Gender, Educational Attainment, and Farm Outcomes in New Zealand
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Survey of Rural Decision Makers
2.2. Econometric Model
3. Results
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Lockheed, M.E.; Jamison, T.; Lau, L.J. Farmer education and farm efficiency: A survey. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1980, 29, 37–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griliches, Z. Research expenditures, education, and the aggregate agricultural production function. Am. Econ. Rev. 1964, 54, 961–974. [Google Scholar]
- Dupraz, P.; Vanslembrouck, I.; Bonnieux, F.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. Farmers’ participation in European agri-environmental policies. In Proceedings of the Xth EAAE Congress. ‘Exploring Diversity in the European Agri-Food System’, Zaragoza, Spain, 28–31 August 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Defrancesco, E.; Gatto, P.; Runge, F.; Trestini, S. Factors affecting farmers’ participation in Agri-environmental measures: A Northern Italian perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 59, 114–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K.; Klotthor-Weinkauf, D.; Baumgart-Getz, A. Determinants of agricultural best management practice adoption: Evidence from the literature. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 300–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quisumbing, A.R. Gender Differences in Agricultural Productivity (No. 5); International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, L.-Y.; Hsieh, Y.-J.; Chang, S.E. The effect of consumer innovativeness on adoption of location-based services. Rev. Glob. Manag. Serv. Sci. 2011, 1, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
- Bergström, A. The contexts of internet use: From innovators to late majority. J. Audience Recept. Stud. 2015, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, P.; Roper, S. Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2017, 61, 422–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Filson, G.C. Demographic and farm characteristic differences in Ontario farmers’ views about sustainability policies. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 1996, 9, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaiser, F.G.; Wölfing, S.; Fuhrer, U. Environmental attitude and ecological behaviour. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Binswanger, H. Attitudes towards risk: Experimental measurements in rural India. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1980, 62, 395–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miyata, S. Household’s risk attitudes in Indonesian villages. Appl. Econ. 2003, 35, 573–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gloede, O.; Menkhoff, L.; Waibel, H. Shocks, individual risk attitude, and vulnerability to poverty among rural households in Thailand and Vietnam. World Dev. 2015, 71, 54–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, T.; Camerer, C.F.; Nguyen, Q. Risk and time preferences: Linking experimental and household survey data from Vietnam. Am. Econ. Rev. 2010, 100, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kebede, Y.; Gunjal, K.; Coffin, G. Adoption of new technologies in Ethiopian agriculture: The case of Tegulet-Bulga district Shoa province. Agric. Econ. 1990, 4, 27–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Small, B.; Brown, P.; Montes de Oca Munguia, O. Values, trust, and management in New Zealand agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2016, 14, 282–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pfeiffer, L.; Richter, S.; Fletcher, P.; Taylor, J.E. Gender in economic research on international migration and its impacts: A critical review. Intern. Migr. Women 2007, 11–51. Available online: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGENDER/Resources/Session1Tayloretal.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2019).
- Manser, M.; Brown, M. Marriage and household decision-making: A bargaining analysis. Int. Econ. Rev. 1980, 21, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Becker, G.S. A theory of marriage—Part 1. J. Political Econ. 1973, 82, 1063–1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacoby, H.G. Productivity of men and women and the sexual division of labor in peasant agriculture of the Peruvian Sierra. J. Dev. Econ. 1991, 37, 265–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dadzie, S.K.; Dasmani, I. Gender difference and farm level efficiency: Metafrontier production function approach. J. Dev. Agric. Econ. 2010, 2, 441–451. [Google Scholar]
- Jamison, D.T.; Lau, L.J. Farmer Education and Farm Efficiency; Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
- Bindlish, V.; Evenson, R.E. Evaluation of the Performance of T&V Extension in Kenya; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 1993; Volume 23. [Google Scholar]
- Moock, P.R. The efficiency of women as farm managers: Kenya. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1976, 58, 831–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udry, C.; Hoddinott, J.; Alderman, H.; Haddad, L. Gender differentials in farm productivity: Implications for household efficiency and agricultural policy. Food Policy 1995, 20, 407–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Udry, C. Gender, agricultural production, and the theory of the household. J. Political Econ. 1996, 104, 1010–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quisumbing, A.R. Male-female differences in agricultural productivity: Methodological issues and empirical evidence. World Dev. 1996, 24, 1579–1595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, M.; Rigby, D.; Young, T. Modelling the adoption of organic horticultural technology in the UK using duration analysis. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2003, 47, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karami, E.; Mansoorabadi, A. Sustainable agricultural attitudes and behaviors: A gender analysis of Iranian farmers. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2008, 10, 883–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gillespie, J.; Kim, S.; Paudel, K. Why don’t producers adopt best management practices? An analysis of the beef cattle industry. Agric. Econ. 2007, 36, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morris, M.L.; Doss, C.R. How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Nashville, TN, USA, 8–11 August 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Jianakoplos, N.A.; Bernasek, A. Are women more risk averse? Econ. Inq. 1998, 36, 620–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eckel, C.C.; Grossman, P.J. Men, women and risk aversion: Experimental evidence. Handb. Exp. Econ. Results 2008, 1, 1061–1073. [Google Scholar]
- Villamor, G.B.; Desrianti, F.; Akiefnawati, R.; Amaruzaman, S.; van Noordwijk, M. Gender influences decisions to change land use practices in the tropical forest margins of Jambi, Indonesia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2014, 19, 733–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, R.J. The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 135, 19–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barkley, A.; Sylvius, C.; Stock, W. Agricultural graduate earnings: The impacts of college, career, and gender. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1999, 81, 785–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Preston, W.; Broder, J.; Almero, M. Temporal analysis of income earned by former agriculture students. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1990, 72, 13–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riley, M. Reconsidering conceptualisations of farm conservation activity: The case of conserving hay meadows. J. Rural Stud. 2006, 22, 337–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kocher, M.G.; Sutter, M. The decision maker matters: Individual versus group behaviour in experimental beauty-contest games. Econ. J. 2005, 115, 200–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, P. Survey of Rural Decision Makers; Landcare Research: Lincoln, New Zealand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, P.; Hart, G.; Small, B.; Montes de Oca Munguia, O. Agents for diffusion of agricultural innovations for environmental outcomes. Land Use Policy 2016, 55, 318–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, M.A.; Daigneault, A. Erosion mitigation in the Waikato District, New Zealand: Economic implications for agriculture. Agric. Econ. 2016, 48, 341–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Statistics New Zealand. 2012 Agricultural Census. 2012. Available online: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/agriculture-horticulture-forestry/2012-agricultural-census-tables.aspx (accessed on 5 November 2018).
- Morgan, F.J.; Brown, P.; Daigneault, A.J. Simulation vs. definition: Differing approaches to setting probabilities for agent behaviour. Land 2015, 4, 914–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heritage Foundation. 2018 Index of Economic Freedom. 2018. Available online: https://www.heritage.org/index/ranking/ (accessed on 9 January 2019).
- World Economic Forum. The Global Gender Gap Report. 2017. Available online: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2017.pdf (accessed on 9 January 2019).
- Otago Daily Times. Agricultural training: It’s a women’s world. Otago Daily Times. Available online: https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/south-otago/agriculture-training-its-womens-world (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- New Zealand Herald. Women Flock to Farm Careers. Available online: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11469422 (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Brown, P.; Daigneault, A.; Dawson, J. Age, values, farming objectives, past management decisions, and future intentions in New Zealand agriculture. J. Environ. Manag. 2019, 231, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ministry for the Environment. About New Zealand’s Emissions Reduction Targets. Available online: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/climate-change/what-government-doing/emissions-reduction-targets/about-our-emissions-reduction (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Te Uru Rākau. One Billion Trees Programme. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/funding-and-programmes/forestry/planting-one-billion-trees/ (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Ministry for Primary Industries. Agriculture and Greenhouse Gases. Available online: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/protection-and-response/environment-and-natural-resources/emissions-trading-scheme/agriculture-and-greenhouse-gases/ (accessed on 5 November 2018).
- Department of Conservation. Predator Free 2050. Available online: https://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/predator-free-2050/ (accessed on 9 January 2019).
- Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: New Zealand 2017; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017. [Google Scholar]
1 | New Zealand is noted for having a pro-business environment and strong property rights. For example, [46] ranks New Zealand the second highest country in the world (behind Singapore) for legal protection of property rights and enforcement of those laws. There are no restrictions on ownership by gender, and [47] ranks New Zealand as having the ninth smallest gender gap in the world, reflecting high levels of economic participation. Men and women have equal rights of inheritance and successorship in farming. While there are significantly fewer female sole decision makers than male sole decision makers among survey respondents, women are represented in all primary industries and in all regions in New Zealand. |
2 | After testing for over-dispersion, Poisson regression is ruled out. |
Variable | Scale | Mean | sd | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farm is profitable (profitable) | Dummy | 0.49 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Waterways are fenced (fenced) | Dummy | 0.84 | 0.37 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Nutrient management plan (NMP) | Dummy | 0.39 | 0.49 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Soil management plan (SMP) | Dummy | 0.32 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Pugging management plan (PMP) | Dummy | 0.78 | 0.41 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Plan to intensify in next 2 years (intensify) | Dummy | 0.45 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Plan to convert in next 2 years (convert) | Dummy | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Plan to increase land to existing uses in next 2 years (increase) | Dummy | 0.35 | 0.48 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Plan to sell, subdivide, or lease in next 2 years (sell) | Dummy | 0.34 | 0.47 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
Risk tolerance (risk) | (0–10) | 5.90 | 2.16 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Aversion to experimentation (experiment) | (0–10) | 4.48 | 2.20 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Farm due to family tradition (tradition) | (0–10) | 3.94 | 2.78 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Farm sustainably due to family norms (family) | (0–10) | 6.87 | 2.17 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Farm sustainably due to community norms (community) | (0–10) | 6.74 | 1.98 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Farm sustainably due to public norms (public) | (0–10) | 7.63 | 1.83 | 0.00 | 10.00 |
Adoption of novel technologies (novel tech) | Count | 0.61 | 0.85 | 0.00 | 5.00 |
Variable | Secondary Education or Less | Non-Relevant Post-Secondary Education | Relevant Post-Secondary Education | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farm is profitable (profitable) | 0.48 | 0.41 | 0.51 | B*** |
Waterways are fenced (fenced) | 0.84 | 0.84 | 0.86 | |
Nutrient management plan (NMP) | 0.40 | 0.33 | 0.41 | B*** |
Soil management plan (SMP) | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.37 | C** |
Pugging management plan (PMP) | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.81 | |
Plan to intensify in next 2 years (intensify) | 0.41 | 0.40 | 0.52 | B***, C*** |
Plan to convert in next 2 years (convert) | 0.27 | 0.32 | 0.40 | B**, C*** |
Plan to increase land to existing uses in next 2 years (increase) | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.42 | B***, C*** |
Plan to sell, subdivide, or lease in next 2 years (sell) | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.32 | |
Risk tolerance (risk) | 5.61 | 5.63 | 6.30 | B***, C*** |
Aversion to experimentation (experiment) | 4.75 | 4.74 | 4.12 | |
Farm due to family tradition (tradition) | 4.46 | 3.56 | 3.68 | A***, C*** |
Farm sustainably due to family norms (family) | 6.57 | 7.04 | 6.99 | A***, C*** |
Farm sustainably due to community norms (community) | 6.77 | 6.55 | 6.81 | |
Farm sustainably due to public norms (public) | 7.55 | 7.48 | 7.79 | B**, C* |
Adoption of novel technologies (novel tech) | 0.54 | 0.63 | 0.65 | A***, C*** |
Variable | Male Sole Decision Maker | Female Sole Decision Maker | Decisions Made Jointly | Difference |
---|---|---|---|---|
Farm is profitable (profitable) | 0.51 | 0.35 | 0.48 | A***, B** |
Waterways are fenced (fenced) | 0.83 | 0.81 | 0.86 | |
Nutrient management plan (NMP) | 0.37 | 0.35 | 0.42 | |
Soil management plan (SMP) | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.31 | |
Pugging management plan (PMP) | 0.80 | 0.76 | 0.77 | |
Plan to intensify in next 2 years (intensify) | 0.49 | 0.40 | 0.43 | C** |
Plan to convert in next 2 years (convert) | 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.31 | C** |
Plan to increase land to existing uses in next 2 years (increase) | 0.38 | 0.23 | 0.34 | A***, B* |
Plan to sell, subdivide, or lease in next 2 years (sell) | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.34 | |
Risk tolerance (risk) | 6.16 | 5.21 | 5.72 | A***, B*, C*** |
Aversion to experimentation (experiment) | 4.30 | 4.90 | 4.59 | A**, C** |
Farm due to family tradition (tradition) | 4.00 | 3.59 | 3.89 | |
Farm sustainably due to family norms (family) | 6.84 | 6.75 | 6.93 | |
Farm sustainably due to community norms (community) | 6.74 | 6.18 | 6.89 | A**, B*** |
Farm sustainably due to public norms (public) | 7.55 | 7.61 | 7.76 | C* |
Adoption of novel technologies (novel tech) | 0.63 | 0.42 | 0.60 | A***, B** |
(panel A) | |||||||||
Profitability | Farm Management | Future Intentions | |||||||
Profit | Fenced | NMP | SMP | PMP | Intensify | Convert | Increase | Sell | |
Non-Relevant | −0.094 *** | 0.003 | −0.049 * | 0.054 | 0.037 | −0.013 | 0.038 | 0.030 | −0.037 |
(0.035) | (0.029) | (0.030) | (0.034) | (0.033) | (0.034) | (0.033) | (0.032) | (0.033) | |
Relevant | 0.027 | 0.037* | −0.011 | 0.085 *** | 0.067 ** | 0.071 ** | 0.070 *** | 0.083 *** | −0.030 |
(0.028) | (0.022) | (0.024) | (0.027) | (0.026) | (0.028) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | |
Female | −0.105 ** | −0.032 | 0.005 | −0.019 | −0.020 | −0.008 | −0.010 | −0.064 | −0.106 ** |
(0.052) | (0.044) | (0.045) | (0.049) | (0.049) | (0.052) | (0.048) | (0.046) | (0.046) | |
Male | 0.025 | −0.015 | 0.010 | 0.015 | 0.031 | 0.063 ** | 0.062 *** | 0.038 | −0.002 |
(0.026) | (0.020) | (0.022) | (0.025) | (0.024) | (0.025) | (0.024) | (0.023) | (0.024) | |
Obs | 1612 | 1172 | 1607 | 1468 | 1235 | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 |
(panel B) | |||||||||
Risk and Norms | Adoption of | ||||||||
Risk | Experiment | Tradition | Family | Community | Public | Novel Tech | |||
Non-Relevant | 0.109 | −0.131 | −1.306 *** | 0.484 ** | 0.041 | 0.161 | 0.110 * | ||
(0.180) | (0.174) | (0.255) | (0.190) | (0.159) | (0.170) | (0.056) | |||
Relevant | 0.402 *** | −0.499 *** | −1.026 *** | 0.334 ** | 0.007 | 0.237 * | 0.314 *** | ||
(0.139) | (0.137) | (0.199) | (0.152) | (0.130) | (0.132) | (0.044) | |||
Female | −0.296 | 0.266 | −0.372 | −0.079 | −0.779 *** | −0.065 | −0.206 *** | ||
(0.249) | (0.229) | (0.406) | (0.305) | (0.241) | (0.230) | (0.079) | |||
Male | 0.454 *** | −0.284 ** | 0.045 | −0.093 | −0.049 | −0.124 | 0.078 * | ||
(0.129) | (0.128) | (0.180) | (0.141) | (0.118) | (0.123) | (0.043) | |||
Obs | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1612 |
(panel A) | ||||||||||||
Profitability | Farm Management Practices | Future Intentions | ||||||||||
Profit | Fenced | NMP | SMP | PMP | Intensify | |||||||
Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | |
Secondary | −0.084 | 0.062 | −0.091 | 0.006 | −0.072 | 0.020 | −0.019 | 0.060 | 0.009 | 0.072 * | −0.128 | −0.032 |
(0.093) | (0.045) | (0.094) | (0.031) | (0.095) | (0.047) | (0.081) | (0.041) | (0.099) | (0.043) | (0.094) | (0.045) | |
Non-relevant | −0.125 | −0.072 | 0.070 ** | −0.031 | 0.034 | −0.036 | −0.041 | −0.023 | −0.074 | −0.024 | −0.041 | 0.082 |
(0.095) | (0.060) | (0.032) | (0.048) | (0.104) | (0.065) | (0.099) | (0.062) | (0.099) | (0.057) | (0.098) | (0.061) | |
Relevant | −0.120 | 0.038 | −0.064 | −0.021 | 0.047 | 0.027 | −0.006 | −0.006 | −0.007 | 0.025 | 0.109 | 0.135 *** |
(0.087) | (0.039) | (0.067) | (0.021) | (0.101) | (0.041) | (0.083) | (0.039) | (0.072) | (0.033) | (0.090) | (0.039) | |
Obs | 1612 | 1612 | 1172 | 1172 | 1607 | 1607 | 1468 | 1468 | 1235 | 1235 | 1591 | 1591 |
(panel B) | ||||||||||||
Future Intentions | Risk and Norms | |||||||||||
Convert | Increase | Sell | Risk | Experiment | Tradition | |||||||
Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | |
Secondary | −0.072 | 0.025 | −0.039 | 0.066 | −0.221 *** | −0.041 | −0.607 | 0.496 ** | 0.159 | −0.251 | −1.020 * | 0.050 |
(0.077) | (0.041) | (0.081) | (0.042) | (0.074) | (0.043) | (0.440) | (0.217) | (0.361) | (0.202) | (0.558) | (0.268) | |
Non-relevant | −0.097 | 0.094 | −0.135 | −0.011 | −0.021 | 0.110 * | −0.399 | −0.104 | 0.287 | −0.049 | −0.029 | −0.792 ** |
(0.085) | (0.060) | (0.091) | (0.059) | (0.091) | (0.058) | (0.464) | (0.310) | (0.435) | (0.299) | (0.667) | (0.350) | |
Relevant | 0.108 | 0.086 ** | −0.047 | 0.045 | −0.070 | −0.020 | 0.018 | 0.587 *** | 0.358 | −0.382 ** | −0.018 | 0.335 |
(0.088) | (0.037) | (0.083) | (0.039) | (0.080) | (0.037) | (0.362) | (0.170) | (0.365) | (0.179) | (0.562) | (0.225) | |
Obs | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 | 1591 | 1306 | 1306 | 1386 | 1386 | 1334 | 1334 |
(panel C) | ||||||||||||
Risk and Norms | Adoption of | |||||||||||
Family | Community | Public | Novel Tech | |||||||||
Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | Women | Men | |||||
Secondary | −0.084 | −0.022 | −0.037 | −0.055 | 0.109 | −0.139 | −0.225 *** | 0.112 ** | ||||
(0.514) | (0.203) | (0.421) | (0.196) | (0.378) | (0.183) | (0.076) | (0.057) | |||||
Non-relevant | 0.217 | 0.115 | −0.180 | 0.136 | −0.113 | 0.031 | −0.315 *** | 0.036 | ||||
(0.422) | (0.286) | (0.369) | (0.251) | (0.322) | (0.246) | (0.121) | (0.097) | |||||
Relevant | −0.245 | −0.205 | −1.764 *** | −0.097 | −0.141 | −0.126 | −0.081 | 0.061 | ||||
(0.446) | (0.186) | (0.341) | (0.154) | (0.303) | (0.143) | (0.147) | (0.064) | |||||
Obs | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1386 | 1612 | 1612 |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brown, P. Gender, Educational Attainment, and Farm Outcomes in New Zealand. Land 2019, 8, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010018
Brown P. Gender, Educational Attainment, and Farm Outcomes in New Zealand. Land. 2019; 8(1):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010018
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrown, Philip. 2019. "Gender, Educational Attainment, and Farm Outcomes in New Zealand" Land 8, no. 1: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/land8010018