Do commonly used workload indicators capture the social sustainability of farm workload? Evidence from Switzerland
Open accessAbstract
Farm workload is typically measured using quantitative indicators that may overlook how farmers actually experience their work. This study empirically examines how three commonly used workload indicators, namely self-reported working hours, available workforce, and modeled working hours, relate to farmers’ perceived workload burden as a proxy for the social sustainability of farm labor. The data comprise information on 571 Swiss farms, with farm characteristics merged from three datasets: the Swiss agricultural census (AGIS), the LabourScope labor-requirement model, and an online survey on farm work conducted in 2025. Reliability analysis reveals poor internal consistency among the three workload indicators, indicating they cannot be used interchangeably. Across several regression specifications, self-reported working hours emerge as the strongest and most robust predictor of perceived burden across farm types and levels of on-farm diversification. Modeled working hours show little to no association with perceived burden, while available workforce exhibits mixed and weaker relationships. Farm-type-specific analyses reveal substantial heterogeneity. In dairy systems, none of the workload indicators explain perceived burden despite the highest reported working hours, whereas in arable and suckler cow farms, perceived burden is linked to self-reported working hours. These findings suggest that time-based, structural, and model-based workload measures capture distinct dimensions of farm work and do not necessarily reflect farmers’ perceived workload burden fully. To strengthen sustainability assessments, we recommend incorporating perception-based indicators, such as perceived workload burden, alongside conventional structural measures in national monitoring systems and farm advisory programs.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The job demands-resources model of burnout.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499 · Cited by 13,643 · see citing works
Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) were proposed
Kottner, J., Audigé, L., Brorson, S., Donner, A. P., Gajewski, B. J., Hróbjartsson, A., Roberts, C., Shoukri, M. M., & Streiner, D. L. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.002 · Cited by 2,239 · see citing works
Zahm, F., Viaux, P., Vilain, L., Girardin, P., & Mouchet, C. (2008) · Sustainable Development · doi:10.1002/sd.380 · Cited by 290 · see citing works
Sustainable Agri-Food Systems: Environment, Economy, Society, and Policy
Bilali, H. E., Strassner, C., & Hassen, T. B. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13116260 · Cited by 240 · see citing works
Janker, J., & Mann, S. (2018) · Environment Development and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s10668-018-0282-0 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS AND INDICES: AN OVERVIEW
Wu, J., & Wu, T. (2012) · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks · doi:10.1142/9789814354820_0004 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Social sustainability tools and indicators for the food supply chain: a systematic literature review
Desiderio, E., García-Herrero, L., Hall, D., Segrè, A., & Vittuari, M. (2021) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2021.12.015 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
Segerkvist, K. A., Hansson, H., Sonesson, U., & Gunnarsson, S. (2020) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su12145502 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Burnout and hopelessness among farmers: The Farmers Stressors Inventory
Truchot, D., & Andela, M. (2018) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-018-1528-8 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Labour, Livelihoods and the Quality of Life in Organic Agriculture in Europe
Jansen, K. (2000) · Biological Agriculture & Horticulture · doi:10.1080/01448765.2000.9754845 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Sannou, R. O., Kirschke, S., & Günther, E. (2023) · Sustainable Production and Consumption · doi:10.1016/j.spc.2023.05.014 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Working hours, sleep, and fatigue in the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector: A scoping review
Elliott, K. C., Lincoln, J. M., Flynn, M. A., Levin, J. L., Smidt, M. F., Dzugan, J., & Ramos, A. K. (2022) · American Journal of Industrial Medicine · doi:10.1002/ajim.23418 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Herrera Sabillón, B., Gerster‐Bentaya, M., & Knierim, A. (2022) · Journal of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1111/1477-9552.12457 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Farm-Related Concerns and Mental Health Status Among Norwegian Farmers
Logstein, B. (2016) · Journal of Agromedicine · doi:10.1080/1059924x.2016.1211055 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Labour Use on Organic Farms: a Review of Research since 2000
Orsini, S., Padel, S., & Lampkin, N. H. (2018) · Organic Farming · doi:10.12924/of2018.04010007 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Livestock Farmers’ Working Conditions in Agroecological Farming Systems. A Review
Duval, J., Cournut, S., & Hostiou, N. (2021) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-021-00679-y · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Workload on organic and conventional family farms in Switzerland
Reissig, L., Kohler, A., & Rossier, R. (2015) · Organic Agriculture · doi:10.1007/s13165-015-0131-5 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Well-being at work and Finnish dairy farmers─from job demands and loneliness towards burnout
Kallioniemi, M., Kaseva, J., Kymäläinen, H., & Hakanen, J. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.976456 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
The factors contributing to better workplaces for farmers on pasture-based dairy farms
Hogan, C., Lawton, T., & Beecher, M. (2024) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-24416 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Reissig, L., & Siegrist, M. (2025) · Smart Agricultural Technology · doi:10.1016/j.atech.2025.101095 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Purc‐Stephenson, R. J., Dedrick, S., & Hood, D. (2024) · BMC Psychology · doi:10.1186/s40359-024-01929-w · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Still being checked.
- Authors
- Saleh, R., Heitkämper, K., Altermatt, S., El Benni, N., & Liebenehm, S.
- Affiliations
- Agroscope (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Saleh, Rita
- Venue
- Environmental and Sustainability Indicators
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-09
- Volume
- 31
- Pages
- 101446
- ISSN
- 2665-9727 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7171847306
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental and Sustainability Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Agroscope
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Agriculture and Rural Development Research
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Agricultural economics and policies
- Keywords
- social sustainability, workload indicators, agricultural labor, dairy farms, arable farms, farm diversification, indicator reliability
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
