Determinants of farmer well-being can be derived from objective and subjective measures of social components, environmental sustainability indicators, and quality of life indices, as well as the multiple scales that farms and farmers operate. Yet, despite multiple frameworks on farmer well-being, the extent to which farmer-expressed values are used in the development of farmer well-being indicators is unclear. Challenges can arise from extracting indicators that are insufficiently grounded in place, or that inadequately incorporate context and biocultural relations and practices. Here in this scoping review, we synthesize the methodologies in the literature on assessing farmer well-being and identify the extent to which farmer well-being domains are derived from values expressed directly by farmers. We consolidated and coded 92 papers to respond to the following questions: (1) What are the most frequent farmer well-being domains in published studies? (2) What methods are used to elicit multidimensional farmer well-being domains? (3) Do well-being domains used in the literature adequately reflect a biocultural context, including place-based influences on well-being? Our results show that economics and social relationships are frequent domains of how farmer well-being is identified and assessed. These domains tend to be measured simultaneously, while less common domains, such as governance and place, are rather isolated. A suite of methods was used to assess well-being domains, ranging from basic surveys to in-depth participant observation. Yet, we identify gaps in the methods for deriving farmer well-being indicators. Specifically, methods that refer to farmer-expressed values were rare and domains identified through a place-based approach were often not recorded, but, arguably, critical in developing multidimensionality of farmer well-being. We show that while the translocal approach is well represented in established well-being frameworks, farmer expression is not foundational in well-being assessments but is needed in order to center farmer values when generating indicators of well-being.

农民福祉的决定因素可以来自社会组成部分的客观和主观衡量、环境可持续性指标和生活质量指数，以及农场和农民经营的多种规模。然而，尽管有多种关于农民福祉的框架，但农民表达的价值观在制定农民福祉指标时的使用程度尚不清楚。提取的指标不够充分，或者没有充分纳入背景和生物文化关系和实践，可能会带来挑战。在本次范围界定审查中，我们综合了评估农民福祉的文献中的方法，并确定了农民福祉领域在多大程度上源自农民直接表达的价值观。我们整合并编码了 92 篇论文，以回答以下问题：（1）已发表的研究中最常见的农民福祉领域是什么？ （2）采用什么方法来引出多维农民福祉域？ (3) 文献中使用的福祉领域是否充分反映了生物文化背景，包括基于地点的福祉影响？我们的结果表明，经济和社会关系是确定和评估农民福祉的常见领域。这些领域往往是同时测量的，而不太常见的领域，例如治理和地点，则相当孤立。使用了一套方法来评估福祉领域，从基本调查到深入的参与者观察。然而，我们发现得出农民福祉指标的方法存在差距。 具体而言，涉及农民表达的价值观的方法很少，并且通过基于地点的方法确定的领域通常没有记录，但可以说，这对于发展农民福祉的多维性至关重要。我们表明，虽然跨地方方法在既定的福祉框架中得到了很好的体现，但农民的表达并不是福祉评估的基础，而是在生成福祉指标时需要以农民的价值观为中心。