IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v109y2021ics0264837721004038.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California

Author

Listed:
  • Ryschawy, Julie
  • Tiffany, Sara
  • Gaudin, Amélie
  • Niles, Meredith T.
  • Garrett, Rachael D.

Abstract

Across the world, an increasing number of farmers are piloting agroecological systems. The recoupling of crops and livestock is one type of agroecological practice that has potential to help reduce the use of off-farm inputs, improve soil quality, and reduce costs for farmers. Yet, a major part of the world's agricultural landscapes remain dominated by conventional specialized crop and livestock practices. In particular, grazing animals in perennial cropping systems may reduce pesticide and fuel use, decrease labor, and build soil organic carbon and soil fertility. In this study, we examined adopters and non-adopters’ perceptions of a niche system, integrated sheep-vineyard systems (ISVS) in California. We aimed at understanding the conditions under which ISVS, a specific case of ICLS (integrated crop-livestock systems), could be mainstreamed. We then contextualized these interviews using the Multi-Level Perspective framework to analyze the levers favoring or impeding mainstreaming of this niche system. We considered both pull factors arising from changes in the landscape, and push factors arising through decentralized, grassroot processes. Our inductive analysis is a promising first insight into farmers’ perceptions and motivations toward ISVS adoption in California, considering both vineyard managers and contractors (i.e. shepherds renting their sheep to vineyard managers). We found a positive perception of ISVS among both current adopters and non-adopters regarding the potential agronomic, environmental and economic benefits of these practices. All adopters were satisfied with this system as they experienced labor and fuel savings, soil quality improvement and marketing advantages. Local push factors (bottom-up levers emerging from the niche systems) were highlighted by interviewees as contributing to adoption. Push factors identified include knowledge exchange and networking between vineyard managers and developing marketing pathways for “carbon-positive” wool, meat and wine products. However, some pull factors (macro-economic and policy levers acting as top-down levers) could help move the system beyond limited adoption. We point out biotechnical and socio-economic research avenues to encourage the scaling-up of ISVS and ICLS more broadly. On the biotechnical dimension, we recommend continuing and scaling-out system experiments to redesign vineyards considering sheep integration and evaluate the effect of grazing on soil quality and fire management. On the socio-economic dimension, we encourage the exploration of relevant spatial scenarios through co-design of collaborative arrangements between vineyard managers and contractors at the landscape level. Greater research on the social, environmental and economic services provided by ISVS is urgently needed to inform state and federal agricultural policies, including whether such systems should be supported through payment for ecosystem services and as part of environmental good practices and fire safety recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004038
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105680
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721004038
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105680?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gasselin, Pierre & Lardon, Sylvie & Cerdan, Claire & Loudiyi, Salma & Sautier, Denis, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), July.
    2. Asai, Masayasu & Langer, Vibeke & Frederiksen, Pia & Jacobsen, Brian H., 2014. "Livestock farmer perceptions of successful collaborative arrangements for manure exchange: A study in Denmark," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 55-65.
    3. Veysset, P. & Bebin, D. & Lherm, M., 2005. "Adaptation to Agenda 2000 (CAP reform) and optimisation of the farming system of French suckler cattle farms in the Charolais area: a model-based study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 179-202, February.
    4. Pierre Gasselin & Sylvie Lardon & Claire Cerdan & Salma Loudiyi & Denis Sautier, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Post-Print hal-02911634, HAL.
    5. Kivimaa, Paula & Kern, Florian, 2016. "Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 205-217.
    6. Andrea Colantoni & Gianluca Egidi & Giovanni Quaranta & Roberto D’Alessandro & Sabato Vinci & Rosario Turco & Luca Salvati, 2020. "Sustainable Land Management, Wildfire Risk and the Role of Grazing in Mediterranean Urban-Rural Interfaces: A Regional Approach from Greece," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Asai, Masayasu & Moraine, Marc & Ryschawy, Julie & de Wit, Jan & Hoshide, Aaron K. & Martin, Guillaume, 2018. "Critical factors for crop-livestock integration beyond the farm level: A cross-analysis of worldwide case studies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 184-194.
    8. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    9. Cortner, O. & Garrett, R.D. & Valentim, J.F. & Ferreira, J. & Niles, M.T. & Reis, J. & Gil, J., 2019. "Perceptions of integrated crop-livestock systems for sustainable intensification in the Brazilian Amazon," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 841-853.
    10. Adam Reimer & Aaron Thompson & Linda Prokopy, 2012. "The multi-dimensional nature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: implications for conservation adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 29(1), pages 29-40, March.
    11. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    12. Rachael D. Garrett & Meredith Niles & Juliana Gil & Philip Dy & Julio Reis & Judson Valentim, 2017. "Policies for Reintegrating Crop and Livestock Systems: A Comparative Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-22, March.
    13. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    14. Pierre Gasselin & Sylvie Lardon & Claire Cerdan & Salma Loudiyi & Denis Sautier, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 339-361.
    15. Caroline Schill & John M. Anderies & Therese Lindahl & Carl Folke & Stephen Polasky & Juan Camilo Cárdenas & Anne-Sophie Crépin & Marco A. Janssen & Jon Norberg & Maja Schlüter, 2019. "A more dynamic understanding of human behaviour for the Anthropocene," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(12), pages 1075-1082, December.
    16. Jason Parker, 2013. "Integrating culture and community into environmental policy: community tradition and farm size in conservation decision making," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 30(2), pages 159-178, June.
    17. Pierre Gasselin & Sylvie Lardon & Claire Cerdan & Salma Loudiyi & Denis Sautier, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 339-361, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Meunier, Clémentine & Martin, Guillaume & Barnaud, Cécile & Ryschawy, Julie, 2024. "Bucking the trend: Crop farmers' motivations for reintegrating livestock," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Prost, Lorène, 2021. "Revitalizing agricultural sciences with design sciences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    2. Revoyron, Eva & Le Bail, Marianne & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Gunnarsson, Anita & Seghetti, Marco & Colombo, Luca, 2022. "Diversity and drivers of crop diversification pathways of European farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    3. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 101(2-3), pages 173-190.
    4. Polge, Etienne & Pagès, Hugo, 2022. "Relational drivers of the agroecological transition: An analysis of farmer trajectories in the Limagne plain, France," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    5. Pierre Gasselin & Nathalie Hostiou, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 173-190, December.
    6. Gasselin, Pierre & Hostiou, Nathalie, 2020. "What do our research friends say about the coexistence and confrontation of agricultural and food models? Introduction to the special issue," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), October.
    7. Meunier, Clémentine & Martin, Guillaume & Barnaud, Cécile & Ryschawy, Julie, 2024. "Bucking the trend: Crop farmers' motivations for reintegrating livestock," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    8. Gabrielle E. Roesch-McNally & J. Gordon Arbuckle & John Charles Tyndall, 2017. "What would farmers do? Adaptation intentions under a Corn Belt climate change scenario," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 333-346, June.
    9. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    10. Adnan, Nadia & Nordin, Shahrina Md & bin Abu Bakar, Zulqarnain, 2017. "Understanding and facilitating sustainable agricultural practice: A comprehensive analysis of adoption behaviour among Malaysian paddy farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 372-382.
    11. Ryschawy, Julie & Grillot, Myriam & Charmeau, Anaïs & Pelletier, Aude & Moraine, Marc & Martin, Guillaume, 2022. "A participatory approach based on the serious game Dynamix to co-design scenarios of crop-livestock integration among farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    12. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    13. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    14. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    15. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.
    16. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Izak B. Foster & Trevor McIntyre & Natalie S. Haussmann, 2019. "Understanding the relationship between farmers and burrowing mammals on South African farms: are burrowers friends or foes?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(4), pages 719-731, December.
    18. Michael Hallsworth, 2023. "A manifesto for applying behavioural science," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(3), pages 310-322, March.
    19. Meredith T. Niles & Margaret Brown & Robyn Dynes, 2016. "Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 277-295, March.
    20. Kim S. Alexander & Garry Greenhalgh & Magnus Moglia & Manithaythip Thephavanh & Phonevilay Sinavong & Silva Larson & Tom Jovanovic & Peter Case, 2020. "What is technology adoption? Exploring the agricultural research value chain for smallholder farmers in Lao PDR," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 17-32, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s0264837721004038. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.