IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulb/ulbeco/2013-258841.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Barriers to the development of temperate agroforestry as an example of agroecological innovation: Mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in?

Author

Listed:
  • Line Louah
  • Marjolein Visser
  • Alice Blaimont
  • Charles De Cannière

Abstract

Agroforestry (AF) is promoted as an environmentally sound farming practice to address the pressing challenges of meeting a rising global demand for agricultural commodities while conserving biodiversity. Although AF played an important role in European farming in the past, reintroducing the planting of trees in fields is a radical innovation in the modern context, and is, initially, a researcher's idea. This paper investigates stakeholders’ perspectives on modern AF in two contrasting sub-regions of southern Belgium (Wallonia). Using Q methodology to identify patterns of subjectivity, we found that the conversation splits into three idealised-types of discourse that reflect different farming styles. Only one of the three discourses is in favour of AF. The results indicate that the paradigm type (holism vs. reductionism) underlying each discourse is a major factor that influences stakeholders’ position on AF. The main barriers hampering mainstreaming of AF seem cognitive in nature, and are related to the level of ecological knowledge. By exploring the ‘cognitive unlocking process’, our Q methodological study led to the identification of two readily available strategies to scale up AF: (1) ecological education and (2) social learning within multi-actor innovation networks. Such networks could foster on-farm innovation development and research, in which the farmer is an expert at the same level as the researcher. While this study focuses on the development of AF, the findings could be extrapolated to other agroecological innovations.

Suggested Citation

  • Line Louah & Marjolein Visser & Alice Blaimont & Charles De Cannière, 2017. "Barriers to the development of temperate agroforestry as an example of agroecological innovation: Mainly a matter of cognitive lock-in?," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/258841, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulb:ulbeco:2013/258841
    Note: SCOPUS: ar.j
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pierre Marie Stassart & Maarten Crivits & Julie Hermesse & Louis Tessier & Julie Van Damme & Joost Dessein, 2018. "The Generative Potential of Tensions within Belgian Agroecology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-22, June.
    2. Weiss, Gerhard & Hansen, Eric & Ludvig, Alice & Nybakk, Erlend & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Innovation governance in the forest sector: Reviewing concepts, trends and gaps," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Jana Krčmářová & Lukáš Kala & Alica Brendzová & Tomáš Chabada, 2021. "Building Agroforestry Policy Bottom-Up: Knowledge of Czech Farmers on Trees in Farmland," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Louda, Jiří & Dubová, Lenka & Špaček, Martin & Brnkaľáková, Stanislava & Kluvánková, Tatiana, 2023. "Factors affecting governance innovations for ecosystem services provision: Insights from two self-organized forest communities in Czechia and Slovakia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    5. Julia Jouan & Mireille De Graeuwe & Matthieu Carof & Rim Baccar & Nathalie Bareille & Suzanne Bastian & Delphine Brogna & Giovanni Burgio & Sébastien Couvreur & Michał Cupiał & Benjamin Dumont & Anne-, 2020. "Learning Interdisciplinarity and Systems Approaches in Agroecology: Experience with the Serious Game SEGAE," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, May.
    6. Nhem, Sareth & Lee, Young Jin, 2019. "Using Q methodology to investigate the views of local experts on the sustainability of community-based forestry in Oddar Meanchey province, Cambodia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 1-1.
    7. Elisa Giampietri & Samuele Trestini, 2023. "Pro-Environmental Viticulture: Status Quo and Perspectives from Prosecco Winegrowers in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-12, January.
    8. Felton, Michelle & Jones, Philip & Tranter, Richard & Clark, Joanna & Quaife, Tristan & Lukac, Martin, 2023. "Farmers’ attitudes towards, and intentions to adopt, agroforestry on farms in lowland South-East and East England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Barnes, A.P. & McMillan, J. & Sutherland, L.-A. & Hopkins, J. & Thomson, S.G., 2022. "Farmer intentional pathways for net zero carbon: Exploring the lock-in effects of forestry and renewables," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    10. Martinelli, Gabrielli do Carmo & Schlindwein, Madalena Maria & Padovan, Milton Parron & Gimenes, Régio Marcio Toesca, 2019. "Decreasing uncertainties and reversing paradigms on the economic performance of agroforestry systems in Brazil," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 274-286.
    11. Borremans, L. & Marchand, F. & Visser, M. & Wauters, E., 2018. "Nurturing agroforestry systems in Flanders: Analysis from an agricultural innovation systems perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 205-219.
    12. Noémie Hotelier-Rous & Geneviève Laroche & Ève Durocher & David Rivest & Alain Olivier & Fabien Liagre & Alain Cogliastro, 2020. "Temperate Agroforestry Development: The Case of Québec and of France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-23, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agroecology; Agroforestry; Qmethodology; Stakeholder perception;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ulb:ulbeco:2013/258841. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Benoit Pauwels (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecsulbe.html .

    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.