IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp635-646.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures

Author

Listed:
  • Riley, Mark
  • Sangster, Heather
  • Smith, Hugh
  • Chiverrell, Richard
  • Boyle, John

Abstract

There is growing concern that Agri-environment Schemes (AESs) may not be effective in conserving the countryside. Particular concern has arisen around whether the current approach of individual, farm-level, AES agreements are sufficient to offer landscape-scale environmental protection and enhancement. Whilst recent additions to AESs have sought to encourage more joined-up thinking by offering payments to farmers to form collective agreements, uptake is low and there is very little known about farmers’ (non)resistance to such collective conservation. Drawing on in-depth qualitative research with 74 farms across 5 sites in the UK, this paper provides new data on the barriers to farmers’ uptake of collective AESs and offers a new formulation of how we understand farming cooperation. The paper advances Bourdieusian-inspired ideas of the cultural construct of ‘good farming’ by synthesising these with recent reconceptualizations of ‘trust’ in order to provide a more contextually grounded and temporally-inflected understanding of farmers’ cooperative activities. The findings reveal that whilst working relations between farmers are often collegiate, and in places collective, several watershed events over past decades have led to a shift from community-level to process-based (peer-to-peer) trust and a move toward land management being depicted as a squarely individual rather than collective issue. Conceptually, the paper moves beyond the current limitation of viewing trust, and the associated development of social capital – seen as a prerequisite for more collective AESs – as cumulative and one-directional to highlighting their multiple, issue-specific, nature which may become eroded and (re)developed over time. Alongside this, the paper offers a new way of understanding the good farmer by shifting the focus from the individual farm/farmer level to a more fine-grained and contextualised issue-centered notion of good farming. This is then used to explain the seeming reluctance of land holders, evidenced in official statistics, to engage in collective AESs.

Suggested Citation

  • Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:635-646
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717312759
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049?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. Franks, J.R. & Emery, S.B. & Whittingham, M.J. & McKenzie, A.J., 2016. "Farmer attitudes to cross-holding agri-environment schemes and their implications for Countryside Stewardship," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 5(4), December.
    2. Christopher M. Bacon, 2015. "Food sovereignty, food security and fair trade: the case of an influential Nicaraguan smallholder cooperative," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(3), pages 469-488, March.
    3. Reed, Mark S. & Moxey, Andrew & Prager, Katrin & Hanley, Nick & Skates, James & Bonn, Aletta & Evans, Chris D. & Glenk, Klaus & Thomson, Ken, 2014. "Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 44-53.
    4. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser & Iain Fraser, 2011. "Farmer Compensation and its Consequences for Environmental Benefit Provision in the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 330-339, June.
    5. Steven Emery, 2015. "Independence and individualism: conflated values in farmer cooperation?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(1), pages 47-61, March.
    6. Jeremy Franks, 2011. "The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 637-660.
    7. V. James Rhodes, 1983. "The Large Agricultural Cooperative as a Competitor," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1090-1095.
    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. John Strauser & William P. Stewart, 2024. "Moving beyond production: community narratives for good farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 1195-1210, September.
    2. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Jasper R. de Vries & Eva van der Zee & Raoul Beunen & Rianne Kat & Peter H. Feindt, 2019. "Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    4. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil, 2024. "Assessing the Landscape Recovery Scheme in the UK: a Q methodology study in Yorkshire, UK," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 13(1), May.
    6. Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    7. Daniel Kpienbaareh & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni & Lizzie Shumba, 2020. "Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, September.
    8. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    10. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    11. Nilsson, Lovisa & Clough, Yann & Smith, Henrik G. & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Brady, Mark V. & Hristov, Jordan & Olsson, Peter & Skantze, Karin & Ståhlberg, David & Dänhardt, Juliana, 2019. "A suboptimal array of options erodes the value of CAP ecological focus areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 407-418.
    12. Thomas, Emma & Riley, Mark & Spees, Jack, 2020. "Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Prager, Katrin, 2022. "Implementing policy interventions to support farmer cooperation for environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Bartolini, Fabio & Vergamini, Daniele & Longhitano, Davide & Povellato, Andrea, 2021. "Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Katherine Dentzman & Jessica R. Goldberger, 2020. "Plastic scraps: biodegradable mulch films and the aesthetics of ‘good farming’ in US specialty crop production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 83-96, March.
    17. Avery Lavoie & Chloe B. Wardropper, 2021. "Engagement with conservation tillage shaped by “good farmer” identity," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 975-985, December.
    18. Cordelia Kreft & Mario Angst & Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2023. "Farmers’ social networks and regional spillover effects in agricultural climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(2), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Runhaar, Hens & Polman, Nico, 2018. "Partnering for nature conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 11-19.
    20. Kelemen, Eszter & Megyesi, Boldizsár & Matzdorf, Bettina & Andersen, Erling & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Dumortier, Myriam & Dutilly, Céline & García-Llorente, Marina & Hamon, Christine & LePage, Annabe, 2023. "The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    21. Franks, Jeremy R., 2019. "An assessment of the landscape-scale dimensions of land based environmental management schemes offered to farmers in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-159.
    22. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(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. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    2. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Tianran Ding & Wouter Achten, 2023. "Coupling agent-based modeling with territorial LCA to support agricultural land-use planning," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/359527, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    6. Nilsson, Jerker & Helgesson, Matilda & Rommel, Jens & Svensson, Ellinor, 2020. "Forest-owner support for their cooperative's provision of public goods," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    7. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    8. Azzeddine Azzam & Hans Andersson, 2008. "Measuring Price Effects of Concentration in Mixed Oligopoly: An Application to the Swedish Beef-slaughter Industry," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 21-31, March.
    9. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    10. Marie Lassalas & Sabine Duvaleix & Laure Latruffe, 2024. "The technical and economic effects of biodiversity standards on wheat production," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 51(2), pages 275-308.
    11. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Jane Mills & Hannah Chiswell & Peter Gaskell & Paul Courtney & Beth Brockett & George Cusworth & Matt Lobley, 2021. "Developing Farm-Level Social Indicators for Agri-Environment Schemes: A Focus on the Agents of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.
    13. Targetti, Stefano & Schaller, Lena L. & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2021. "A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    15. Sheng, Jichuan & Qiu, Wenge & Han, Xiao, 2020. "China’s PES-like horizontal eco-compensation program: Combining market-oriented mechanisms and government interventions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    18. Laura T. Raynolds & Claudia Rosty, 2021. "Fair Trade USA coffee plantation certification: Ramifications for workers in Nicaragua," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 39(S1), pages 102-121, August.
    19. Berit Tennbakk, 1995. "Marketing Cooperatives In Mixed Duopolies," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 33-45, January.
    20. Xin Deng & Lingzhi Zhang & Rong Xu & Miao Zeng & Qiang He & Dingde Xu & Yanbin Qi, 2022. "Do Cooperatives Affect Groundwater Protection? Evidence from Rural China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-14, July.

    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:70:y:2018:i:c:p:635-646. 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.