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, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, 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. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Davis, Georgina & Phillips, Paul S. & Read, Adam D. & Iida, Yuki, 2006. "Demonstrating the need for the development of internal research capacity: Understanding recycling participation using the Theory of Planned Behaviour in West Oxfordshire, UK," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 115-127.
    13. Evon Scott & Giorgos Kallis & Christos Zografos, 2019. "Why environmentalists eat meat," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-9, July.
    14. Kangas, A. & Saarinen, N. & Saarikoski, H. & Leskinen, L.A. & Hujala, T. & Tikkanen, J., 2010. "Stakeholder perspectives about proper participation for Regional Forest Programmes in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 213-222, March.
    15. Kangas, Annika & Heikkilä, Juuso & Malmivaara-Lämsä, Minna & Löfström, Irja, 2014. "Case Puijo—Evaluation of a participatory urban forest planning process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 13-23.
    16. Marjolein Visser & James Moran & E.C. Regan & M. Gormally & M. Sheehy Skeffington, 2007. "How users and non-users perceive turlough management under the converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP in Ireland," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/115027, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    17. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    18. Schaal, Tamara & Jacobs, Annie & Leventon, Julia & Scheele, Ben C. & Lindenmayer, David & Hanspach, Jan, 2022. "‘You can’t be green if you’re in the red’: Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    19. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2020. "Perceptions of deforestation in the Argentinean Chaco: Combining Q-method and environmental justice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. Robin Hickman & Neil Lopez & Mengqiu Cao & Beatriz Mella Lira & Jose Bienvenido Manuel Biona, 2018. "“I Drive outside of Peak Time to Avoid Traffic Jams—Public Transport Is Not Attractive Here.” Challenging Discourses on Travel to the University Campus in Manila," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.

    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.