Search

Participatory approaches to science and decision making, including stakeholder engagement, are increasingly common for managing complex socio-ecological challenges in working landscapes. However, critical questions about stakeholder engagement in this space remain. These include normative, political, and ethical questions concerning who participates, who benefits and loses, what good can be accomplished, and for what, whom, and by who. First, opportunities for addressing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion interests through engagement, while implied in key conceptual frameworks, remain underexplored in scholarly work and collaborative practice alike. A second line of inquiry relates to research-practice gaps. While both the practice of doing engagement work and scholarly research on the efficacy of engagement is on the rise, there is little concerted interplay among 'on-the-ground' practitioners and scholarly researchers. This means scientific research often misses or ignores insight grounded in practical and experiential knowledge, while practitioners are disconnected from potentially useful scientific research on stakeholder engagement. A third set of questions concerns gaps in empirical understanding of the efficacy of engagement processes and includes inquiry into how different engagement contexts and process features affect a range of behavioral, cognitive, and decision-making outcomes. Because of these gaps, a cohesive and actionable research agenda for stakeholder engagement research and practice in working landscapes remains elusive. In this review article, we present a co-produced research agenda for stakeholder engagement in working landscapes. The co-production process involved professionally facilitated and iterative dialogue among a diverse and international group of over 160 scholars and practitioners through a yearlong virtual workshop series. The resulting research agenda is organized under six cross-cutting themes: (1) Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion; (2) Ethics; (3) Research and Practice; (4) Context; (5) Process; and (6) Outcomes and Measurement. This research agenda identifies critical research needs and opportunities relevant for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers alike. We argue that addressing these research opportunities is necessary to advance knowledge and practice of stakeholder engagement and to support more just and effective engagement processes in working landscapes., Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42532-022-00132-8., Competing Interests: Conflict of interestOn behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest., (© The Author(s) 2022.)

Women play a significant role in Pennsylvania production agriculture, thereby exposing themselves to occupational health risks. The goal of this cross-sectional study was to assess the incidence of health conditions with a possible zoonotic origin in this underserved population. A written survey was sent to a stratified, random sample of dairy farms in Pennsylvania (n = 3709) using a modified version of the Dillman method. In addition to demographic data, the survey was used to collect information on the occurrence of zoonotic diseases, gastrointestinal illnesses, respiratory problems, dermatoses, and women's reproductive health issues. Of the 624 respondents, 10.4% (n = 65) reported that they had contracted a disease from an animal. Interestingly, only 9 respondents indicated that they had suffered from foodborne illnesses in the past year including salmonellosis (n = 1), campylobacteriosis (n = 1), and gastroenteritis due to Escherichia coli (n = 1). A risk factor associated with difficulty breathing was the lack of use of a breathing mask, whereas ventilation in the free stall area appeared to offer a protective effect. Difficulty breathing was reported by 9.8% (n = 61) of the respondents. Risk factors associated with skin disorders included raising fruits and/or vegetables, raising swine, and not wearing gloves when milking. The findings of the study suggest that many of the illnesses and conditions could have been acquired by working with dairy animals and their environment. Based on the findings of this study, additional investigations on the causes and prevention of these illnesses are warranted.

The goal of this study was to determine what tasks women perform, behaviors that could result in exposure to zoonotic disease, and preventative measures practiced by women on dairy farms. A written survey was sent to a stratified, random sample of dairy farms in Pennsylvania (n = 3709) using a modified version of the Dillman method. The tasks most commonly performed by the respondents (n = 624) included milking (70.8%), feeding (60.6%), and cleaning stalls (42.6%). The use of personal protective equipment was infrequent. Gloves were always worn when milking by 32.7%. More respondents, 96.5%, changed their clothes at least sometimes before working in the barn as compared to when leaving the barn. Handwashing was always performed by 86.7% after assisting with delivering calves, whereas 71.1% always washed their hands after milking. Eating and drinking in the barn were practiced by 45.0% and 72.0%, respectively. Veterinary obstetric drugs were administered by 28.2% of the respondents. Most of the respondents, 89.7%, indicated that they felt they had minimal to no risk of contracting a disease from the animals with which they worked.