Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-7262s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T16:35:19.962Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating different understandings of landscape stewardship into the design of agri-environmental schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

CHRISTOPHER M. RAYMOND ,
MARK REED ,
CLAUDIA BIELING ,
GUY M. ROBINSON  and
TOBIAS PLIENINGER
CHRISTOPHER M. RAYMOND*
Affiliation:
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) – Department of Landscape Architecture, Planning and Management, Alnarp, Sweden Enviroconnect, Stirling, South Australia, Australia
MARK REED
Affiliation:
Newcastle University – HEFCE N8 Agri-Food Resilience Programme, Institute for Agri-Food Research & Innovation and Centre for Rural Economy, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
CLAUDIA BIELING
Affiliation:
University of Hohenheim – Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, Stuttgart, Germany
GUY M. ROBINSON
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide – Department of Geography, Environment and Population, Adelaide, Australia
TOBIAS PLIENINGER
Affiliation:
University of Copenhagen – Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, Frederiksberg, Denmark
*
*Correspondence: Christopher M. Raymond e-mail chris.raymond@enviroconnect.com.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

While multiple studies have identified land managers’ preferences for agri-environmental schemes (AES), few approaches exist for integrating different understandings of landscape stewardship into the design of these measures. We compared and contrasted rural land managers’ attitudes toward AES and their preferences for AES design beyond 2020 across different understandings of landscape stewardship. Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with similar proportions of small holders, medium holders and large holders in southwest Devon, UK. Overall, respondents most frequently cited concerns related to the reduced amount of funding available for entry-level and higher-level stewardship schemes in the UK since 2008, changing funding priorities, perceived overstrict compliance and lack of support for farm succession and new entrants into farming. However, there were differences in concerns across understandings of landscape stewardship, with production respondents citing that AES do not encourage food production, whereas environmental and holistic farmers citing that AES do not support the development of a local green food culture and associated social infrastructure. These differences also emerged in preferences for AES design beyond 2020. We adapted a collaborative and coordinated approach for designing AES to account for the differing interests of land managers based on their understanding of landscape stewardship. We discuss the implications of this approach for environmental policy design in the European Union and elsewhere.

Keywords

agri-environmental measurescollaborative managementcommon agricultural policycommunity-based natural resource managementlandscape stewardshippayments for ecosystem services

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 2016 , pp. 350 - 358
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andrews, A.C., Clawson, R.A., Gramig, B.M. & Raymond, L. (2013) Why do farmers adopt conservation tillage? An experimental investigation of framing effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68: 501–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidogeza, J.C., Berentsen, P.B.M., De Graaff, J. & Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. (2009) A typology of farm households for the Umutara Province in Rwanda. Food Security 1: 321–335.Google Scholar
Bieling, C. & Bürgi, M. (2014) List and documentation of case study landscapes selected for HERCULES. EU-Project Deliverable GA no. 603447 [www document]. URL www.hercules-landscapes.eu/tartalom/HERCULES_WP3_D3_1_ALUFR_final.pdf Google Scholar
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2013) Successful Qualitative Research: a Practical Guide for Beginners. 1st Edition, ed. Carmichael, M.. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Futures, Dartmoor Farming (2013) Dartmoor Farming Futures – Developing a New Approach to Agri-Environmental Delivery [www document]. URL www.dartmoor.gov.uk/lookingafter/laf-landmanagement/dartmoor-farming-futures Google Scholar
De Lijster, E. & Prager, K. (2012) The use of indicators in agri-environmental management in the Netherlands. Commissioned Report, James Hutton Institute, UK [www document) URL www.macaulay.ac.uk/LandscapePartners/ReportAnalysisLandscapePartners_July.pdf Google Scholar
DEFRA (2015) Guide to Countryside Stewardship: facilitation fund [www document]. URL www.gov.uk/government/publications/guide-to-countryside-stewardship-facilitation-fund/guide-to-countryside-stewardship-facilitation-fund Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. (2001) The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior 23: 225–256.Google Scholar
Emtage, N.F., Harrison, S.R. & Herbohn, J.L. (2001) Landholder attitudes to and participation in farm forestry activities in sub-tropical and tropical eastern Australia. In: Sustainable Farm Forestry in the Tropics, eds. Harrison, S.R. & Herbohn, J.L.. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Erjavec, K. & Erjavec, E. (2015) ‘Greening the CAP’ – just a fashionable justification? A discourse analysis of the 2014–2020 CAP reform documents. Food Policy 51: 53–62.Google Scholar
European Commission (2015) EU Agriculture Spending: Focused on Results. European Commission Fact Sheet [www document]. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/pdf/cap-spending-09-2015_en.pdf Google Scholar
Gifford, R. & Comeau, L.A. (2011) Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 21: 1301–1307.Google Scholar
Jones, M.D. & Song, G. (2014) Making sense of climate change: how story frames shape cognition. Political Psychology 35: 447–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Köbrich, C., Rehman, T. & Khan, M. (2003) Typification of farming systems for constructing representative farm models: two illustrations of the application of multi-variate analyses in Chile and Pakistan. Agricultural Systems 76: 141–157.Google Scholar
Linnell, J.D.C., Kaczensky, P., Wotschikowsky, U., Lescureux, N. & Boitani, L. (2015) Framing the relationship between people and nature in the context of European conservation. Conservation Biology 29: 978–85.Google Scholar
Lowe, P., Feindt, P.H. & Vihinen, H. (2010) Introduction: greening the countryside? Changing frameworks of EU agricultural policy. Public Administration 88: 287–295.Google Scholar
Maybery, D., Crase, L. & Gullifer, C. (2005) Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle. Journal of Economic Psychology 26: 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, W.S., Bryan, B.A., Summers, D.M., Lyle, G., Wells, S., McLean, J. & Siebentritt, M. (2015) Regional engagement and spatial modelling for natural resource management planning. Sustainability Science. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-015-0341-5.Google ScholarPubMed
Morrison, M., Durante, J., Greig, J., Ward, J. & Oczkowski, E. (2011) Segmenting landholders for improving the targeting of natural resource management expenditures. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55: 17–37.Google Scholar
Newig, J. & Fritsch, O. (2009) Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level – and effective? Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newig, J. & Koontz, T.M. (2013) Multi-level governance, policy implementation and participation: the EU's mandated participatory planning approach to implementing environmental policy. Journal of European Public Policy 21: 248–267.Google Scholar
Pe'er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T.G., Collins, S., Dieterich, M., Gregory, R.D., Hartig, F., Henle, K., Hobson, P.R., Kleijn, D., Neumann, R.K., Robijns, T., Schmidt, J., Shwartz, A., Sutherland, W.J., Turbé, A., Wulf, F. & Scott, A.V. (2014) Agriculture policy. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344: 1090–1092.Google Scholar
Prager, K. (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 59–66.Google Scholar
Prager, K., Nienaber, B., Neumann, B. & Phillips, A. (2015) How should rural policy be evaluated if it aims to foster community involvement in environmental management? Journal of Rural Studies 37: 120–131.Google Scholar
Prager, K., Reed, M. & Scott, A. (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale – rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29: 244–249.Google Scholar
Raymond, C.M., Bieling, C., Fagerholm, N., Martin-Lopez, B. & Plieninger, T. (2016) The farmer as a landscape steward: comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. Ambio 45: 173–184.Google Scholar
Raymond, C.M., Bryan, B.A., MacDonald, D.H., Cast, A., Strathearn, S., Grandgirard, A. & Kalivas, T. (2009) Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68: 1301–1315.Google Scholar
Reed, M.S., Moxey, A., Prager, K., Hanley, N., Skates, J., Bonn, A., Evans, C.D., Glenk, K. & Thomson, K. (2014) Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes. Ecosystem Services 9: 44–53.Google Scholar
Robinson, G.M. (2008) Sustainable rural systems: an introduction. In: Sustainable Rural Systems: Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Communities, ed. Robinson, G.M., pp. 3–40. Basingstoke, UK and Burlington, VT, USA: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Robinson, L.W. & Berkes, F. (2011) Multi-level participation for building adaptive capacity: formal agency-community interactions in northern Kenya. Global Environmental Change 21: 1185–1194.Google Scholar
Silcock, P., Brunyee, J. & Pring, J. (2013) Dartmoor Farming Futures Project: An Independent Evaluation. Commissioned Report. Worcestershire, UK: Cumulus Consultants Ltd.Google Scholar
Spence, A. & Pidgeon, N. (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 20: 656–667.Google Scholar
Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
Whitehead, A.L., Kujala, H., Ives, C.D., Gordon, A., Lentini, P.E., Wintle, B.A., Nicholson, E. & Raymond, C.M. (2014) Integrating biological and social values when prioritizing places for biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 28: 992–1003.Google Scholar
Young, J.C., Searle, K., Butler, A., Simmons, P., Watt, A.D. & Jordan, A. (2016) The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation 195: 196–202.Google Scholar