PurposePublic perception of health benefits derived from organic foods is often misaligned with scientific evidence. This study aims to examine the factors affecting public perception of scientific information about organic foods.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted multinominal and multiple linear regression analyses to examine associations between public perception of scientific information about organic foods and 19 factors using data from a descriptive survey (N = 763).FindingsPerceived benefits of organic foods, trust in scientists, communicator credibility, preexisting beliefs and events related to science (e.g. COVID-19) were significant predictors of public perception of scientific information about organic foods.Theoretical implicationsCognitive dissonance and recreancy theoretical frameworks help describe relationships between beliefs, science, trust and risk. These theories intersect when purchasing credence goods (i.e. organic foods) whose qualities cannot be observed during or after purchase. Hence, public trust of scientific information about perceived health benefits of organic foods may conflict with strongly held beliefs that contradict scientific findings.Practical implicationsScientists can more effectively share research findings after trust is established through the listening, asking and sharing values process. Therefore, by following the path of listening, asking and sharing the endogenous/exogenous factors in this study, scientists and the public can have meaningful conversations about perceived health benefits and nutritional values of organically and conventionally grown foods.Originality/valueCurrent research on perception factors about organic foods often examined consumers' perceptions and purchase intentions but rarely considered perceptions of scientific information about organic foods. This study examined relationships between public perception of scientific information about organic foods and endogenous/exogenous factors.

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine agricultural livelihood vulnerability to climate change in Bluefields, Westmoreland, Jamaica based on the Livelihoods Vulnerability Index (LVI). Random sampling was used to select participants. Personal interviews were conducted with farmers using an instrument consisting of LVI components representing livelihood strategies, natural and physical assets, socio-demographic profile, social networks, water issues, food issues, natural disasters, and climate variability. LVI data were aggregated using an indexing approach to create scores for comparison across vulnerability components. The results showed farmers in Bluefields had the most amount of vulnerability in social networks and water issues. Low numbers of farmers owned their land, had contact with extension services, or used irrigation. Most farmers reported having problems with access to seeds and planting material, depended on their farms for food, and experienced frequent crop failure. Development organizations and local change agents should target the areas of greatest vulnerability illuminated by this study. Vulnerability and its contributing factors of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, should be reassessed with the LVI and other methods to monitor changes in Bluefields over time. Implications for extension educators to assist subsistence farmers in understanding better the effects of climate change are noted.

No abstract

Evaluation has been identified as a critical pathway to meet the grand challenges facing agriculture to feed the world. Understanding evaluation models and practices used in articles published in the Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education (JIAEE) allowed us to identify areas of focus, need, and improvement. This content analysis assessed JIAEE articles published from 1994 to 2018 for evaluation methods implemented according to characteristics outlined by Stufflebeam and Coryn (2014). This study initially identified 384 possible articles for consideration. Upon further assessment, 81 articles were identified as maintaining characteristics appropriate for review. Of these articles, the majority (70%) did not specifically identify an evaluation approach, even though 21% of all feature articles published over the past 25 years can be considered an evaluation. Few published evaluation articles specifically identified an evaluation approach; rather, the majority merely described the methods without using evaluation terminology, and the majority of the examined articles did not substantially cite evaluation literature (53%). Additionally, the majority of published evaluation articles were quantitative (56%). Researchers publishing in JIAEE should be assured that qualitative and mixed method evaluation studies are also acceptable. Evaluation studies focused on Stufflebeam and Coryn's evaluation criteria of feasibility, safety, equity, and probity should be encouraged. Additionally, workshops or training opportunities to advance understanding in evaluation processes and procedures may be valuable.

No abstract