When women become farmers : exploring the agency, practices and contribution of new women farmers toward sustainable food systems in the Netherlands

(1)

(2)

i Master’s Thesis

Author Tasch Arndt

Student number 11775254

Degree MSc Human Geography (Environment)

Department Graduate School of Social Sciences

Institution University of Amsterdam

Supervisor Dr. ir. Y.P.B. (Yves) van Leynseele Second Reader dhr. M.A. (Andres) Verzijl MSc Date of submission 1 July, 2019

Acknowledgements

To all the women who participated in this study, thank you for taking the time to invite me to yours farms and sharing your stories and knowledge with me – without you, this thesis would not have been possible. Thank you for your hard work, strength and commitment to growing beautiful food and communities, and for giving me the chance to stick my hands in the soil, amidst the months of research behind a computer. This research has been inspired by your hard and loving work, and the work of farmers around the world who take care of the soil and fight for a living Earth. Thank you to my supervisor, Yves, for your detailed comments and feedback, and most importantly, thank you for giving me the freedom and encouragement to pursue research that genuinely motivates and inspires me. To my family, thank you for your unconditional love and support, always, 我愛你們. A special thanks to mum for lending me your laptop to complete this research and for sending me your prayers. Thank you, dad, for believing in me, and reminding me that I am strong and capable. Thank you both for teaching me a love for good food.To my sister, thank you, and Evan, for taking care of Boris and supporting me in the move to the Netherlands to complete this Master’s degree. To Daan, thank you for sharing walks in the forest with me, and making me laugh and smile amidst the thesis stress, and thank you to the whole Mathijssen family for supporting me and giving me a place to call home in the Netherlands. To my dear friends and community, especially to the incredible women in my life, thank you for inspiring me, educating me, and teaching me how women can be both strong and soft. Thank you for all the love, dancing and singing, and thank you for showing me how we can support each other in our struggle for freedom. Let’s take care of each other and watch each other grow.

(3)

ii

Abstract

The negative environmental and social impacts of industrial agriculture are well documented. While the cost-price squeeze of industrial agriculture is pushing farmers out of agriculture, the farming population in Europe is both ageing and declining. There is a serious need for a new generation of sustainable farmers, however, there is little academic research investigating this emerging group of new farmers in Europe. A handful of recent studies indicate that new farmers in the Global North are more likely to be women and farm using sustainable practices, such as organic and agroecological farming. While most literature investigates this group of new farmers without the use of a gender-sensitive lens, this research adds a gender dimension to explore the largely invisible group of new women farmers in the Netherlands. As the hegemonic narratives of agriculture often construct women as invisible ‘farmwives’, their contribution to developing sustainable agriculture is not widely acknowledged. This research seeks to make visible the contribution of new women farmers toward sustainable food systems by exploring their agency, motivations, practices, and challenges. This study draws on an online survey, participant observation and in-depth interviews with nineteen women farmers across the Netherlands. The first findings present that women are motivated to become small-scale agroecological farmers and reconnect people with food and farming, produce sustainable food and care for the environment, while they face barriers such as access to land and strict regulations. Secondly, new women farmers are using concrete agroecological practices that contribute toward sustainability on the farm-level. New women farmers pattern their farms in peasant-like ways, seeking to create balanced agro-ecosystems, while they often reorganize labour and draw on Community Supported Agriculture. Thirdly, this research illustrates how gender remains relevant to food sovereignty, as women farmers struggle against gender discrimination, stereotypes and are often dismissed in their role as farmers. Gender challenges remain particularly relevant at the household-level, as young mothers often struggle to negotiate their gendered roles and assume the bulk of the care-work burden, while they often rely on their partners for income and are rendered invisible ‘farmwives’. At the same time, women are exercising their agency and resisting the hegemonic narratives that have traditionally constructed farming women as subordinate ‘farmwives’. Finally, this study presents how women are exercising their agency and leading the grassroots movement to contribute toward food sovereignty on a political level. By making a conscious choice to assume the roles of ‘farmers’, and leaders within the grassroots movement toward food sovereignty, these women are asserting their right to farm with dignity, as they work hard to achieve their ‘mission’ of transforming food systems toward sustainability, equality and justice. This study concludes that while new women farmers continue to face important challenges, such as self-exploitation and the difficulties of navigating gendered roles, new women farmers are dedicated to their ‘mission’ and meaningful work of making radically just and sustainable futures possible on their farming fields, within their communities and in the broader social movement toward food sovereignty.

Keywords: sustainable agriculture; women farmers; new farmers; agroecology; food sovereignty; Netherlands

(4)

iii

Chapter 1: Introduction

There is growing concern regarding the loss of the farming population in both public discourse and academic literature (Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Pretty 2002). In Europe, the farming population is both ageing and declining, and more than half of farmers are expected to retire within ten years, while less than 7 percent of farmers are under the age of 35 (Access to Land 2018; Eurostat 2013). All around the world, farmers are being squeezed out of agriculture, due to increasing scales of production, and the consolidation of farms into the hands of a few, as the agricultural system is industrialized and commoditized, and farmers receive a smaller proportion of what consumers spend on food (Agarwal 2014; Ploeg 2008; Pretty 2002). In the Netherlands, which features a highly specialized, industrialized and export-oriented model of agriculture, an average of 6 farmers are leaving agriculture every day (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019; Ploeg 2008). Simultaneously, there is increasing concern regarding the extensive environmental and social impacts of industrial agriculture. It is widely recognised that industrial agriculture is a major contributor to environmental issues, such as climate change, the degradation of soil and the loss of biodiversity, whilst deteriorating the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities (Altieri & Nicholls 2012; Ploeg 2008; Ploeg 2014).

Faced with the interlocking issues of a declining farming population and an agro-environmental crisis, there is a serious need for a new generation of sustainable farmers in Europe. However, there is a lack of research investigating new entrant farmers, and a specific gap in literature investigating the new women farmers of Europe. A handful of recent studies have sought to characterize new farmers and hint at the importance of this group, not only in replacing the declining farming population, but in contributing to alternative and sustainable models of farming (Access to Land 2018; Genello 2018; Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016). This emerging literature suggests that new farmers in Europe are motivated by their values of care for the environment and engage in peasant-like practices; structuring their farms to increase their autonomy and farming on small-scale, agroecological, and diversified farms (Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016). Whereas continuing farmers, who inherit farms, are often path dependent and “obliged to keep up the old productivist paradigm”, due to the heavy debts involved in maintaining previous trajectories, new farmers are able to enter low-capital, peasant-like pathways, and create innovative strategies that are alternative to the conventional industrialized system (ibid. p. 545). This small movement of new farmers could be contributing to repeasantization, defined as the widespread, though often hidden, re-emergence and strengthening of peasant agriculture (Ploeg 2008). Media tends to describe the new generation of farmers as young, university-educated, women, however, evidence remains largely anecdotal, and more systematic research is required to investigate the profiles, practices, needs and contributions of new farmers (Access to Land 2018).

Recent studies investigating new farmers in the Global North have also suggested that new farmers may be closing the gender gap in agriculture, as women are overrepresented in this group (Genello 2018; Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016). On the other hand, there remains a pronounced gender gap in conventional agriculture, as women represent only 5.2 percent of farm managers in the Netherlands (Eurostat 2018). Women are becoming new farmers on sustainable farms, even while women are often discouraged from conventional agriculture, and the process of becoming a new farmer poses serious barriers and challenges, such as access to land, knowledge and finance (Access

(8)

Chapter 1: Introduction

2 to Land 2018; Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016). Across the world there is little data on the contribution of women in agriculture, and peasant women are often marginalized and ignored (GRAIN 2014), however, recent studies demonstrate that women farmers in the Global North are more likely to farm using sustainable practices, such as agroecology and organic farming (Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Trauger 2004; Sachs et al. 2016). Emerging literature indicates that new women farmers may be at the forefront of a transition toward sustainable agriculture rooted in agroecology, while food sovereignty movements have long emphasized the importance of peasant women (Mpofu 2018; Sachs et al. 2016).

This study aims to contribute to the food sovereignty debate, and the growing research investigating the group of new farmers, by adding nuance and a gendered dimension. The literature regarding women farmers within the food sovereignty debates tends to investigate the struggles of women in the Global South, as these women still face serious barriers, such as a lack of rights and access to land ownership (Agarwal 2014; GRAIN 2014). While it is important that the food sovereignty literature focuses on the struggles of women in the Global South, gendered challenges also remain relevant for peasant women in the Global North, as gender relations are not yet equal, and warrant further investigation (GRAIN 2014). Limited research has been conducted of new women farmers, and this study seeks to fill this gap in research by investigating the experiences and practices of peasant-like women farmers in the Netherlands.

This study seeks to characterize new women farmers in the Netherlands and make visible their agency, struggles and contribution toward sustainable food systems. This research is conducted from an engaged and activist world view, with the intention to make visible the agency and contribution of women farmers and hopes to empower women who farm. This research adopts a gendered lens and draws directly on the perspectives of new women farmers to investigate their motivations, experiences and challenges. Further, this study seeks to characterize their practices by investigating how new women farmers are patterning their farms in peasant-like and agroecological ways, and finally investigates how they are contributing to sustainable food systems by exercising their agency and participating in collective action and grassroots activism toward food sovereignty.

This introductory chapter provides a background and rationale to the research. This introduction is followed by Chapter Two, which provides a theoretical framework for the study to position new women farmers against the backdrop of food sovereignty, discuss peasant-farming as an analytical category, and explain why gender matters within agrarian studies. The theoretical framework is followed by Chapter Three, which outlines the research methodology and includes the operationalization of major concepts and a conceptual scheme. Chapter Four is the first empirical chapter and provides a general profile of the new women farmers, outlining their motivations and challenges in becoming farmers. Chapter Five illustrates these women’s farming practices and relates their practices to peasant-like and agroecological farming. In Chapter Six, the women’s navigation of gendered roles and continuing gendered challenges are discussed. Chapter Seven is the last empirical chapter and investigates the women’s contribution to grassroots activism and the transformation of the food system. Finally, there is a conclusion with relevance to theory, and recommendations for further research.

(9)

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

3

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

This chapter outlines the theoretical framework adopted for this study where the agency and contribution of women in agriculture is placed against a backdrop of food sovereignty. This study places peasant women at the centre and is grounded in the food sovereignty principles of care for nature and farmer livelihoods. A gender-sensitive lens will be used to investigate the agency of women farmers and their contribution to sustainable food systems through their agroecological peasant-like practices and participation in collective action.

Sustainable food systems through a food sovereignty approach

In this study, sustainable food systems are understood as systems grounded in the principles of food sovereignty and agroecology. At its heart, food sovereignty can be considered a movement for peasant rights, and an approach that seeks to resist, and transition away from, the dominant industrial model and commodification of nature and farmers, by placing the rights of peasants at the centre. Food sovereignty is an emerging and contested concept and “is perhaps best understood as a transformative process that seeks to recreate the democratic realm and regenerate a diversity of autonomous food systems based on equity, social justice and ecological sustainability” (Pimbert 2009, p. 3). This study draws on La Via Campesina’s Declaration of Nyéléni where, “Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods, and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” (cited in Pimbert 2015, p. 289). As a movement, food sovereignty emphasizes the agency of peasants and collective action, as evidenced by La Via Campesina, the transnational peasant movement representing at least 200 million peasants and the largest peasant movement worldwide (Altieri & Toledo 2011; Rosset & Martinez-Torres 2014). In food sovereignty, self-determination is emphasized and reframed as democratic rights and equality centered around the core ethic of “food as a right, not a commodity” (Agarwal 2014; McMichael 2013, p. 6).

Food sovereignty has emerged as a strategic counterpoint to the unregulated neoliberal market and represents a far better guiding principle for the production, processing and distribution of food, as it is based on solidarity with peasant farmers, and the practices of agroecology (Ploeg 2014). Agroecology is explicitly linked and inseparable from food sovereignty and can be understood as a science, movement and practice that is needed to create food sovereignty (Pimbert 2015). At the heart of agroecology is the idea that agroecosystems can be circular and mimic biodiversity to function as natural ecosystems (ibid.). These agroecosystems minimize the use of external inputs, such as agrochemicals and energy, by replacing these with natural and internal process, such as rebuilding soil fertility and biological controls (Altieri & Toledo 2011; Altieri & Nicholls 2012). Agroecology fosters small-scale, peasant-like farming that encourage food sovereignty and local innovation (Altieri & Toledo 2011; Altieri et al. 2012; Pimbert 2015). Agroecological practices can be considered among peasant-like practices, as these are based on the same principles of reducing dependence on external inputs, and an understanding of agriculture as a process of co-production with living nature (Ploeg 2014).

(10)

4

Revisiting heterogeneity in the food sovereignty debate

While the food sovereignty approach is important, it is criticized for being overly politicized, as the peasant farmer has become a contested and political category. The conceptualization of peasants by food sovereignty proponents often eschews an analytical category or framework of how peasants produce their livelihoods, and it is argued that food sovereignty proponents are limited in their narrative of heroism and conceptualizing peasant farming as a form of resistance (Bernstein 2014; Jansen 2015). The food sovereignty approach may be limited in the European context, as it typically assumes hostility toward markets, and peasant farmers in the Netherlands engage in multiple circuits of reproduction, including engaging in downstream markets to maximize their autonomy and secure the reproduction of their self-controlled resource base (Ploeg 2008; 2010; 2014). The recent debate on food sovereignty has criticized the essentialization of peasants as a homogenous group, emphasizing that not all peasants are environmentalist, nor do all peasants seek to resist capitalism and remain peasant-like (Agarwal 2014; Bernstein 2014; Jansen 2015; Ploeg 2008). As peasants are heterogenous, there is a need for a nuanced and empirical category of peasant production.

Peasant farming as an analytical category: struggles for autonomy

Ploeg (2008; 2014; 2017) contributes to critical agrarian studies by specifying an analytical ‘peasant condition’ with patterning strategies that can define a distinct mode of peasant farming in Europe. To distinguish between the heterogenous groups of farmers in the Netherlands, a specific distinction is made between entrepreneurial and peasant-like farms. While these groups are permeable, there are distinct differences in the way they pattern their production. Entrepreneurial farms feature far-reaching commoditization and are grounded upon commodity flows, while peasant-like production is grounded upon an autonomous resource base (Ploeg 2017). Peasant-like farming features low levels of commoditization and is geared towards the maximization of autonomy and production of as much added-value as possible (Ploeg 2008). At the heart of peasant farming is the peasant calculus, where farming activities are patterned within a framework based on “cura (care)” to create a highly productive and sustainable farm that emphasises dedication, hard-work and labour driven intensification to produce good yields, a decent income and a beautiful and free farm (Ploeg 2008, p. 118). The peasant calculus is an approach to farming that can be summarized as “être libre, manger son pain et respecter la nature” (to be free, to eat bread and to respect nature), where peasant farmers seek to create a beautiful farm and dignified life, rather than maximize profit (Mendras, as cited in Ploeg 2017, p. 8). This peasant calculus contrasts with the entrepreneurial calculus that is structured around external conditions, such as global markets, and entrepreneurial production and income are highly dependent on the enlargement of scale (Ploeg 2008).

The hostile environment of Dutch agriculture

All around the world, farmers are faced with the hostile environment of an unregulated neoliberal market and farming policies that privilege an entrepreneurial model of increasing scales and the consolidation of farms into the hands of a few (Ploeg 2008; Pretty 2002). In Europe, policy reform has geared agriculture toward a highly mechanized, specialized, large-scale, industrialized and export-oriented model (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019; De Schutter 2019). In the Netherlands, the farming context has become particularly hostile for small, peasant-like farmers as following the

(11)

5 ‘Hunger Winter’, where the Netherlands experienced widespread hunger and food shortages, the Dutch government implemented programmes to ensure national food security by gearing agriculture toward an ‘efficient’, modern and entrepreneurial model (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019). These policy shifts and programmes featured land consolidation, which led to increasing farm sizes and an increasing concentration of farmland into the hands of a few, while the number of farms in the Netherlands has halved in the last 35 years (ibid.). These trends are paralleled across Europe where land is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, and 52 percent of European farmland is now owned by 3 percent of farms (De Schutter 2019).

Small-scale, peasant-like farmers struggle against the hostile environment where Dutch farming policy is geared toward the entrepreneurial model that privileges large scales, industrial agriculture and an export-orientated neoliberal model. The number of small-farms (less than 10 hectare) has declined by 56 percent between 1990 and 2015 (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019). It is increasingly difficult to access land to become a farmer as land prices in the Netherlands have soared, and the country features the highest price for agricultural land in Europe, with the average price for one hectare of land costing nearly €60,000 in 2016 (Silvis & Voskuilen 2018). Further, the policy shifts toward a free market and production geared toward cheap food, processing and export means that agribusiness has been incentivised over the production of food for local markets (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019). While the industrial model of agriculture is constructed as cheap and efficient by its proponents, this model generates hidden costs as externalities, which are not included in the retail price, but are paid by people around the world and passed onto future generations (De Schutter 2019). The hostile environment of the Dutch farming context features a highly concentrated food chain where farmers are receiving a smaller proportion of what consumers pay for food, and 40 percent of family farmers derive less than minimum income from farming (Ploeg 2008; Ploeg et al. 2012).Faced with this hostile environment, it is difficult for new farmers to enter farming and make a decent living wage, however, by patterning production to distantiate themselves from commodity markets, peasant-like farmers are able to increase their autonomy and resilience against global food markets (Ploeg 2008; 2014).

Re-emergence and resilience of peasant farming in the Netherlands

While faced with a hostile environment, public discussion and emerging literature indicate that there is an increasing interest in small-scale farming, where new farmers are often motivated to become peasant-like farmers for greater independence, meaningful work and lifestyles based on their environmental values (Graves 2018; Laughton 2017; Mailfert 2007; Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Ploeg 2017). The repeasantization and inflow of peasants in the Netherlands is largely made up on non-farming people who are trying to become peasants and investing into small-scale farms (Ploeg 2008). Farmers can be considered peasant-like when they are relatively autonomous and have a self-controlled resource base with room for manoeuvre. Ploeg (2014) describes that in the Netherlands, peasant farmers are innovative and partially engage in commodity circuits to maximize their autonomy. Peasants pattern their relations with markets in multifunctional ways to sustain new ways of farming that balance both commodity and non-commodity circuits. Peasants reground their farms upon self-controlled natural and social resources, allowing for resilience and relative autonomy from upstream markets, as promoted by the food sovereignty movement. In the Netherlands, these patterning strategies often entail farms that are smaller, use fewer external

(12)

6 inputs, invest in fewer new technologies and are far less indebted than entrepreneurial farms. These peasant-like farms are multifunctional and diversified in order to not depend on one single market, making them resilient in the face of volatility, which is inherent to the global food markets. For example, when Dutch dairy farms faced dramatic decreases in prices for milk following the 2008 financial crisis, the impact was highly differentiated amongst farmers. While entrepreneurial farmers were faced with negative cash flows, peasant farms could absorb shocks more easily and were amongst the only farms with positive incomes.

Peasant patterning: diversification and mechanisms for repeasantization

Given the hostile environment of agriculture, peasant use diversification strategies to pattern their farms for maximum autonomy and resilience (Ploeg 2008). Multifunctionality and pluriactivity are major features of peasant patterning in the Netherlands and can be defined as the understanding that agriculture contributes beyond its primary function of producing food, and also shapes the landscape to provide environmental and social benefits (Meraner et al. 2015). In a study of seven major European countries, including the Netherlands, it was found that more than half of the professional farmers were actively involved in the peasant patterning strategies of regrounding, deepening and broadening (Oostindie et al. 2002; Ploeg 2010; Ploeg et al. 2012). The strategy of regrounding is particularly relevant to this study, as it involves regrounding the farm on living nature and aligns closely with agroecological practices, which emphasize the use of internal-inputs to create an agro-ecosystem. At the heart of agroecology and peasant-farming is a co-production with living nature, which can be understood as the interaction and mutual transformation of farmers and living nature, where production becomes more closely aligned with local ecosystems, while avoiding the tensions of the industrialized and standardized processes of production (Ploeg 2007). The patterning strategy of deepening involves capturing more added-value and includes novelty production, the use of short-chains and marketing strategies that connect farmers directly to consumers. Finally, broadening is a diversification strategy that increases the autonomy of peasant farmers by adding non-agricultural activities to the farm, which often entail agro-tourism and care-farms in the Dutch context. All of these diversification strategies can contribute to considerable cost reductions, allowing farmers to increase their autonomy and resilience, while they entail a departure from conventional farming (Hebnick et al. 2015). From an analytical point of view, these diversification strategies represent yet another circuit of reproduction that allow modern peasants to reproduce their farms and existence in new and resilient ways (Ploeg 2010).

Women at the forefront: why gender matters

Women are important contributors to farming around the world, yet their contribution to agriculture is not often visible or recognized (Sachs 2018; Riley 2009). Following the modernisation and restructuring of farming toward large-scale industrialization, the position of women in agriculture has not improved, and as farms expand, women seldom gain economic power or hold positions of power in the agro-industry (Sachs 2018). The modernisation and mechanization of agriculture after World War Two is understood to have constructed the masculinisation of agriculture and pushed women out of farming (Seuneke & Bock 2015). While women were previously responsible for productive roles, such as milking cows, new technologies replaced these roles and pushed women out of farming, confining them to become housewives rather than

(13)

7 farmers (Brandth 2002; Seuneke & Bock 2015). Industrialized farming remains dominated by men, where the gender gap is particularly visible in the Netherlands, and while women make up around 30 percent of farm employees across the country, they only represent 5.2 percent of farm managers (CBS 2018; Eurostat 2018).

At the same time, Seuneke & Bock (2015) argue that the exclusion of women from conventional and industrial agriculture can be seen as an advantage, as women are more free and flexible to engage in non-conventional strategies, such as multifunctional farming. Women farmers can bypass the path dependency of conventional farmers, because they often come from non-farming backgrounds, and have more “room for manoeuvre” (ibid. p. 47). Women are seen as more flexible to cross the boundaries of conventional agriculture toward sustainable practices, as they are often not as deeply rooted in conventional farming as men, while farming men often come from farming backgrounds, and remain tied to conventional agriculture (ibid.) Women also tend to have less access to the capital, land and labour required to begin their farms, meaning that they tend to pursue sustainable and organic farming practices which allow them to farm on smaller-scales and with less machinery (Terman 2016). More women are assuming the role of ‘farmer’, paralleling the shifting roles of women within broader society, with an increasing number of women taking on roles as business owners and managers, where they increasingly see themselves as farmers, not only as farmwives or farmer’s daughters (Sachs et al. 2016; Terman 2016).

Recent studies have documented how women farmers in the Global North are assuming the role of ‘farmer’ and are more likely to in ways that are sustainable ways that differ distinctively from conventional farming (Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Sachs et al. 2016; Trauger 2004; Trauger et al. 2010). These women are more likely to be farming on sustainable, small-scale farms, with high

labour, low-mechanization, a diversity of crops and prioritize growing food crops over commodity

crops (Terman 2016; Trauger et al 2010). Women farmers tend to farm in non-conventional ways, and while their involvement in the movements toward sustainable and local food systems have been well documented in literature, their contribution to developing sustainable agriculture has not been widely acknowledged (DeLind & Ferguson 1999; Sachs et al. 2016; Terman 201; Trauger 2004; Trauger et al. 2010). This thesis does not claim that women are predisposed to engage in farming in a certain way, but the increasing numbers of women farming on small-scale and sustainable farms suggest that gender may be important to understanding the motivations of some farmers (Jarosz 2011; Trauger et al. 2010).

Hegemonic narratives and the construction of invisible ‘farmwives’

Hegemonic narratives continue to dominate agriculture where patriarchal structures have commonly underpinned the process of gendering agricultural roles; constructing the invisibility of women as ‘farmwives’, rather than farmers (Riley 2009). Hegemony can be understood as the signs and practices that serve the interests of the dominant group by justifying particular relations of power that come to be taken for granted and accepted by all social groups as the natural order of the world (Turesky 2012). In agricultural communities, hegemonic narratives continue to reproduce the dominant constructions of men as farmers, while women are constructed as farmwives who provide a subservient role as a supporter, or helper on the farm, rather than being identified as professional farmers (Heggem 2014).

(14)

8 Farming women struggle to assert their position in farming and face gender challenges, particularly at the household-level. There is a strong division of roles along the constructs of gender, where productive farm work is often conducted by men, while women are expected to assume the reproductive work within the household, taking care of children, administration, and playing a supportive role on the farm when needed (Seuneke & Bock 2015; Shortall 2006; Riley 2009). As women’s contribution to farming is often within the reproductive sphere of work and is often unpaid, their work and contribution is often rendered invisible, or seen as subservient to the work of men (Riley 2009). This invisibility aligns with the construction of a binary between men’s productive tasks as superior to women’s reproductive tasks, while hegemonic narratives continue to construct masculinity as superior to femininity in farming (Riley 2009; Saugeres 2002). While women’s work often engages in both productive and reproductive spheres, and their reproductive work is often central to the farm business, their contribution remains devalued and seen as less important to agriculture (Riley 2009; Whatmore 1991).

Gender ideologies around farming competencies remain prevalent in farming communities (Heggem 2014). These competencies can be linked to the construction of gender identities in which farmers are represented along hegemonic narratives of rural masculinity, which is constructed to centre around hard-work, self-sufficiency and mental strength, while femininity is understood as caring and consideration for the family (Haugen & Brandth 2014). These hegemonic narratives continue to construct what is masculine as superior to what is feminine, while women continue to struggle to assert their role in agriculture (Heggem 2014; Saugeres 2002). Farming remains an “essentially masculine domain in which socially constructed masculine attributes such as physical strength and technical knowledge are valued, farm women find themselves marginalised in modern agriculture” (Saugeres 2002, p. 641).

Peasant women’s resistance and feminism

Elizabeth Mpofu (2018), general coordinator of La Via Campesina, has explained that the struggle against patriarchy and its system of pronounced capitalist relations is an essential element of food sovereignty. While peasant women are often reluctant to form feminist organisations that focus specifically on their gendered challenges, La Via Campesina defines its own form of feminism; ‘Popular Peasant Feminism’ (Mpofu 2018; Sachs 2018). Peasant feminism was coined by Latin American women as a form of feminism for the popular classes, including peasants, family farmers and indigenous peoples, and is differentiated from other feminist movements as it does not want a separate women’s movement, rather, it wants “women and men to walk together as equal partners in a larger struggle” (Mpofu 2018, p. 11). Peasant women have been key to La Via Campesina’s definition of food sovereignty, and they have the voices that can lead the transformation of farming (ibid.). They are at the forefront of creating alliances to build and strengthen the “vision of a new society founded on gender relations based on dignity, justice, quality and equity” (ibid, p. 10). Peasant women around the world are using agroecology to spearhead change in their communities and build social cohesion, which can provide the foundations for gender equality (Mpofu 2016; Walsum 2015). Learning and knowledge sharing is at the core of agroecology, providing peasant women the opportunity to meet regularly and share knowledge to mobilize in collective action and transform their communities into healthier ones based on dignity, solidarity, personal growth and equality (Mpofu 2016; Walsum 2015). Through

(15)

9 the active co-creation of knowledge and engagement in networks to share their ideas, women can assert their agency and rights to strengthen their roles in farming.

Ecofeminism can be aligned with the food sovereignty debate, as it criticizes the legitimacy of Western science as the sole authority for knowledge (Sachs 2018). While ecofeminism offers a multiplicity of perspectives, ecofeminism recognises that women are connected with, interact with, and know their local environments, while resisting the patriarchal structures that devalue women’s knowledge (Buckingham 2015; Sachs 2018). Ecofeminism illustrates that while Western scientists breed hybrid seeds, they often ignore the contribution of local women farmers to the protection and preservation of diverse seeds, and their local knowledge of ecology (Sachs 2018). While earlier accounts of ecofeminism have focused on the biology of gender and linked the femininity with the principles of care and cooperation, these perspectives risk producing an essentialist narrative of women’s inherent connection to nature (Buckingham 2015). Faced with this criticism of essentialism, ecofeminist scholarship has moved toward considering the cultural nature of gender roles and argue how women are socialized into certain roles that bring them closer to nature and underly their tendency toward care work (ibid.).

Recent accounts of ecofeminism have combined the notions of biology and social hierarchy toward a feminist political ecology perspective (Buckingham 2015). This perspective moves beyond essentialism, to reconsider the ways in which gender differences are socially constructed, where it is understood that “women’s perceived subordination results not simply from biological differences, but the socially and culturally constituted meanings assigned to those differences” (Riley 2009, p. 667; Saugeres 2002). In feminist political ecology, gender differences are not seen as inherent to biology, rather, they are a result of the social constructs of gender where women are socialized into certain roles and gender stereotypes construct patterns of labour (Nightingale 2006; Rocheleau et al. 1996). Feminist political ecology is relevant to food sovereignty, as there remains a gender hierarchy within farming where the masculine attributes of technical knowledge are valued above the feminine attributes of care, as explained above (Heggem 2014; Saugeres 2002).

To summarize, this study adopts food sovereignty framework to analyse the motivations, practices, challenges and contributions of new women farmers. Situated against a backdrop of the gendered challenges of farming, this study investigates the contribution of women farmers to the struggle toward food sovereignty. This study adopts a gender-sensitive lens to investigate the agency and contribution of new women farmers from their personal perspectives, voice and resistance, to their farm-level patterning, and their collective action toward sustainable food systems. In the following chapter, the methodology will be addressed, and the main concepts of theory will be operationalized into measurable variables and drawn together into a conceptual scheme.

(16)

Chapter 3: Research design and methods

10

Chapter 3: Research design and methods

This chapter outlines the research methods used to conduct this study. The research questions are followed by an operationalization of major concepts and conceptual scheme. The research location is described, and the research methods are outlined, followed by ethical considerations and limitations of the study.

In order to address the research aim of adding a gender dimension to food sovereignty and making visible the contribution of new women farmers, the following research questions were formulated.

Research question:

How do new women farmers in the Netherlands pattern production on their farms, and how do they exercise their agency and contribute to the grassroots movement toward sustainable food systems and food sovereignty?

Sub-questions:

1. Who are the new women farmers in the Netherlands, what are their motivation and challenges, and what pathways are they using toward becoming farmers on agroecological farms?

2. What farming practices are important to new women farmers, and how are they patterning their production on their farms in peasant-like and agroecological ways to contribute toward sustainable food systems at farm-level?

3. How do women exercise their agency to assume the role of farmer, and what gendered challenges do women continue to face in farming?

4. How are women contributing to collective action and leading the grassroots movement toward sustainable food systems and food sovereignty in the Netherlands?

Operationalization of major concepts

This operationalization transforms the main concepts from theory into measurable dimensions and variables.

Sustainable food systems

Following the theoretical framework, sustainable food systems are defined as encompassing both sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty. In this study, sustainable agriculture is defined as agroecological farming, which seeks to transition away from the conventional model industrial agriculture. Agroecology and sustainable agriculture are often defined in contrast to industrial agriculture, which depends on a high-level of external inputs, such as fossil fuels and synthetic pesticides that degrade the environment (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019; Trauger 2004). On the other hand, agroecological farming is based in the creation of agro-ecosystems and the co-production with nature, as explained in the theoretical framework. Food sovereignty is understood to be inseparable from agroecology where sustainable food systems must foster “the right of everyone to have access to safe, nutritious, and culturally appropriate food in sufficient quantity and quality to sustain a healthy life with full human dignity” (Altieri & Funes-Monzote 2012, p.

(17)

11 32; Pimbert 2015). Sustainable food systems are understood to encompass the role of agriculture beyond productivity alone, protecting for the environment, society and farmers’ livelihoods.

Peasant patterning at the farm-level

Drawing on the theoretical framework, this thesis operationalizes Ploeg’s (2008) peasant condition to investigate the patterning strategies that define a distinct analytical category of peasant farming in Europe and investigate how new women farmers align with peasant-like farming to maximize their autonomy and sustainability. This study draws on the peasant-patterning strategies used by farmers to diversify their farms and increase their autonomy, and are operationalized into three categories: regrounding, deepening and broadening (Ploeg 2008; Ploeg et al. 2012). As explained in the theoretical framework, the strategy of regrounding is particularly relevant to this study, as it aligns with agroecology and involves regrounding the farm on living nature, emphasising the use of internally available resources to strengthen the farm’s resource base. Regrounding entails the mobilization of resources and includes strategies such as pluriactivity where farmers may engage in off-farm work and multiple jobs. Further, regrounding increases the autonomy of farmers by emphasising non-commodity exchange, and inter-farm cooperation between farmers. Deepening involves the agricultural side of production with a focus on capturing more added-value, using novelty production, as well selling produce through short-chains.Broadening considers the wider rural area and involves the inclusion of non-agricultural activities, where in the Dutch context of agriculture, such patterning often entails the inclusion of agro-tourism, care-farms and nature conservation. All of these patterning strategies can contribute to considerable cost reductions, allowing farmers to increase their autonomy, resilience and sustainability at the farm-level.

Gendering agriculture: beyond the binary

This thesis follows the theory of feminist political ecology, to investigate women’s gendered struggles where gender roles are understood to be constructed and socialized, rather than inherent to women (Nightingale 2006). This study utilizes the concept of feminine farming to resist the hegemonic and patriarchal narratives, which have constructed farming as man’s work, and produced a farming context where masculine attributes are valued, while femininity is devalued, and women are marginalised and subordinated (Brandth 2002; Saugeres 2002). While delineating a specifically ‘feminine-way’ to farming risks essentialism, this thesis engages in the notion of femininity in an attempt to make visible the value of femininity, particularly in contributing to the role of agriculture beyond productivity alone. A tension emerges, as this thesis seeks to both make visible the contribution of women to farming, while being careful not to reproduce the socially constructed gender stereotypes, which have excluded women from farming in the past. While this thesis discusses the feminine-way of farming, and draws on the gendered perspectives that were shared by farmers during interviews, it is important to keep in mind that these approaches to farming are not binary, and this thesis does not assume that femininity is inherent, or restricted, to women, making explicit that people of all genders can adopt a feminine approach.

Women’s agency in grassroots activism and collective action

The agency of women farmers is key to the food sovereignty debate and La Via Campesina’s fight for peasant rights and agroecological farming. In this study, the agency of women will be

(18)

12 investigated following the conceptual model designed by Eerdewijk et al. (2017) to investigate the empowerment of women. Agency is at the heart of empowerment and can be understood as the ability to define and act upon goals and express voice. This thesis draws on three expression of agency; decision-making, leadership and collective action (Eerdewijk et al. 2017). This thesis builds further on the concept of women’s agency in collective action by linking the concept to food sovereignty. At the heart of food sovereignty is a social movement for peasant rights, where farmers are self-organising in farmer-to-farmer networks to meet regularly, share knowledge, amplify their voice and mobilize in collective action (Mpofu 2016; Walsum 2015). Further, through their active co-creation of knowledge and engagement in farmer-to-farmer networks to share their ideas, women can assert their agency and reclaim their position agriculture and right to farm. Within the broader social movement toward food sovereignty, women’s agency is operationalized by investigating their contribution to organising the grassroots movement, building solidarity and sharing knowledge.

Conceptual scheme

This conceptual scheme (Figure 1.) is based on the conceptual scheme created by Eerdewijk et al. (2017) to investigate the empowerment of women. This conceptual scheme combines the main theoretical concepts of the study to situate the investigation within a gendered lens to symbolise the agency of new women farmers and alternative pathways toward sustainable food systems.

Figure 1. Conceptual scheme symbolizing a gendered lens to food sovereignty modelled off Eerdewijk et al. (2017).

Research location: the Netherlands

This research was conducted in the Netherlands, a country that features one of the most industrialized agricultural models in the world. As explained in the theoretical framework, the Netherlands features a hostile farming environment where on average, six farmers leave agriculture every day (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019; Ploeg 2008). There is a serious need for new farmers in the Netherlands, however, it is increasingly difficult to enter farming. Accessing land is particularly difficult in the Netherlands, which features the most expensive agricultural land in Europe, and the price of arable land varies between €40’000 and €80’000 per hectare (Oppedijk van Veen et al. 2019; Silvis & Voskuilen 2018). Agriculture in the Netherlands is extremely industrialized, specialized and geared toward export, where the movement toward food sovereignty, agroecology

(19)

13 and sustainable food systems can be understood to be particularly important here. Further, it is important to investigate the experience and challenges of new women farmers in the Netherlands, as this country features a large gender gap and the lowest number of female farms managers in Europe (Eurostat 2018).

For this study, I visited new women farmers across 16 farms in the Netherlands. The geographical location of farms was spread around the Netherlands (Figure 2.), with most farms located around the centre of the country. Most farms were located in Gelderland (5), followed by Noord-Brabant (3) and Noord-Holland (3), with the remainder in Overijssel (2), Utrecht (2) and Zuid-Holland (1).

Figure 2.

Map of the Netherlands showing the locations of farms visited for the study. NB: One of the triangles in the West of Amsterdam represents two farms, as these are neighbouring farms, and are therefore not visible on the map.

Research methodology

This research adopts an epistemological stance of interpretivism, which Bryman (2012) explains as an approach that denotes an alternative to positivism. This approach is based on the idea that researchers can offer interpretive understandings of social action, where the observational field of study has specific meaning and relevance to the people living and acting within it (ibid.). The interpretivist approach acknowledges intersubjectivity and shared meaning between people, where my roles as researcher co-shaped the investigation and my subjectivity plays a role in the interpretation of data and constructing the findings. Building on the interpretivist stance, I adopted an engaged role as researcher and was often involved in the farmers lives by working along with them while conducting the research, attending their meetings and sharing meals with them. This

(20)

14 research was conducted and written from an activist world view and seeks to make visible the contribution of women farmers and empower women (Borras 2019).

Feminist research tends to prefer qualitative research, while arguing that research regarding women must be “intended for women” to be consistent with the political needs of women (Bryman 2012, p. 40). In order to highlight the voice of women, this study adopts an actor-oriented approach, which implies that the women’s own perspectives, voice and understanding are central to the research. Women farmers were asked directly about their specific concerns and challenges in order to keep the research relevant to women’s interests (Newton et al. 2019). This study used an exploratory, mixed-methods approach of an online survey, semi-structured and in-depth interviews, and participant observation to gain a better understanding of the research problem and the contribution of new women framers to sustainable food systems. This study is ethnographically-inspired to investigate the perspectives and experiences of new women farmers on agroecological farms. To this end, this study focuses on qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews and participant observation.

Sampling strategy

This study utilized purposive sampling and snowball sampling to contact new women farmers, as this group represent a hidden population with no complete list or registry of the population (Riley 2009). At the end of the surveys and interviews, respondents were asked if they knew any other new women farmers and if they would like to refer these to be included in the study. As multiple studies have indicated that new farmers value networking and often engage in online platforms and farmer networks (Mailfert 2007; Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Rantamäki-Lahtinen & Väre 2012; Wilbur 2014), I created a website to increase the visibility of the study online, share a research outline and provide the contact details and links necessary for women to participate in the study. In order to reach this hidden population of farmers, I shared my website and a link to the survey on online platforms used by new farmers, such as the Facebook groups ‘Toekomstboeren’ (‘Farmers for the Future’) and ‘Permacultuur’ (permaculture). As new farmers tend to have novice farming skills and necessarily link to external networks to access knowledge, I followed Wilbur’s (2014) purposive sampling strategy in focusing on new women farmers that are involved in farmer networks, such as Toekomstboeren. Respondents helped share the links to my website and survey to their online networks, such as the Facebook group for Toekomstboeren, while respondents also shared the links directly with their fellow farmers and on various online networks and Facebook groups related to food and farming. One farmer offered to share a blogpost about my research on her farm’s website, which proved exceptionally useful as the post was shared on multiple farmer networks and subsequently, women contacted me to be included in the study. Further, direct emails were sent to farmers by finding their contact details through their websites and relevant peasant-farming groups, such as Toekomstboeren and Boerengroup. I made use of relevant events, such as the agroecological farmer’s conference and an event to meet food forest practitioners, to build a network and meet women farmers to ask them if they would like to participate or recommend other women for the study. This study focuses on a small sample of new women farmers who are linked to farmer networks and farming in agroecological ways. While

(21)

15 this means that the sample may not be representative of the wider population of new women farmers, and the study is not generalizable, this was not the research aim.

Data collection

This fieldwork for this study was conducted over seven weeks between March and April 2019. The main method of data collection was the use of semi-structured interviews with 19 new women farmers (See Appendix I, Table 1. for list of interviews). These interviews were used to gather rich data on a population of new women farmers that remains largely ‘invisible’, and for whom there is little qualitative data (Trauger et al. 2010). The interviews were conducted at the women’s farms, and 16 farms were visited in total, as two women were interviewed together at three of the farms. During most interviews, I worked alongside the women while we spoke, as the research was conducted during the busy spring time where farmers were preparing their farms for the growing season. Beside these interviews, I also engaged in many informal conversations with other farmers, volunteers and experts while working alongside them or meeting them at conferences and events. The interviews lasted between 1 and 3.5 hours, while most interviews lasted over 2 hours. The interviews were recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim. Interviews were conducted in English and followed a semi-structured format (Appendix I) structured around the four research sub-questions, focusing on their backgrounds, motivations, challenges, practices, gendered-experiences and activism toward sustainable food systems. These interviews were in-depth and helped derive deeper understanding and insight into the motivations, practices and experiences of new women farmers, while providing an opportunity for women to share their stories (Bryman 2012; Trauger 2004). Following the ethnographically inspired approach of the study, I allowed the interviews flow naturally, focusing on elements that seemed most important to the women. They were often interested to hear about other women’s perspectives and hear what I had found in the research so far. When I shared these preliminary findings, women would often reflect and share their own perspectives, helping to confirm or contradict some findings.

An online survey with open and closed questions was used to characterize the new women farmers and their practices. These surveys were semi-quantitative, and the questions investigated the farmers’ peasant patterning strategies, while drawing on questions from recent studies investigating new and agroecological farmers in the Global North to generate a general profile of farmers and their practices (Monllor-Rico & Fuller 2016; Ploeg 2008; Rantamäki-Lahtinen & Väre 2012). The survey was created with SoGoSurvey software and distributed via email and online platforms for farmer networks, such as the Toekomstboeren Facebook page. Unfortunately, the survey only generated 17 responses, meaning that it did not add to the sample size. Of the 17 survey responses, 12 were women that I had interviewed for the study, therefore, the responses from respondents who were not interviewed were removed from the sample of quantitative responses and the focus was kept on the women who were interviewed.

Further, participant observation was used throughout the entire study; during farm visits and attendance of relevant events organised. This method proved particularly useful is investigating the gender challenges and negotiation of gender roles for women on their farms. By spending a few hours working along with women on their farms, I was able to observe how some women

(22)

16 were able to negotiate gendered relations and engage in respectful and friendly working relationships, while at the same time, I also observed continuing gender struggles. I observed the subtle gender challenges and discomfort of interactions between one farmer and an older male volunteer who seemed uncomfortable with her role as farm leader, as will be explained in Chapter Six. Participant observation proved invaluable as I was able to observe how gender remains particularly relevant at the household-level and mothers would come to work with their babies, and struggle to balance and negotiate their competing roles of mother and farmer.

As part of the study, I attended three events including, a food forest meeting at Wageningen University, a conference for agroecological farmers organised by Toekomstboeren and a discussion on peasant struggles in the 21st_{Century organised by the Transnational Institute.}

Participant observation proved a particularly useful method at events, as I was able to observe how women were leaders in organising the agroecological farmer conference and asserting their role of farmer in public space. Similarly, in Trauger’s (2004) study, participant observation proved critical in her investigation of the role of public space in giving women farmers the opportunity to exercise their agency and be recognized as farmers. Finally, I observed farmer-networks through their informal online platforms where many farmers share knowledge and ask questions regarding their practices, while also sharing solidarity and support in their struggles, such as in resisting development and fighting for their right to land, as will be demonstrated in Chapter Four.

Units of observation

The units of observation for this study are new women farmers who are engaging in agroecological practices. This study draws on the definition of new farmers used by Monllor-Rico & Fuller (2016) and Wilbur (2014) in their recent studies of new farmers in Europe. New women farmers are defined as farmers of any age, who have established a farm in the last fifteen years and did not inherit a family-farm. These farmers are entering farming from non-agricultural backgrounds, or they are returning to a family-held farm after a minimum of ten-years of off-farm work or education. While the criteria for the study sample were promoted as new farmers who have established their farms within the last fifteen years, one farmer in this study established her farm nearly twenty years ago. I included her in the study as the difference between ten and fifteen years is likely to be little, and she remains a new farmer is the sense that she did not inherit a farm, and had to enter farming, while her challenges and story remain relevant. Most importantly, this study relies on the self-identification of women farmers, as this allows participants to set a broad definition of what it means to be a farmer and what constitutes a farm (Genello 2018; Trauger 2004). By drawing on self-identification I was able to include a diversity of women in the study, where a handful of women contact me to be included in the study, while they would not likely be considered ‘farmers’ in the conventional sense, as they do not earn an income from their farming practices, as will be discussed in Chapter Four. These women were included in the study and this difference was taken into account in the analysis of survey and interview data.

Units of analysis

The units of analysis in this research are the peasant patterning strategies to understand how new women farmers are practicing farming in peasant-like ways to increase their autonomy and sustainability. The experiences and agency of new women farmers will be analysed to understand

(23)

17 if these new farmers are participating in collective action and contributing to fundamentally transformative and sustainable food systems rooted in food sovereignty.

Data analysis

As this research involved mixed methods, the quantitative and qualitative data were integrated into the results of this study. The quantitative data from the surveys helped provide an overview and general profile of new women farmers. After downloading survey data from SoGoSurvey, Excel was used to analyse the semi-quantitative data derived from the closed questions to characterize the new farmers, and their farms, and provide a contextual background to the study. The qualitative data from interviews formed the core of the study, where the interviews provided depth and meaning behind the farmers’ choices to pattern their farms in certain ways. The interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded using a mix of deductive and inductive coding. with a focus on inductive coding where emerging patterns were drawn out of the study. Deductive coding was used for the operationalized concepts of the research including their patterning strategies, farmer profiles and agency. Codes were arranged into categories to evaluate common trends and included codes for their backgrounds, motivations, patterning practices, challenges and activism. Coding was conducted in an iterative process as this allowed for the identification of common trends and outlying trends (Trauger et al. 2010). Field notes helped inform the coding process and point to the themes that stood out during the fieldwork. Finally, participant observations were recorded as fieldnotes and informed the coding process, proving particularly useful in helping to supplement the women’s perspectives shared through interviews, where I was able to directly observe their gender struggles in negotiating gender relations in asserting their role as farm managers as well as their struggles to balance the roles as mothers and farmers.

Ethical considerations and limitations of research

In order to ensure that ethical considerations and privacy are respected, this study uses pseudonyms to keep the identity of respondents anonymous (Bryman 2012; Trauger 2004). Respondents were fully briefed on the study and consent for participation was obtained verbally. In order to increase the transparency of the study I created a website that detailed the research aims, methods and my positionality as researcher. Given that this is a gender-sensitive study, this study was careful to ensure transparent and sought to empower women by highlighting their voice and ensuring that their participation is not tokenistic (Newton et al. 2019). This study seeks to go beyond gender binaries and draws on the concept of ‘femininity’ in an attempt to be inclusive, as explained in the theoretical framework and operationalization. Further, an important practical consideration was the potential for a language barrier, as while I speak some Dutch, I am not fluent in the language, which could have influenced the findings of the study. The one instance in which this barrier might have coloured the findings was at the agroecological farmer conference, which was conducted in Dutch. However, the main purpose of attendance was to meet farmers and observe the women’s position within the movement, while the conference also produced a conference paper summarizing the event (Sandwell 2019), which allowed me to double check and confirm the findings. Overall, the language barrier proved of little relevance, as all the interviews were conducted in English, and all the women in this study had an excellent command of English, where the communication was clear, and the data is reliable.

When women become farmers : exploring the agency, practices and contribution of new women farmers toward sustainable food systems in the Netherlands

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of contents:

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

Sustainable food systems through a food sovereignty approach

Revisiting heterogeneity in the food sovereignty debate

Peasant farming as an analytical category: struggles for autonomy

The hostile environment of Dutch agriculture

Re-emergence and resilience of peasant farming in the Netherlands

Peasant patterning: diversification and mechanisms for repeasantization

Women at the forefront: why gender matters

Hegemonic narratives and the construction of invisible ‘farmwives’

Peasant women’s resistance and feminism

Chapter 3: Research design and methods

Research question:

Sub-questions:

Operationalization of major concepts

Sustainable food systems

Peasant patterning at the farm-level

Gendering agriculture: beyond the binary

Women’s agency in grassroots activism and collective action

Conceptual scheme

Research location: the Netherlands

Research methodology

Sampling strategy

Data collection

Units of observation

Units of analysis

Data analysis

Ethical considerations and limitations of research