The patterns of adaptive capacity, however, are biased because its factors of farming economic status and innovative capitals are both affected once metropolitan counties are removed.Overall, after excluding metropolitan areas, vulnerability remains the same with notably high rates in the northwest and southern margins of Iowa, and lower rates in northeast Iowa and central Iowa comparing Figs.6 and 9.To calculate the overall vulnerability, this study simply merged index scores of sub-components of extracted factors.There needs to be more effort in selecting, weighting, and normalizing indicators that can influence the vulnerability estimates alone.When selecting initial variables, this research incorporated responses on winter storm impacts and adaptation from a limited number of farmers, which may not well represent local perceptions for the entire state.To make the sample more representative and vulnerability metrics more context-specific, more respondents may be considered based on sub-types of farms.The number of extreme days, such as the average number of days with a maximum temperature greater than 90 percentile was used to estimate exposure.In our case, the number of consecutive cold days may be selected to measure the exposure to winter storms in future studies.To establish a vulnerability index,vertical rack system sub-indices may be developed to achieve relative weightings.For example, Antwi-Agyei et al.incorporated a crop yield sensitivity index and an exposure index to calculate the vulnerability to drought.
In terms of normalizing, Hahn et al.calculated index scores for major components considering the weight and the number of indicators, resulting in overall vulnerability ranging from − 1 to 1.Finally, it should be noted that the selected indicators derived based on interviews with farmers in Iowa may not apply to vulnerability assessments in developing countries, considering agricultural regions in these regions are more likely to be severely affected by extreme climate events and the associated rising food prices.Further validation for the vulnerability pattern can be done using surveys investigating farmers’ perceived vulnerability and on-farm losses from winter storms in different counties.Addressing land degradation has been highlighted as a key objective to ensure a sustainable future and given about a third of the worlds ice-free land is farmed , agricultural systems will play an integral role in meeting such objectives.Ensuring the sustainability of agricultural land requires approaches which restore ecological functioning and resilience whilst at the same time contributing to global food security and supporting the health, safety and well being of farmers and farming communities.This is no easy feat, and some argue that a sustainable future requires a paradigm shift in how agricultural systems are managed, with many advocating for a transition from productivist approaches to agriculture, to the adoption of a socio-ecological systems approaches.A socio-ecological systems approach views the farm as a dynamic system of interdependent components , and farm goals are set in relation to the functioning of the farm as whole, rather than in relation to individual components of the system.This involves setting farming objectives that aim to achieve not just agricultural production goals, but also ones related to ecological sustainability, long-term systems resilience, and human well being.Recent years have seen an increase in popularity of socio-ecological systems-based farming approaches, with more farmers world-wide adopting these types of approaches to farm management.
However the effectiveness of these systems in achieving sustainability goals is the subject of much debate, with different studies reporting varying findings, along with ongoing argument about what types of socio-ecological approaches may in fact have the benefits for sustainability claimed by their advocates.Some argue that the conflicting research findings on this topic are due to the complexity and nature of socio-ecological farming systems, which involves the implementation of an individualised farm management approach relevant to each farmers’ specific circumstances, rather than the implementation of specific “sustainable practices”.We believe it is likely to be at least in part a result of how these studies define these farming systems: most research has measured socio-ecological farming systems based on the adoption of practices commonly used in these systems rather than management characteristics.This may explain some of the inconsistency in findings observed in contemporary literature.Analysing socio-ecological systems is also challenging for other reasons, namely that causal relationships within the system can be difficult to identify using conventional statistical methods.Farming according to a socio-ecological systems approach involves “recognizing and synthesizing components and patterns of a system that are interconnected, which interact, and which combine to encompass a complex and dynamic whole” , p.2.From this perspective, indications that a system is functioning well are less about the extent to which each individual component is functioning, and more a product of how well the components of the system are working together as a whole.Identifying cause and effect relationships between components of the farm is therefore difficult, if not impossible, since the aim of the system is for all components to interact in dynamic ways.Perhaps due to these challenges, many studies examining social outcomes of regenerative farming have used qualitative research methods.Although qualitative approaches offer a useful insight into the effectiveness of these systems, quantitative assessment offers insights into the effectiveness of these systems that differ to those possible when using qualitative methods.
Particularly, they enable identification of how common it is for particular benefits to be evident, and the ability to compare this for large numbers of farmers.Given the popularity of socio-ecological systems, there is a critical role for quantitative as well as qualitative assessment, in order to better evaluate whether and under what circumstances they can address land degradation and other environmental issues.Understanding socio-ecological systems as a management approach, rather than the application of specific farming practices has not only made evaluating the effectiveness of these systems difficult, but also made the establishment of a shared definition of what socio-ecological farming systems are problematic.Regenerative agriculture is one of the most common terms used for socio-ecological farming systems, and for the purpose of this paper we will use regenerative agriculture as an umbrella term that encompasses all types of socio-ecological agricultural systems, including holistic management, low-input farming and biodynamic farming to name a few.By doing so, we support the view that regenerative agriculture is not defined by the application of particular practices, but rather the a philosophical approach to farming which incorporates specific principles that are shared across all socio-ecological systems regardless of the label attached.These principles include incorporating natural systems into farm production systems and undergoing a continual process of evaluation and adjustment to farming practices based on on-farm observation, learning and monitoring.Proponents of regenerative agriculture claim that it is this philosophical approach to farm management that leads to positive impacts on the social, financial and ecological functioning of the farm, proposing it to be a valid, and sustainable solution to land degradation.As such, managing the farm as an interconnected system is considered by many to be the key characteristic of regenerative agriculture that makes this approach a sustainable one.This means that evaluating the sustainability of regenerative agriculture requires development of indicators that are not only indicative of the farm functioning as system, but are also relevant to the many different approaches and practices regenerative farmers may adopt when implementing a systems approach appropriate to their individual circumstances.Further, fuelling this debate is acknowledgement that identifying sustainability indicators suitable for regenerative farming systems is needed as part of developing a more robust body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of these approaches for environmental and human well-being.
While developing sustainability indicators for a type of farm management defined by a shared philosophical approach rather than the use of specific farming practices may seem counterintuitive, we argue that understanding regenerative farming this way is critical to the development of sustainability indicators that are appropriate and relevant to the diversity of practices adopted by farmers operating under this framework.Doing so acknowledges that achieving sustainability goals will depend on the extent to which the whole-of-farm system is orientated toward regenerative principles, and that the extent to which a practice is deemed to be sustainable will vary depending on the characteristics of the farm system.For example, a commonly used practice among some types of sustainable farming is to cease use of all synthetic fertilisers.While this may be indicative of a sustainable farming system, if synthetic fertilisers are simply replaced by extensive use of ‘natural’ fertilisers, there may still be a negative impact on the environment rendering the system unsustainable.Selecting sustainability indicators based on principles rather than practices helps to overcome this issue.Past studies report that regenerative farming involves explicitly setting farming objectives based on consideration of how to improve well being and quality of life,mobile grow rack and that farmers’ understandings of what it means to have good well being often changes when switching to this type of farming.Regenerative farming philosophy recognises that the well being of the farmer does not rely solely on the production value of the land but is also influenced by social and ecological factors.More importantly, good quality of life is considered by regenerative farmers as an explicit objective that is achieved through having all components of the farm functioning well as a whole.As a result, farm-based management, planning and goal setting is centred around creating a farming system that supports the well being of the farmer, rather than focusing solely on the production aspects of the farm to meet farmer needs.It is this mindset and management approach that proponents of regenerative agriculture believe enables them to establish a farming system that is better able to withstand key occupational stressors such as drought, irregular rainfall and pest/disease outbreaks.Recent years have seen growing recognition of the importance of human well being in achieving sustainability outcomes, with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals declaring “If a farm is not economically sound or not resilient to external shocks, or if the well being of those working on a farm are not considered, then a farm cannot be sustainable”.This shift signifies a change in how we think of ‘sustainability’, with some suggesting that sustainability and well being can be viewed as ‘twin concepts’, united by a shared goal of improving well being.
While many definitions of well being can be found in the literature, there is general agreement that well being is related to “the presence of positive emotions and moods , the absence of negative emotions , satisfaction with life, fulfillment and positive functioning”.well being can be measured indirectly through its determinants such as education and income – often referred to as objective indicators of well being – or through subjective indicators which assess well being directly as a social, psychological and emotional experience.Despite farmer well being being recognised as central to the effective implementation of regenerative farming systems at the local level, efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of these systems seldom include aspects of the farmers life as an indicator.Often, research into assessing sustainability outcomes of regenerative agricultural systems focus on outcomes at the global or national level , or limit assessment to either environmental or economic outcomes.There is growing recognition that social factors should be incorporated in frameworks assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems , however often the indicators used are relatively narrow and measure determinants of well being such as housing, education and health , rather than well being itself.Although such indicators may be suitable proxy measures for well being in some circumstances , they may not be for regenerative agriculture, where well being outcomes or improvements may not involve changes in housing, education or physical health.Suitable measures need to be identified that can robustly and appropriately examine whether engaging in regenerative farming is associated with change in well being, and that can reflect change in quality of life experienced by the farmer over time.While there is reasonable consensus that understanding the well being of a particular group can be best achieve through combining use of both objective and subjective measures of well being , in the specific case of socio-ecological farming systems the use of objective measures of well being may be inappropriate for two reasons.Firstly, the adoption of socio-ecological farming systems requires a farmer to question some of the tenets of conventional agriculture such as those which focus on increasing production and income , and instead focus on goals which serve the functioning of the system as a whole such as matching production levels to the natural capacity of the landscape.This can lead to a reduction in income for farmers following a systems approach.