摘要：Objectives. We used geographic information systems (GIS) to delineate whether farmworker labor camps were hidden and to determine whether hidden camps differed from visible camps in terms of physical and resident characteristics. Methods. We collected data using observation, interview, and public domain GIS data for 180 farmworker labor camps in east central North Carolina. A hidden camp was defined as one that was at least 0.15 miles from an all-weather road or located behind natural or manufactured objects. Hidden camps were compared with visible camps in terms of physical and resident characteristics. Results. More than one third (37.8%) of the farmworker labor camps were hidden. Hidden camps were significantly larger (42.7% vs 17.0% with 21 or more residents; P ≤ .001; and 29.4% vs 13.5% with 3 or more dwellings; P = .002) and were more likely to include barracks (50% vs 19.6%; P ≤ .001) than were visible camps. Conclusions. Poor housing conditions in farmworker labor camps often go unnoticed because they are hidden in the rural landscape, increasing farmworker vulnerability. Policies that promote greater community engagement with farmworker labor camp residents to reduce structural vulnerability should be considered. Agriculture is a major rural industry and among the most hazardous. 1–3 Although everyone who works in agriculture is exposed to substantial mechanical, chemical, and environmental hazards, migrant and seasonal farmworkers experience these hazards with the least reward. More than a million hired farmworkers are employed in US agriculture, 4 approximately 150 000 of whom are employed in North Carolina alone. 5,6 Farmworkers are a vulnerable population. They are predominantly Latino immigrants and often do not have lawful documentation or speak adequate English; in addition, most have little formal education and limited incomes. 7 Although working in a hazardous industry, farmworkers have limited access to health care. 8 Political and economic forces that act on farmworkers increase their vulnerability by imposing physical or emotional suffering in patterned ways. 9 The act of migrating is a substantial risk for many farmworkers. 10 When faced with workplace hazards, they are often reluctant to complain for fear of losing a needed job. 11–13 Housing is an example of the structural vulnerability faced by migrant farmworkers. Structural vulnerability is a product of class-based economic exploitation and cultural, gender, sexual, and racial discrimination, as well as the complementary processes of depreciated subjectivity formation. 9 Farmworker housing conditions are poor, 14–18 both in the local housing market 19–21 and in employer-provided farmworker labor camps. 22–24 Crowding, lack of access to sufficient bathing facilities, pest infestation, and structural damage are common to dwellings in farmworker labor camps. 22,25 Employer-provided farmworker housing seldom meets the requirements of state and federal regulations 22 and is generally inhabited on a temporary basis for the period when the workers are employed, whereas local market housing is inhabited on a temporary or long-term basis depending on whether the residents migrate. How farmworker housing is placed contributes to the persistence of substandard housing. Farmworker housing that is hidden from public view may receive less natural surveillance and become more vulnerable to crime, 26 including theft from workers, 27 theft of workers (human trafficking and slavery), 5 and provision of substandard housing that does not meet regulations. 20 Hidden farmworker housing also limits access for individuals trying to provide services (e.g., clinic outreach workers) and advocacy groups (e.g., workers’ rights advocates) that can improve the conditions for farmworkers. Crime prevention through environmental design 26 argues that a built environment that enhances public visibility reduces crime. Natural surveillance enhances community accountability by using the built environment to enable passive community observation of events within a setting. If more of the public can observe farmworker housing, then the occupants will receive greater accountability from the public. These “many eyes” act as a deterrent for theft and vandalism and improve adherence to housing regulations. Inversely, hidden farmworker housing makes residents more vulnerable and makes the provider of substandard housing less accountable to the public. This analysis used geographic information systems (GIS) to examine the location of farmworker labor camps. The aims were to delineate the proportion of hidden farmworker labor camps and to determine whether hidden camps differed from visible camps in terms of physical or resident characteristics.
