Adekunle, B., Filson, G. C., Sethuratnam, S. and Cidro, D. 2011. Acculturation and Consumption: Examining the Consumption Behavior of African Descendents in Canada. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development. 2 (1): 1-17

This paper examines the consumption of ethnocultural vegetables by people of Afro-Caribbean descent in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) of Canada while considering their acculturation level. The results indicate that the respondents are willing to
of 25
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph], [Professor Glen C. Filson]On: 10 February 2012, At: 11:30Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Sustainable Agriculture Publication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information: Beneficial Management PracticeAdoption in Five Southern OntarioWatersheds Glen C. Filson a  , Sridharan Sethuratnam b  , Bamidele Adekunle a  &Pamela Lamba ca  School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, Universityof Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada b  Farm Start, Guelph, Ontario, Canada c  Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program, Source ProtectionPrograms Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario,CanadaAvailable online: 05 Feb 2009 To cite this article:  Glen C. Filson, Sridharan Sethuratnam, Bamidele Adekunle & Pamela Lamba(2009): Beneficial Management Practice Adoption in Five Southern Ontario Watersheds, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 33:2, 229-252 To link to this article: PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEFull terms and conditions of use: article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.  229  Journal of Sustainable Agriculture  , 33:229–252, 2009 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1044-0046 print/1540-7578 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10440040802587421  WJSA1044-00461540-7578 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 33, No. 1, Nov 2008: pp. 0–0 Journal of Sustainable Agriculture Beneficial Management Practice Adoption in Five Southern Ontario Watersheds Management Practice Adoption in Southern OntarioG. C. Filson et al. GLEN C. FILSON 1 , SRIDHARAN SETHURATNAM 2 , BAMIDELE ADEKUNLE 1 , and PAMELA LAMBA 3 1 School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; 2  Farm Start, Guelph, Ontario, Canada; 3 Ontario Drinking Water Stewardship Program, Source Protection Programs Branch, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada This paper presents an analysis of 481 landowners’ self-administered questionnaires from recent surveys in five southern Ontario watersheds. Farmers opposed “excessive” regulation but wanted government finan-cial support for implementing environmental practices voluntarily. Logistic regression models for adoption rate and gross sales helped iden-tify the variables that predicted the Adoption Rate Index (ARI) and Gross Farm Sales (GFS). Farm size, the adoption rate of best manage-ment practices, age and education predicted gross farm sales for com-bined data sets. Minimum regulations, financial incentives, outreachand technical support for voluntary programs geared to different farmtypes and sizes are needed for effective environmental management. KEYWORDSbest management practices, environmental goods and services  INTRODUCTION Rapid developments in technology have reinforced the intensification andindustrialization of agriculture in southern Ontario. At the same time, pub-lic concerns about environmental health, climate change, and water, air, Thanks to the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and the OntarioMinistry of the Environment for funding this research. This paper is not to be quoted withoutthe authors’ permission and is presently being reviewed for publication by the  Journal of Sustainable Agriculture  . Address correspondence to Glen C. Filson, Professor, School of Environmental Design andRural Development, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   G  u  e   l  p   h   ] ,   [   P  r  o   f  e  s  s  o  r   G   l  e  n   C .   F   i   l  s  o  n   ]  a   t   1   1  :   3   0   1   0   F  e   b  r  u  a  r  y   2   0   1   2  230 G. C. Filson et al. and soil quality have risen since the Walkerton tragedy of 2000. In thatevent, 7 people died and 2300 people fell ill, many of them chronically,from  Escherichia coli (ecoli)  0157:H7 bacterium, traced to a medium-sizedbeef-producing farm.To prevent further disasters, the Province has passed two regulatory legislative Acts—the Nutrient Management Act (2002) (NMA) and theClean Water Act (CWA) (2005). The NMA is designed to prevent farmnutrients from entering into surface water and groundwater by requiringintensive livestock operations and those constructing new livestock barnsto develop Nutrient Management Plans (NMPs), though all farmers willhave to develop them later. The CWA provides a multi-barrier approach tothe protection of local water sources through the construction of sharedlocally driven science-based source protection plans whereby communi-ties will identify potential risks to local water sources and will adopt localmanagement strategies to eliminate or reduce these risks (Clean Water Act, 2007).Given the strength of public concerns, it has been argued that oneof the reasons farmers may be adopting environmental managementsystems (EMS) is that the EMS may be seen by the public as a sign thatthe farmer is doing due diligence in the face of possible environmentalthreats posed by their operations (Wall and Weersink, 2001). Social andregulatory pressures also are important factors affecting why farmersadopt EMSs and it may be that proximity to urban areas induces morefarmers in the vicinity to adopt environmentally beneficial managementpractices (BMPs) (Jayasinghe-Mudalige et al., 2005). The reasons for whythey may not adopt EMSs include lack of money, too much time/paperwork, mistrust of Government, and aging farmers (Agnew,2005;Wells, 2004; McCallum, 2003). In many cases, however, the rea-sons vary by thedemographic characteristics, degree of concentration of farming, andthe nature of farming systems in particular watersheds. Also, context and locale always play important roles in determining whoimplements BMPs. We have merged two landowner surveys, one conducted in 2005 andanother in 2006, both of which asked questions about landowners’ envi-ronmental management systems within five watersheds, to find out whatmotivates farmers to adopt BMPs in five Ontario watersheds. By taking a watershed approach to understanding willingness to adopt BMPs, we feltthis would contribute to improving policies dealing with voluntary, collab-orative and regulatory environmental protection. Since improved ruralquality of life hinges to a substantial degree, on farmers’ enhancedprovision of Environmental Goods and Services (EGS), we also wanted toknow whether farmers were in favour of direct farm payments in returnfor compliance with regulations and how they thought this would affecttheir qualify of life.    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   G  u  e   l  p   h   ] ,   [   P  r  o   f  e  s  s  o  r   G   l  e  n   C .   F   i   l  s  o  n   ]  a   t   1   1  :   3   0   1   0   F  e   b  r  u  a  r  y   2   0   1   2   Management Practice Adoption in Southern Ontario 231 RELEVANT LITERATURE Klubnikin and Causey (2002), Falkenmark (2001) and Nef (1999) haveargued that our environmental security depends on how we deal with a variety of environmental threats. Agro-ecosystem security is a criticalcomponent of this, affecting the sustainability of rural communities, and itdepends extensively on how agricultural production is conducted. Environ-mental security is related to the resilience of ecosystems (Berkes and Folke,1998). Ecosystem resilience is the capacity of a particular ecosystem to beable to evolve, despite a variety of uncertainly enhancing threats to it frominternal and external sources, throughout its dynamic life cycle. As farmersattempt to sustain the resilience of their agro-ecosystems, they weigh various options and make decisions that affect environmental security. If theelements of the structure of the resilience of their agro-ecosystem are lostduring their farming cycles, the resilience of farmers’ agro-ecosystem can bedestroyed increasing the vulnerability of the environment.Practices like draining of wetlands, excessive use of inorganic fertilizer,and pesticide use threaten wildlife. Bacterial contamination of ground waterdue to livestock production is also accompanied by excess nutrients includingnitrogen and phosphorus. Pesticides and fertilizers adversely affect surface water sources. Thus, in addition to urban sprawl and industrial growth, theexpansion of intensive farming has led to some serious pollution problemsand threats to agro-ecosystem security. Methane, nitrous oxide, and particu-larly carbon dioxide emanating from industrial fossil-fuel-based agriculturehave also contributed to greenhouse gas production which contributes toclimate change. Soil management has been improving due to greater use of low-till cultivation and fewer bare soil days but soil compaction is rising inparts of southern Ontario. Excessive dependence on inputs of energy alsocharacterizes Ontario’s intensive agriculture (Filson, 2004). McRae and Smith(2000: 195) observed that “This more intensive form of agriculture in anenvironment where water supplies are abundant increases the potential foragriculture to have adverse environmental effects.”Farmer resistance to regulations like the NMA and CWA has been wide-spread due to rising costs and insufficient farmer participation (Duff, 2006).Farmers also point to their rising rates of adoption of the voluntary Environ-mental Farm Plan (EFP) as a reason for not having to undergo the new regulations. In parts of Canada, largely excluding Ontario, the FederalGovernment has transformed Ontario’s EFP into a ‘group EFP’ known as theEquivalent Assessment Environmental Plan (EAEP). Once farmers completethe EAEP, they can apply for funds to facilitate their introduction of BMPs.The perception that large, industrial farms are the biggest problem is widespread in rural Ontario (Bucknell, 2002; Wells, 2004). Christian Farmers’General Manager John Clement recently obvserved that “The potentialenvironmental threat of one large operation is perceived to be greater than    D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   G  u  e   l  p   h   ] ,   [   P  r  o   f  e  s  s  o  r   G   l  e  n   C .   F   i   l  s  o  n   ]  a   t   1   1  :   3   0   1   0   F  e   b  r  u  a  r  y   2   0   1   2  232 G. C. Filson et al. the aggregate threat of numerous small farms” (2007: 1). However, inOntario, it has usually been the small farm operations that are facing moreserious environmental difficulties. Though the vast majority of agriculturalproduce in Ontario is produced by large, intensive farms (Sparling andLaughland, 2006), most Ontario farms are small and are operated by families.Except for most supply managed dairy farms which tend to be full timeoperations, the bigger operations are usually full-time operations with someemployees, whereas the smaller farms tend to be part-time operations. It isthese latter farms that are most at risk financially (Sparling and Laughland, 2006)and environmentally (Wells, 2004; Lamba, 2006). Whether small or large,supply-managed agricultural producers have tended to do better financially than non-supply-managed producers (Blackie and Tuninga, 2003). As recently as 2003, the three southern Ontario watersheds that have hadthe largest number of manure spills were the Ausable, Grand, and Maitlandrivers, based on the number of investigated complaints in ten of Ontario’smost threatened watersheds. These manure spills were recorded by the Ministry of the Environment’s Spills Action Centre (Blackie and Tuininga, 2003). AusableBayfiled had the worst record of spills and 29% of its existing manure storages were undersized. Such manure management problems as winter manurespreading and failing to check tile drainage for manure discharge were com-mon. The larger, commercial livestock producers usually had the most suit-able manure storage and handling facilities while the smaller operationstypically showed significant underinvestment in manure facilities. While they observed the fact that when the larger spills are more acute, an accumulationof smaller farms with inadequate storage presents a chronic problem for theseand other southern Ontario watersheds (Blackie and Tuninga, 2003).In a nationwide survey conducted in the spring of 2006, Ipsos-Reidspoke to 1000 farmers for the Crop Nutrients Council in order to improvethe CNC’s understanding of farmers’ attitudes toward BMPs. They found thatsoil testing (75%) and minimum tillage (73%) were the most commonly usedBMPs nationally, with variable rate fertilization the lowest at 10%. The highestlevel of BMP adoption was associated with the largest farm operations. Although support for nationally mandated NMPs is below 50% in Canada, itis higher in Ontario and Quebec. In 2006. 21% of Ontario farmers have aNMP (AAFC, December 2006). HYPOTHESES In our 2006 survey, an adoption index (ARI) was created based on the BMPslisted in the questionnaire. Although there were 21 BMPs altogether in thequestionnaire, the ARI for each farmer was calculated based on the numberof BMPs the farmer adopted after taking into account the total number of BMPs each farmer was supposed to implement. For example, a beef     D  o  w  n   l  o  a   d  e   d   b  y   [   U  n   i  v  e  r  s   i   t  y  o   f   G  u  e   l  p   h   ] ,   [   P  r  o   f  e  s  s  o  r   G   l  e  n   C .   F   i   l  s  o  n   ]  a   t   1   1  :   3   0   1   0   F  e   b  r  u  a  r  y   2   0   1   2
Similar documents
View more...
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks