ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To describe the relationship between self-reported farm profitability and farmer well-being, and to explore potential implications for farmer assistance policy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of farmers from Regional Wellbeing Survey data (wave 1, 2013) and comparison between groups. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were 1172 dryland farmers (35% women) and 707 irrigators (24% women). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The Personal Wellbeing Index and the Kessler 10-item measure of general psychological distress. RESULTS: There is a consistent and significant relationship between higher profitability, greater well-being and less distress among dryland farmers and irrigators. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between farm profitability and the well-being of Australian dryland farmers and irrigators has the potential to inform farmer assistance policy. Assistance programs can be more effective if they explicitly incorporate a profitability assessment into their targeting and eligibility requirements and a well-being component into program design and delivery. SETTING: Rural Australia. INTERVENTION: Not applicable.
Subject(s)
Agriculture/economics , Farmers/psychology , Personal Satisfaction , Public Assistance/standards , Quality of Life/psychology , Stress, Psychological/etiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Analysis of Variance , Australia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Public Assistance/economics , Rural Population , Socioeconomic Factors , Stress, Psychological/economics , Stress, Psychological/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
Some fear that provoking widespread worry about climate change may harm mental health. The Regional Wellbeing Survey, a large study of health, well-being and life in rural and regional Australia, examined climate change worry and attitudes. Most respondents were worried about climate change and agreed that fossil fuel use causes global warming, but there was no evidence to suggest that worry about climate change is linked to mental health in the general population. Respectful, calm, considered public debate about how to respond to climate change is unlikely to be harmful to population mental health. Individually focused clinical approaches are unlikely to be effective as a primary approach in managing the mental health impacts of climate change. Instead, collective, systems-based approaches will be needed.
