IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v69y2017icp564-576.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Current agri-environmental policies dismiss varied perceptions and discourses on management of traditional rural biotopes

Author

Listed:
  • Raatikainen, Kaisa J.
  • Barron, Elizabeth S.

Abstract

Traditional rural biotopes (TRBs) are threatened habitats that host significant biodiversity and several ecosystem services, and depend on active management such as low-intensity grazing. The current study explores private landowners’ decision-making on TRB management and abandonment within a social-ecological system framework. We provide insight into supporting resilience of TRB systems in the face of agricultural modernization. Using a mixed methods approach with content analysis and Q analysis, we demonstrate that TRB management fosters cultural, biological, aesthetic, and utilitarian values. These are reflected in different ways through conservationist’s, profit-oriented farmer’s, landscape manager’s, and landscape admirer’s discourses on TRB management. Overall, management reinforces landowners’ place attachment, and reflects an approach to landscapes as spatial representations of cultural heritage and identity over multiple generations. Landowners consider TRB pasturage and its social-ecological outcomes motivating and rewarding. Giving up grazing cattle and perceived bureaucracy of national agri-environment scheme contribute to TRB abandonment. Landowners point out that current policies detach TRB management from what is seen as “regular agriculture”, and the focus on monetary compensation bypasses the multiple values tied to TRB management. Based on our results, we suggest that promoting TRBs requires reconfiguring the current arrangement of remedial management payments and adopting a more participatory governance approach. Locally, resilience of TRB systems relies on the connections between landowners and landscapes that foster sense of place and landscape identity, which can be supported by knowledge sharing and collaborative grazing efforts among landowners.

Suggested Citation

  • Raatikainen, Kaisa J. & Barron, Elizabeth S., 2017. "Current agri-environmental policies dismiss varied perceptions and discourses on management of traditional rural biotopes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 564-576.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:69:y:2017:i:c:p:564-576
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717307068
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.004?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. Derk Jan Stobbelaar & Bas Pedroli, 2011. "Perspectives on Landscape Identity: A Conceptual Challenge," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 321-339.
    2. Barry, John & Proops, John, 1999. "Seeking sustainability discourses with Q methodology," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 337-345, March.
    3. Ramos, Isabel Loupa & Bernardo, Fátima & Ribeiro, Sónia Carvalho & Van Eetvelde, Veerle, 2016. "Landscape identity: Implications for policy making," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 36-43.
    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. Maderson, Siobhan, 2023. "Co-producing agricultural policy with beekeepers: Obstacles and opportunities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Ove Eriksson & Matilda Arnell & Karl-Johan Lindholm, 2021. "Historical Ecology of Scandinavian Infield Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, January.
    3. Elina Viirret & Kaisa J. Raatikainen & Nora Fagerholm & Niina Käyhkö & Petteri Vihervaara, 2019. "Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Jana Špulerová & František Petrovič & Peter Mederly & Matej Mojses & Zita Izakovičová, 2018. "Contribution of Traditional Farming to Ecosystem Services Provision: Case Studies from Slovakia," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Nadja Penko Seidl & Mateja Šmid Hribar & Jelka Hudoklin & Tomaž Pipan & Mojca Golobič, 2021. "Defining Landscapes, and Their Importance for National Identity—A Case Study from Slovenia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, June.
    2. Yuhan Shao & Eckart Lange & Kevin Thwaites & Zhenying Xue & Xinyu Xu, 2020. "Understanding Landscape Identity in the Context of Rapid Urban Change in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-18, August.
    3. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," 2020 Conference (64th), February 12-14, 2020, Perth, Western Australia 305231, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    4. Ágnes Nemcsicsné Zsóka, 2007. "The role of organisational culture in the environmental awareness of companies," Journal of East European Management Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 12(2), pages 109-131.
    5. Elena Zepharovich & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Stephan Rist, 2020. "Land-Use Conflict in the Gran Chaco: Finding Common Ground through Use of the Q Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(18), pages 1-16, September.
    6. Latvala, Terhi & Mandolesi, Serena & Nicholas, Phillipa & Zanoli, Raffaele, 2013. "Identifying Expectations for Innovations in Management Practices in Dairy Sector by Using Q Methodology," 2013 International European Forum, February 18-22, 2013, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 164734, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    7. Muhammad Asif, 2020. "Role of Energy Conservation and Management in the 4D Sustainable Energy Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-3, November.
    8. Davies, Ben B. & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Shifting environmental perspectives in agriculture: Repeated Q analysis and the stability of preference structures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 51-57.
    9. Jaung, Wanggi & Putzel, Louis & Bull, Gary Q. & Kozak, Robert & Markum,, 2016. "Certification of forest watershed services: A Q methodology analysis of opportunities and challenges in Lombok, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 51-59.
    10. Greg Munno & Álvaro Salas Castro & Tina Nabatchi & Christian M. Freitag, 2022. "Four Perspectives on a Sustainable Future in Nosara, Costa Rica," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    11. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    12. Jan, Muhammad Zain & Ullah, Kafait & Abbas, Faisal & Khalid, Hassan Abdullah & Bajwa, Tariq M., 2023. "Barriers to the adoption of social welfare measures in the electricity tariff structure of developing countries: A case of Pakistan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    13. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    14. Serena Mandolesi & Emilia Cubero Dudinskaya & Simona Naspetti & Francesco Solfanelli & Raffaele Zanoli, 2022. "Freedom of Choice—Organic Consumers’ Discourses on New Plant Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-17, July.
    15. Guglielmo Pristeri & Viviana di Martino & Silvia Ronchi & Stefano Salata & Francesca Mazza & Andrea Benedini & Andrea Arcidiacono, 2023. "An Operational Model to Downscale Regional Green Infrastructures in Supra-Local Plans: A Case Study in an Italian Alpine Sub-Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-25, July.
    16. Hall, Clare & Sandilands, Victoria, 2006. "Public Attitudes to the Welfare of Broiler Chickens," Working Papers 45998, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    17. Priya Kurian & Debashish Munshi & Lyn Kathlene & Jeanette Wright, 2016. "Sustainable citizenship as a methodology for engagement: navigating environmental, economic, and technological rationalities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 6(3), pages 617-630, September.
    18. Jean Hugé & Tom Waas, 2011. "Converging impact assessment discourses for sustainable development: the case of Flanders, Belgium," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 607-626, June.
    19. Clare Hall & Anita Wreford, 2012. "Adaptation to climate change: the attitudes of stakeholders in the livestock industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 207-222, February.
    20. Proops, John, 2001. "The (non-) economics of the nuclear fuel cycle: an historical and discourse analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 13-19, October.

    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:69:y:2017:i:c:p:564-576. 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.