Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is generally accepted that farmers manage a complex farm system. In this article we seek answers to the following questions. How do farmers perceive and understand their farm system? Are they sufficiently aware of their farm system that they are able to represent it in the form of a map? The research reported describes how causal mapping was applied to sheep/beef farmers in New Zealand and shows that farmers can create maps of their farm systems in ways that allow expression of both individual maps and the formation of group maps which represent the general character of farm systems. A group map was made for all the farmers studied and for subgroups using conventional, integrated, and organic management systems. The results are discussed in terms of the depth of meaning associated with individual elements of the map, map complexity and the limitations of causal mapping. Causal mapping has the potential to contribute to our knowledge of how farmers see their farm systems, and this can benefit farmers and other stakeholders concerned with the management of farms and their economic and environmental performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This is not to say that other factors beyond the farm do not have important direct effects on the farm environment, nor that structural factors, rather than individual factors, do not also play an important part in influencing farm management. These would, of course, take effect through management action.

  2. The causal mapping was one component of work conducted by the Agriculture Research Group On Sustainability (ARGOS) which is investigating the social, environmental, and economic consequences of different management systems in different farming sectors in New Zealand (see www.argos.org.nz). The management systems being studied include conventional management, integrated management (some limitations on inputs in order to meet environmental and marketing goals), and organic management. Thirty-six farms, organized as three panels, are being studied with one panel for each management system within each sector.

  3. This observation suggests that some farmers do not have a mental map of their farming system. However, these farmers were able to draw a map.

  4. Not all of the 12 farmers in each panel were available at the time of interview.

  5. Full reporting of the three panel maps is available in Fairweather et al. (2007).

References

  • Akimichi, T. 1996. Image and reality at sea: Fish and cognitive mapping in Carolinean navigational knowledge. In Redefining nature: Ecology, culture, and domestication, ed. R. Ellen and K. Fukui, 493–514. Oxford: Berg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beus, D.E., and R.E. Dunlap. 1991. Measuring adherence to alternative vs. Conventional agricultural paradigms—a proposed scale. Rural Sociology 56 (3): 432–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Botha, C.A.J., and G.A. Verkerk. 2002. Factors influencing inducing decision-making in dairy cows: A case study of scientists’ and producers’ views. 62nd Conference, Massey University, New Zealand, 24–26 June 2002. Proceedings of the New Zealand society of animal production 62: 257–260.

  • Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J.M., F. Ackerman, C. Eden, and C. Finn. 2004. Visible thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, G., T. Clark, R. Hauser, and R. Zmud. 1992. The application of causal maps to develop a collective understanding of complex organizational contexts in requirements analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 2 (3): 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colfer, C., J. Newton, and B. Herman. 1989. Ethnicity: An important consideration in Indonesian agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 52–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 2004. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 152: 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J.R., and H.R. Campbell. 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: Opposing pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 20 (3): 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J., L. Hunt, C. Rosin, H. Campbell, and D. Lucock. 2007. Understanding sheep/beef farm management using causal mapping: Development and application of a two-stage approach. ARGOS research report 07/02. http://www.argos.org.nz/pdf_files/Research_Report_07_02_SB_CausalMap.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.

  • Feinburg, R., U. Dymon, P. Paiaki, P. Rangituteki, P. Nukuriaki, and M. Rollins. 2003. “Drawing the coral heads”: Mental mapping and its physical representation in a Polynesian community. The Cartographic Journal 40 (3): 243–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjortso, C.N.S., M. Christensen, and P. Tarp. 2005. Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for natural resource management using cognitive mapping: The case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise, Vietnam. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • How, A. 2006. Verstehen. In Encyclopedia of social theory, ed. A. Harrington, B. Marshall, and H. Muller, 656–657. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A.R., and S. Kaplan. 1997. Towards the methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behaviour 29 (5): 579–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kearney, A.R., G. Bradley, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan. 1999. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45 (1): 62–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krystallis, A., and M. Ness. 2003. Motivational and cognitive structures of Greek consumer in the purchase of quality food products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 16 (2): 7–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markóczy, L., and J. Goldberg. 1995. A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps. Journal of Management 21 (2): 305–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, J., R. Quinn, D. Donnelly, and J. Cooper. 2008. Accurate mental maps as an aspect of local ecological knowledge (LEK): A case study from Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland. Ecology and Society 13 (1): 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art13/. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.

  • McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naidoo, G. 2002. The use of information structures at the cognitive level in the daily management of information by small-scale livestock keepers in a village in Mauritius. Paper presented at AMAS 2003, Food and Agricultural Research Council, Reduit, Mauritius, 8–9 May.

  • Outhwaite, W. 1975. Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi, U. 1999. Conservation strategies for sustainable resource use in the Kizilirmak Delta, Turkey. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.

  • Özesmi, U., and S.L. Özesmi. 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176: 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper, R., K. Andino, M. Bustamante, B. Hernandez, and L. Rodas. 1996. Knowledge and beliefs regarding agricultural pesticides on rural Guatemala. Environmental Management 20 (2): 241–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter, E., and D. Dauksta. 2006. Ancient values and contemporary interpretations of European forest culture––reconsidering our understanding of sustainability in forestry. Proceedings of IUFRO 3.08 Conference, Galway, Ireland 18–23 June.

  • Robbins, P., and R. Kreuger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röling, N. 2009. Pathways for impact: Scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (2): 83–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scavarda, A.J., T. Bouzdine-Chameeva, S.M. Goldstein, J.M. Hays, and A.V. Hill. 2006. A methodology for constructing collective causal maps. Decision Sciences 37 (2): 263–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, B., and R. Te Grotenhuis. 1999. Values of farmers, sustainability, and agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scoones, I., M. Leach, A. Smith, S. Stagl, A. Stirling, and J. Thompson. 2007. Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1. Brighton: STEPS Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D. 2002. Structuring electronic causal maps during group workshops. Aston Business School. Birmingham: Aston University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soini, K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map making. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 225–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tikkanen, J., T. Isokaanta, J. Pykalainen, and P. Leskinen. 2006. Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a northern Finnish case study. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2): 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valentine, I., E. Hurley, and W. Glass. 1993. Goals and management strategies of dairy farmers. Proceedings of the New Zealand society of animal production 53: 111–113.

  • van der Ploeg, J.D. 2003. The virtual farmer: Past, present, and future of the Dutch peasantry. Assen: Van Gorcum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. 1995. An Introduction to systems thinking: Changing agriculture, Second edition. Kenthurst: Kangaroo Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside, A. 2007. Training exercise in interpreting causal maps in tourism research. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1: 175–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology provided funding for this research. Dr. Hugh Campbell and Dr. Chris Rosin, CSAFE, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and Dr. Ika Darnhofer, Department of Economic and Social Sciences, BOKU, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria provided helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this article. Dr. Tiffany Rinne, AERU, Lincoln University, provided useful comments on the final draft. Comments from the editor helped to clarify the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit, Lincoln University, PO Box 84, Lincoln, 7647, New Zealand

    John R. Fairweather & Lesley M. Hunt

Authors
  1. John R. Fairweather
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lesley M. Hunt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John R. Fairweather.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fairweather, J.R., Hunt, L.M. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agric Hum Values 28, 55–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9252-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9252-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation