The Influence of Place Attachment on Farmers’ Succession Plans: A Mixed Methods Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A farm family’s land succession plan is vital to ensure that high-value farmland continues to benefit the family for generations to come. However, many farmers have been reluctant to develop succession plans. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of place attachment on farmers’ land succession planning. This exploratory mixed methods research involved farmers within 10 years of retirement age (55 years of age or older), both with and without a land succession plan. Surveys and interviews utilized Raymond, Brown, and Weber’s (2010) five dimensions of place attachment: place identity, place dependence, nature bonding, family bonding, and friend bonding. Survey results showed farmers with a succession plan had significantly higher place identity, place dependence, nature bonding, and overall place attachment than farmers without a succession plan. Seven themes emerged from the qualitative analysis of interviews of farmers with a succession plan and six themes emerged from interviews of farmers without a succession plan. Three themes: connection to family, sense of community, and enjoyment of the outdoors were held in common. This study adds to the literature exploring the complex factors affecting the transition of the family farm to the next generation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".