local food systems details the numerous economic and social benefits accruing to both farmers and consumers when they are re-connected in direct marketing schemes (see Lyson et al., 1995; Feenstra, 1997).In this exploratory paper we will investigate the connections between sustainable agriculture and community development by drawing on interviews with farmers and community stakeholders from Californias CentralValley.We will focus on a few key questions as a means of exploring a selection of the broader arguments outlined above. Do farmers practicing a more environmentally sustainable agriculture also engage in local communityproblem-solving initiatives and community-based organizations? Do they use local, direct marketing efforts and do community members see these efforts leading to greater economic sustainability? Do these farmers placegreater value on civic participation? Do non-farming residents of these farmers rural communities understand the challenges and rewards of farming sustainably, thereby demonstrating the presence of social capital on whichthose in the sustainable agriculture movement might draw to influence public policy? What are the public education and policy implications of the answers to these questions?2 基本概念和当地情况2.1 基本概念：可持续农业和社区发展更加可持续性地利用自然资源已变成农业越来越明晰的需求。在目前普遍使用的农业操作中对环境有害的影响中，土地、水源、空气的污染仅仅是一小部分。与此同时，随着家庭农场的不断减少，提高农业的社会和经济的持续可发展的能力引起了注意；郊区蔓延的增长；对于农业工人高健康危险和低补偿汇率导致了全国的农村社区的活力减弱。一些作者开始以将可持续发展农业和社区发展联系起来和全盘处理这些不同的问题。暗示向更可持续发展农业的一个转变那将是更加依赖于自然生态过程而不是人工化学干预，将不仅仅保护自然环境，而且将内在的有利于农村社区。（Bird et al于1995年表明；Dobbs和Cole于1992年表明；Flora于1990年和2001年表明）公民参与，反过来，能有利于农民本身通过帮助农民建立社会资本。根据Putnan(1995)和Coleman(1990)社会资本是一系列资源，内在于人际关系和社会组织，他们可以用来增强互利的合作。这些资源不仅仅包括家庭和社区关系，还包括互惠规范的权力和信任关系，社会资本能够促进有效资源的调动和社区问题的而解决。社会资本扩展到更宽广，非农业的社区也能够帮助农村社区和农民。一个能了解健康食品系统如何运作，看到他自己的安全与农村社区健康之间联系的消费群，更加可能的去支持有利于农业的政策。在这篇探究性论文中，我们通过询问加利弗尼亚州的中央谷的农民和社区利益相关者来调查可持续发展农业和社区发展之间的联系。我们将聚焦于一些关键问题，作为选择一个更宽广的上文所述参数的一个手段。农民会参与更加环境可持续发展农业同时从事于地方社区问题解决方案和社区组织吗？他们利用本地的直接的销售努力吗？社区居民能看到这些努力致使的经济更加可持续发展吗？这些农民是否会将公民参与放于重要的位置？农村社区里的非务农居民能够理解农业可持续发展的挑战和回报吗？公众教育和政策含义将如何回答这些问题？2.2 The local context: Agriculture and communities in Californias Central Valley1 Californias Central Valley exhibits several traits that make it a useful site for studying these broad issues of sustainability in agriculture and vitality of local communities.The expansive valley possesses an intensive and highly productive agricultural industry, while simultaneously experiencing shortages in economic and political resources to address growing socioeconomic disparities. Famed for its fruit, nut, and vegetable operations,the Central Valley produces more than half of the total US supply of many of these crops. Its dry, Mediterranean- like climate, augmented by an extensive irrigationinfrastructure, is valued for producing crops of particularly high quality. Uniformity of size and color, firmness for long-distance shipping, lack of pest-induced blemishes, and, in some cases, precise sugar and solids compositions needed for processing, are the qualities most growers strive to achieve. Often, these qualities are almost as important as the frequently phenomenal yields California is also considered a world leader in ecological agriculture and boasts some of the toughest environmental regulations pertaining to farming in theworld. A growing number of Central Valley farmers are turning to more biologically oriented and ecologicall ybased farming methods. A particularly long-standing andactive concentration of these innovative growers can be found in the northern San Joaquin Valley, located in theheart of the Central Valley and the primary focus area for this study. Some of these predominantly fruit and nut producers are members of the Merced/Stanislaus chapterof the Community Alliance with Family Farmers (CAFF), a non-profit member-activist organization with a 20-year record of working with farmers and rural communities toenhance the viability of family farms. This organization, in conjunction with the University of California Cooperative Extension, launched the Biologically IntegratedOrchard Systems (BIOS) program in 1993 to integrate the expertise of growers, researchers, Cooperative Extension farm advisors, and private pest control advisors (PCAs) inproviding assistance and support to almond growers wishing to reduce synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use (CAFF, n.d.). BIOS-recommended practices hinge on using a whole systems approach to building overall orchard health and buffering orchards against pest outbreaks.They include practices such as comprehensive monitoring of pest and beneficial populations, enhancing habitat for beneficials, releasing beneficials, cover cropping, applying natural fertilizers such as compost, using selective soft pesticides such as Bacillus thuringiensis and only when monitoring indicates they are needed, and careful mowing and irrigation management for disease control. (While bearing similarities to an organic approach, BIOS is not limited only to practices approved for certified organic production.) Furthermore, BIOS institutionalized a social learning model that supports farmer-to-farmer and farmer-to-expert information-sharing and builds a community of learning. By 1998, the program had expanded to walnut growers as well and boasted 106 participating growers in 7counties throughout California (Stevenson et al., 1998). CAFF also has other ongoing programs to support family farms and to connect consumers and school children with local food production. In addition, itsprograms, particularly BIOS, have spawned similar ecologically oriented farming programs in other crops around the state. With this strong focus on sustainable agriculture and activist elements working to create a larger community of interest around local agriculture, the Central Valley appears poised to make significant gainsin the social and economic sustainability of farming that must ultimately accompany environmental sustainability. Several historical and current trends, however, often work to counteract this potential for long-term sustainability. On the one hand, while California as a whole may be well known in some markets for its quality output, on an individual and community scale the long-standingtrend toward a commodity orientation serves to obliterate producer identities in the marketplace. Once produced to the uniform specifications required by handlers and processors, the fruit from most growers is aggregated in processing facilities. It is then sold in national and global markets where fruit from one area, as a commodity, is easily interchangeable with that from another source, and no link is made to the original producers or their regions.This trend, coupled with the newer trends of trade liberalization and recent agricultural development in various countries in Asia, South America, and southern Europe,is creating stiff competition for Central Valley growers, many of whom have seen producer prices drop to levels at or near the cost of production. All of the precision andfine-tuning that has become standard practice for Central Valley growers, therefore, does not assist them in garneringa larger share of the food dollar spent by consumers,who, for the most part, remain ignorant of the particular farming practices used and the challenging context in which Central Valley growers must compete. This paradox is especially evident in the case of farmers who use environmentally integrated practices. After making the added effort and taking the risks to increase the sustainability of their operations, few use market mechanisms that would allow their products to be distinguished from those of their conventional neighbors with which their products get pooled. Farmers in the Central Valley are also affected by some of the highest rates of population growth and urbanization in a state already noted for its rapid growth. Throughout the Valley, about 30,000 acres are converted annually from farmland to urban uses (Medvitz andSokolow, 1995). Such rapid farmland conversion inevitably brings rising land prices, changing tax structures, and other financial pressures that threaten the economic sustainability of agriculture. In addition, the composition and character of communities within the Valley are rapidly h of the land conversion attributable to an influx of more affluent commuter populations from the San Francisco and Silicon Valley metropolitan areas. These changes create rising tensionsalong the urban/agricultural interface (Handel, 1998). Despite these rapid transformations and the pr