Plastic scraps: biodegradable mulch films and the aesthetics of ‘good farming’ in US specialty crop production

Agriculture and Human Values 37 (1):83-96 (2020)

Agriculture is a serious contributor to pollution and other environmental harms, making it an important site of action for the development of environmentally friendly products and practices. However, farmer adoption of such options is varied and dependent on a wide range of factors including the visual appeal of sustainable farming. Recent studies have shown that negative aesthetics related to more environmentally friendly ways of farming can delay or prevent adoption of such practices. Drawing on the concepts of good farming, cultural capital, and the aesthetics of waste, this paper aims to assess the status of biodegradable plastic mulch in relation to a range of alternative and conventional specialty crop growers’ aesthetic perceptions. BDM has the potential to significantly reduce non-biodegradable polyethylene mulch waste, thus addressing serious environmental and human health concerns. However, the aesthetics of BDM may present a challenge. BDM looks identical to PE plastic, and its degradation throughout the season results in scraps in the soil. To investigate aesthetics as a possible barrier to BDM adoption, we conducted five photo-elicitation focus groups with specialty crop growers in Washington State. Results indicate that alternative growers are slightly more adverse to the aesthetics of BDM, especially because of its ‘plastic’ appearance. Conventional growers had higher rates of BDM adoption, even though they felt a strong aesthetic aversion to the messy nature of BDM degradation. Confidence in the product, particularly as a result of education and experience, was believed to be the key to overcoming this negative aesthetic. Study participants offered a variety of ways to enhance the acceptability of BDM, such as making the mulch brown instead of black. These findings have wider implications for the acceptance and adoption of practices that, although environmentally friendly, have an unattractive visual element.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10460-019-09970-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,385
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

"Digital" Plants and the Rise of Responsible Precision Agriculture.H. G. J. Gremmen & V. Blok - 2018 - In Angela Kallhoff, M. Di Paola & M. Schörgenhumer (eds.), Plant Ethics. Routledge. pp. 213-220.
Critical Impact Assessment of Organic Agriculture.Xie Biao, Wang Xiaorong, Ding Zhuhong & Yang Yaping - 2003 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 16 (3):297-311.
Contemporary Art and Environmental Aesthetics.Samantha Clark - 2010 - Environmental Values 19 (3):351-371.
Experimental Philosophy of Aesthetics.Florian Cova, Amanda Garcia & Shen-yi Liao - 2015 - Philosophy Compass 10 (12):927-939.


Added to PP index

Total views
12 ( #698,907 of 2,291,111 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #233,100 of 2,291,111 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes

Sign in to use this feature