Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Multifunctional Agriculture and Farmers’ Attitudes: Two Case Studies in Rural France

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding farmers’ attitudes towards the environment is essential for the implementation of land management policies. Since 2000 conservation policies in France, as in other countries, have introduced the concept of “multifunctional agriculture” whereby farmers are entrusted with responsibility for environmental and landscape conservation in a peasant tradition that the “Green Revolution” largely eradicated. To assess farmers’ and other inhabitants’ attitudes towards the conservation of nature, we conducted fieldwork for 3 years (2010–2013) in two French municipalities located in a bocage area (farmland with hedges and groves). Results confirm that farmers feel more connected to nature than other rural residents. However, their perception that nature should be under human control, “clean” and “tidy,” contradicts many aspects of conservation policies. Our results also highlight differences between organic and non-organic farmers, especially in the acceptance of protection policies, but their perception of nature is very similar. Local history and social dynamics specific to each municipality have a strong influence on their environmental conditions.

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

Map 1
Map 2
Map 3
Graphic 1
Graphic 2
Graphic 3
Graphic 4
Graphic 5
Graphic 6
Graphic 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The “Socio-environmental conditions for the rehabilitation of ordinary biodiversity” program funded by French Ministère de l’Ecologie between 2010–2012 and by French Caisse des dépôts et consignations for 2013–2014, coordinated by F. Kohler.

  2. The environmental section of the Agricultural Orientation Law of 1999 is enforced by Law No. 2010–788 of July 12, 2010, concerning national commitment to the environment (“Grenelle 2”) that sets the “Green and Blue Frames” (Article 121) so as to “identify or restore, by 2012, a coherent and functional ecological network … allowing plants and animals to communicate, move, feed, reproduce and rest, so that their survival is guaranteed: biodiversity reservoirs will be connected by ecological corridors, terrestrial (green frame) as well as aquatic (blue frame).”

  3. Rurbanization is the phenomenon by which rural towns next to employment areas become residential, the “rurban” inhabitant commuting between home and work.

  4. Neo-rurals are inhabitants who abandoned their urban life to live and work in the countryside. They generally share a libertarian ideology and green sensibility, but unlike their predecessors (those who became farmers or sheep and goat breeders after the ‘Revolution’ of May 1968), the economic success of their farm is essential for them.

  5. All the organic farmers surveyed are small producers who sell their produce in nearby markets or AMAP (Association for Preservation of Peasant Farming) circuits. See http://www.reseau-amap.org/: AMAP Associations “are intended to promote family and organic farming. They are struggling to survive against the agro-industry. The principle is to create a direct link between farmers and consumers, the latter being committed to purchase seasonal products at a fair price and to pay in advance.”

  6. Our sample is not representative but merely illustrative as far as general population is concerned. We were highly dependent on people’s availability as the qualitative and quantitative interview took approximately one and a half hours. We interviewed more than half of the farmers (organic, conventional and retired) in each municipality.

References

  • Ahnström, J., Höckert, J. L., Bergea, H., Francis, C., Skelton, P., and Hallgren, L. (2009). Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1): 38–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alphandéry, P. (2001). Les campagnes françaises de l’agriculture à l’environnement (1945–2000). Politiques publiques, dynamiques sociales et enjeux territoriaux. Thèse de doctorat. Institut d’Etudes Politiques, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alphandéry, P., and Dupont, Y. (1985). Développement local et société rurale dans l’isthme du Cotentin. Tapuscrit INRA, AFME, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arbuckle, K. E., and Downing, J. A. (2001). The influence of watershed land use on lake N : P in a predominantly agricultural landscape. Limnol. Oceanogr. 46(4): 970–975.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, L., Lemaire, M. (2009). Les chauves-souris de France, Belgique, Luxembourg et Suisse. Biotope/ Publications scientifiques du Muséum, Mèze.

  • Beketov, M. A., Kefford, B. J., Schäfer, R. B., and Liess, M. (2013). Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110(27): 11039–43 doi:10.1073/pnas.1305618110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., and Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity : is habitat heterogeneity the key ? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18: 182–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergerot, B., Fontaine, B., Renard, M., Cadi, A., and Julliard, R. (2010). Preferences for exotic flowers do not promote urban life in butterflies. Landscape and Urban Planning 96(2): 98–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bieling, C., and Plieninger, T. (2003). ‘Stinking, diseasespreading brutes’ or ‘four-legged landscape managers’? Livestock, pastoralism and society in Germany and the USA. Outlook on agriculture 32(1): 7–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: Toward developping an understading of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44(2): 195–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochet, H. (2004). Maintien tardif du métayage et dynamique des systèmes de production dans le Bocage bourbonnais (Allier), 1850–2000, Ruralia [Online], 15 | 2004, July 1st, 2008, consulted on July 02, 2013. URL : http://ruralia.revues.org/1025

  • Couvet, D., Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Levrel, H., and Teyssèdre, A. (2008). Enhancing citizen contributions to biodiversity science and public policy. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 33(1): 95–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushman, S. A. (2006). Effects of habitat loss and fragmentation on amphibians: a review and prospectus. Biological Conservation 128: 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devictor, V., Julliard, R., Jiguet, F., and Couvet, D. (2007). Distribution of specialist and generalist species along spatial gradients of habitat disturbance and fragmentation. Oikos 117: 507–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig, L. (2003). Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 34: 487–515.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, J. G., Grime, J. P., Wilson, P. J., Thompson, K., and Band, S. R. (2005). The impacts of agricultural change (1963–2003) on the grassland flora of Central England: processes and prospects. Basic and Applied Ecology 6: 107–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeannaux, P., and Perrier-Cornet, P. (2008). Les conflits d’usage du cadre de vie dans les espaces ruraux et la décision publique locale : éléments pour une analyse économique. Economie Rurale 306: 39–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julliard, R., Jiguet, F., and Couvet, D. (2004). Common birds facing global changes: whatmakes a species at risk? Global Change Biology 10(1): 148–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A. M., and Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2013). The effect of farmer attitudes and objectives on the heterogeneity of farm attributes and management in Switzerland. Human Ecology 41(6): 915–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, F., Marchand, G., Léna, P., and Thierry, C. (2013). Conditions socio-environnementales pour la réhabilitation de la biodiversité ordinaire : un exemple d’approche participative. Cahier des Amériques Latines 72–73: 85–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Léger, F., Vollet, D., and Urbano, G. (2006). Le contrat territorial d’exploitation : la rencontre difficile d’un instrument à vocation territorial et de la tradition sectorielle de la politique agricole française. Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives 72(3): 405–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levrel, H. (2006). Biodiversité et développement durable, quels indicateurs ? Thèse de doctorat en économie écologique. EHESS, Paris.

  • Lisec, A., and Pintar, M. (2005). Conservation of natural ecosystems by land consolidation in the rural landscape. Acta agriculturae Slovenica 85(1): 73–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maisonhaute, J. É. (2010). Influence de la structure du paysage sur l’assemblage des prédateurs terricoles dans les zones agricoles non cultivées. Mémoire présenté comme exigence partielle de la maitrise en biologie. Université du Québec, Montréal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattison, E. H. A., and Norris, K. (2005). Bridging the gaps between agricultural policy, land-use and biodiversity. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 20(11): 610–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLain, R., Poe, M., Biedenweg, K., Cerveny, L., Besser, D., and Blahna, D. (2013). Making sense of Human Ecology Mapping. Human Ecology 41(5): 651–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michel-Guillou, E., and Moser, G. (2006). Commitment of farmers to environmental protection: From social pressure to environmental conscience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 227–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miéville-Ott, V., and Droz, Y. (2010). Évolution de la réflexion paysagère en Suisse. A partir du programme Paysages et habitats de l’arc alpin. Économie rurale 315: 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millán de la Pena, N., Butet, A., Delettre, Y., Morant, P., and Burel, F. (2003). Landscape context and carabid beetles (Coleoptera : Carabidae) communities of hedgerows in western France. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 94: 59–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministère de l’Agriculture (2010). Méthodologie Teruti-Lucas. http://www.agreste.agriculture.gouv.fr/enquetes/territoire-prix-des-terres/teruti-lucas-utilisation-du/

  • Napier, T. L., and Forster, D. L. (1982). Farmer Attitude and Behavior Associated with Soil Erosion Control. In Halcrow, H. G., Heady, E. O., and Cotner, M. L. (eds.), Soil Conservation Policies, Institutions and Incentives. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinton, F., Alphandéry, P., Billaud, J. P., Deverre, C., Fortier, A., Gesniaux, G., and Lefebvre, C. (2007). La construction du réseau Natura 2000 en France. La Documentation française, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poschlod, P., Bakker, J. P., and Kahmen, S. (2005). Changing land use and its impact on biodiversity. Basic and Applied Ecology 6: 93–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renard, J. (2005). La Vendée : Un siècle d’observation d’un géographe. Presses Universitaires de Rennes, Rennes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, M. L. (1995). Species Diversity in Space and Time. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosin, C., and Campbell, H. (2009). Beyond bifurcation. Examining the conventions of organic agriculture in New Zealand. Journal of Rural Studies 25: 35–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SAFER (Sociétés d’aménagement foncier et d’établissement rural) (2012). Public Statement: http://www.safer.fr/communique-diminution-surface-agricole-ferme-france.asp

  • Siebert, R., Toogood, M., and Knierim, A. (2006). Factors Affecting European Farmers’ Participation in Biodiversity Policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 318–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smukler, S. M., Sánchez-Moreno, S., Fonte, S. J., Ferris, H., Klonsky, K., O’Geen, A. T., Scow, K. M., Steenwerth, K. E., and Jackson, L. E. (2010). Biodiversity and multiple ecosystem functions in an organic farmscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 139: 80–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steffan-Dewenter, I., Münzenberg, U., Bürger, C., Thies, C., and Tscharntke, T. (2002). Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 83(5): 1421–1432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, S., Mccann, E., De Young, R., and Erickson, D. (1996). Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 9(2): 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thébault, V. (2002). “ La faute des pères ” : Fragmentation patrimoniale et représentation du déclin social. Ruralia [Online], 10/11 | 2002, January 29, 2009. Consulted on March 2, 2013. URL : http://ruralia.revues.org/296

  • van Diggelen, R., Sijtsma, F. J., Strijker, D., and van den Burg, J. (2005). Relating land-use intensity and biodiversity at the regional scale. Basic and Applied Ecology 6: 145–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull, A.-C., Bengtsson, J., and Nohlgren, E. (2000). Diversity of Butterflies in the Agricultural Landscape: The Role of Farming System and Landscape Heterogeneity. Ecography 23(6): 743–750.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull, A.-C., Ostman, O., and Granqvist, A. (2003). Species richness in agroecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodiversity and Conservation 12: 1335–1355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, J. (2005). The eye and the hand: Professional sensitivity and the idea of an aesthetics of work on the land. Contemporary Aesthetics (Online), 3.

Download references

Aknowledgments

Many people contributed to this paper including Isabelle Laudier (Caisse des Dépôts et Consignation), Eduardo Brondizio (Indiana University), Anne-Caroline Prévôt-Julliard (Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle), Elena Ciccozzi, Anna Greissing and Carlos Amorena, whom we thank. We also wish to thank the Commissariat Général au Développement Durable of French Ministère de l'Ecologie.

The authors are extremely grateful to Jean Massé, Mayor of Saints-en-Puisaye, Eliane Blé, Mayor of La Genétouze, and friendly inhabitants from both municipalities, Didier and Gervaise Massé, Gaëlle Massé, Isabelle and Joël Brunet, Cyril Guiet, and many others.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CREDA, UMR 7227, Paris 3 - CNRS, 75007, Paris, France

    Florent Kohler

  2. Consultant in Ecology for French Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France

    Chloé Thierry

  3. Universidade Federal do Amazonas, with PVE/CAPES Scholarship, Amazonas, Brazil

    Guillaume Marchand

Authors
  1. Florent Kohler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chloé Thierry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Guillaume Marchand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florent Kohler.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kohler, F., Thierry, C. & Marchand, G. Multifunctional Agriculture and Farmers’ Attitudes: Two Case Studies in Rural France. Hum Ecol 42, 929–949 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9702-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-014-9702-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation