260 likes | 498 Vues
Green Heron Tools SBIR grant. Need for & feasibility of designing, producing & marketing agricultural tools & equipment for women Ann M. Adams, RN, MSN Elizabeth A. Brensinger, MPH. History of Green Heron Tools. Market growers for 13+ years at Green Heron Farms.
E N D
Green Heron Tools SBIR grant Need for & feasibility of designing, producing & marketing agricultural tools & equipment for women Ann M. Adams, RN, MSN Elizabeth A. Brensinger, MPH
Initial idea resulted from: • Our own experience with tools & equipment • Conversations with other women growers at farmers’ markets • Affiliations with Pennsylvania Women’s Agricultural Network, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture • Backgrounds in public health, nursing
Company evolution • Formed in 2008, to provide high-quality agricultural and gardening tools designed to work with the bodies of women, thereby maximizing comfort, efficiency, productivity and safety. • Online survey posted summer 2008 • Target: women farmers, market growers, gardeners • Data requested: • Needs, problems, experiences with tools & equipment • Recommendations for change, potential solutions • See www.greenherontools.com for full survey • Review of literature • Submission of SBIR grant; received April, 2009
Changing demographics in U.S. agriculture • 1997-2002 • 4% in number U.S. farms • 13% in farms operated by women • 2002-2007 • 29% in farms operated by women, compared to 3.6% increase in all U.S. farms • U.S. Department of Agriculture: 75% of U.S. farms could be owned or co-owned by women by 2014
Women’s farms – trends • “Small”: 53.5% between 1 and 49 acres (U.S. Census of Agriculture, 2007) • Characteristics (Charney, 2005) • Diversified • Sustainable / organic • Part-time vocation • Value-added • Direct-marketed • Less mechanized • Average age of woman farmer: 52.6 (USDA)
Women & food production: a global view • Rural women produce half of the world’s food and 60% to 80% of the food in most developing countries (Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)
Need for tools /equipment designed for women • Anatomical differences (various sources) • 40-75% less upper-body strength • 5-30% less lower-body strength • Smaller stature • More adipose tissue • Narrower shoulders • Wider hips • Proportionally shorter legs & arms • Smaller grips
Need for tools/equipment designed for women • Anthropometric / human factors data • National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey: Significant differences between male & female agricultural workers in 9 / 14 anthropometric variables (Hsiao et al., 2002)
Need for tools / equipment designed for women • Implications for health & safety: examples • Whole-body vibration affects women more than men (McCoy et al., 2002) • Excessive physical strain = injuries in women (Pickett et al., 1995; McCoy, 2000) • Elevated risk for musculoskeletal disability (McCoy et al., 2002) • Work-related musculoskeletal disabilities = leading cause of disability for people in working years • Lower back disorders most prevalent
Need for tools /equipment designed for women • 4 factors influencing lower back disorders (Fathallah et al., 2004): • Heavy physical work • Lifting and forceful movements • Bending and twisting (awkward postures) • Whole-body vibration • All 4 influenced by design & fit of tools • U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (2001): • 1 of the 2 best ways to reduce work-related musculoskeletal disorders: redesign of tools
Lack of tools / equipment designed for women • Searches conducting using these databases • AGRICOLA • Applied Science & Technology Abstracts • American Society of Agricultural & Biological Engineers’ Technical Library • Electronic resources of National Agricultural Library • National Technological Information Service • USDA’s Current Research Information System • No evidence of efforts to redesign tools / equipment for women in U.S. or Canada; limited efforts in India
Green Heron Tools research results Funded in part by USDA Small Business Innovative Research grant
Methodology • Online survey (n = 218; 105 self-identified farmers / market growers; 113 gardeners) • Four focus groups with 26 participating farmers / market growers • Oregon (Pacific Northwest) • Vermont (n = 2) (Northeast) • Iowa (via conference call) (Midwest) • (pilot focus group at Penn State) • Interviews with 13 women • Input obtained from women in 32/50 states
General findings (re: tools/equipment) • Too heavy • Shafts too long • Handles too high • Not well-balanced for female users • Mechanized equipment too heavy, difficult to control • Pull strings too long (gas engines) • Mechanized equipment too noisy
Focus groups / interviews • General support for survey findings • Anecdotal evidence regarding health problems • In all 3 face-to-face focus groups, women cited histories of disabilities & injuries, including: • Sore backs / back injuries (sprained sacrum; back surgery; general soreness) • Arthritis • Torn tendons
What now? • Identification & sale of existing tools & equipment that work well for women • E-commerce site up later this year • Design of new tools (SBIR grant)
Process for choosing tools • Recommendations from surveys, focus groups, interviews, other women farmers • Purchase / acquisition of tools • Testing & evaluation by women farmers • Analysis of data from evaluations • Identification of tools that work best for women
Design team: Penn State members Aaron Yoder, ag engineering; Angie Hissong, occupational therapist / AgrAbility; Andy Freivalds, ergonomist, manufacturing engineer; Jesun Hwang, doctoral student
Deliverables include: • Set of design parameters for tools/equipment designed for women • Prototypes of three hand tools • General design concepts for a rototiller
Criteria/Design Considerations • High quality • Durable • Reliable • Effective for defined task • Ergonomic • Based on anthropometric / human factors data • As simple as possible to maintain and operate
Criteria/Design Considerations • Safe to use • Include a description of how to use tool correctly • As “green” or sustainable as possible without compromising effectiveness and strength • Materials, fuel (if applicable), manufacturing process • Reasonable cost / good value