Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 475–489 | Cite as

Social Learning Processes in Swiss Soil Protection—The ‘From Farmer - To Farmer’ Project

  • Flurina Schneider
  • Patricia Fry
  • Thomas Ledermann
  • Stephan Rist
Article

Abstract

Social learning approaches have become a prominent focus in studies related to sustainable agriculture. In order to better understand the potential of social learning for more sustainable development, the present study assessed the processes, effects and facilitating elements of interaction related to social learning in the context of Swiss soil protection and the innovative ‘From Farmer - To Farmer’ project. The study reveals that social learning contributes to fundamental transformations of patterns of interactions. However, the study also demonstrates that a learning-oriented understanding of sustainable development implies including analysis of the institutional environments in which the organizations of the individual representatives of face-to-face-based social learning processes are operating. This has shown to be a decisive element when face-to-face-based learning processes of the organisations’ representatives are translated into organisational learning. Moreover, the study revealed that this was achieved not directly through formalisation of new lines of institutionalised cooperation but by establishing links in a ‘boundary space’ trying out new forms of collaboration, aiming at social learning and co-production of knowledge. It is argued that further research on social learning processes should give greater emphasis to this intermediary level of ‘boundary spaces’.

Keywords

Knowledge co-production Social learning Soil conservation From farmer to farmer Boundary space 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The project is affiliated to the COST Action 634 (On- and Off-site Environmental Impacts of Runoff and Erosion). The authors wish to thank the Swiss State Secretariat for Education and Research SER for financing the study, and the Federal Office for the Environment FOEN, the Federal Office for Agriculture FOAG and the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research North-South (NCCR North-South) for their financial contributions.

We like to thank Tobias Buser and Karina Liechti for many fruitful discussions and helpful comments to earlier versions of this article.

References

  1. Altieri, M. A. (2004). Linking Ecologists and Traditional Farmers in the Search for Sustainable Agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2(1): 35–42. doi: 10.1890/1540-9295(2004)002[0035:LEATFI]2.0.CO;2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auzet, A. -V. (2003). From soil erosion knowledge to soil protection and runoff prevention - COST 623. In Boix-Fayos, C., Dorren, L., and Imeson, A. C. (eds.), Briefing papers of the first SCAPE workshop. Scape Office, Amsterdam, pp. 27–29.Google Scholar
  3. Blum, A. (1994). Das landwirtschaftliche Wissenssystem der Schweiz. AGRARForschung 1(11–12): 507–510.Google Scholar
  4. Boardmann, J., and Poesen, J. (2006). Soil Erosion in Europe. Wiley, Chichester.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buck, L. E. (2003). Strengthening natural resource institutions in Africa - Applying social learning to reconciling poverty reduction and environmental management., Proceedings of the International Workshop on Reconciling Rural Poverty Reduction and Resource Conservation: Identifying Relationships. Cornell University Press, Remedies, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  6. Burawoy, M. (1998). The Extended Case Method. Sociological Theory 16(1): 4–33. doi: 10.1111/0735-2751.00040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carr, A., and Wilkinson, R. (2005). Beyond Participation: Boundary Organizations as a New Space for Farmers and Scientists to Interact. Society and Natural Resources 18(3): 255–265. doi: 10.1080/08941920590908123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coughenour, M. C. (2003). Innovating Conservation Agriculture: The Case of No-Till Cropping. Rural Sociology 68(2): 278–304. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9750179&site=ehost-live.Google Scholar
  9. Davidson-Hunt, I. J. (2006). Adaptive Learning Networks: Developing Resource Management Knowledge through Social Learning Forums. Human Ecology 34(4): 593–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eshuis, J., and Stuiver, M. (2005). Learning in Context Through Conflict and Alignment: Farmers and Scientists in Search of Sustainable Agriculture. Agriculture And Human Values 22(2): 137–148. doi: 10.1007/s10460-004-8274-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fry, P. (2001). Bodenfruchtbarkeit - Bauernsicht und Forscherblick. Margraf Verlag, Weikersheim.Google Scholar
  12. Fry, P. (2004). Von Bauern - für Bauern: Ein neuer Ansatz fördert den mechanischen Bodenschutz in der Landwirtschaft. BGS Bulletin 27: 91–96.Google Scholar
  13. Funtowicz, S. O., and Ravetz, J. R. (1993). Science For The Post-Normal Age. Futures 25(7): 739–755. doi: 10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Funtowicz, S. O., and Ravetz, J. R. (1994). The Worth Of A Songbird - Ecological Economics As A Post-Normal Science. Ecological Economics 10(3): 197–207. doi: 10.1016/0921-8009(94)90108-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., and Nowotny, H. (1995). The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage, London.Google Scholar
  16. Helming, K., Rubio, J. L., and Boardman, J. (2006). Soil Erosion Across Europe: Research Approaches and Perspectives. Catena 68(2–3): 71–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt-Giménez, E. (2006). Campesino a Campesino: Voices from Latin America's Farmer to Farmer Movement for Sustainable Agriculture. Oakland: Oakland.Google Scholar
  18. Hurni, H., and Wiesmann, U. (2004). Towards transdisciplinarity in sustainability-oriented research for development. In Hurni, H., Wiesmann, U., and Schertenleib, R. (eds.), Research for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change Geogaphica Bernensia, Bern, pp. 31–41.Google Scholar
  19. Jiggins, J., van Slobbe, E., and Röling, N. (2007). The organisation of social learning in response to perceptions of crisis in the water sector of The Netherlands. Environmental Science & Policy 10(6): 526. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2006.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., Hall, J. M., Jaeger, C. C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J. J., Schellnhuber, H. J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N. M., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G. C., Grubler, A., Huntley, B., Jager, J., Jodha, N. S., Kasperson, R. E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore Iii, B., O'Riordan, T., and Svedlin, U. (2001). Environment and Development: Sustainability Science. Science 292(5517): 641–642. doi: 10.1126/science.1059386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klein, J. T. (2001). Transdisciplinarity: Joint Problem Solving among Science, Technology, and Society. Birkhäuser, Basel.Google Scholar
  22. Ledermann, T., and Schneider, F. (2008). Verbreitung der Direktsaat in der Schweiz. AGRARForschung 15(8): 372–377. http://www.agrarforschung.ch/.Google Scholar
  23. Ledermann, T., Herweg, K., Liniger, H., Schneider, F., Hurni, H., and Prasuhn, V. (2008). Erosion damage mapping. Assessing current soil erosion damage in Switzerland. In Dazzi, C., and Costantini, E. (eds.), The soils of tomorrow. Advances in Geoecology 39, 263–284.Google Scholar
  24. Mosimann, T., Crole-Rees, A., Maillard, A., Neyroud, J. -A., Thöni, M., Musy, A., and Rohr, W., (1990). Bodenerosion im Schweizerischen Mittelland. Ausmass und Gegenmassnahmen. Liebefeld-Bern.Google Scholar
  25. Nonaka, I., Konno, N., and Toyama, R. (2001). Emergence of “Ba”. A conceptual framework for the continuous and self-transcending process of knowledge creation. In Nonaka, I. (ed.), Knowledge emergence. Social, technical, and evolutionary dimensions of knowledge creation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 13–29.Google Scholar
  26. Nowotny, H., Gibbons, M., and Scott, P. (2001). Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainity. Polity, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Pohl, C. (2008). From Science to Policy Through Transdisciplinary Research. Environmental Science & Policy 11(1): 46. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasuhn, V., and Grünig, K. (2001). Evaluation der Ökomassnahmen - Phosphorbelastung der Oberflächengewässer durch Bodenerosion. FAL-Schriftenreihe Nr. 37, Zürich-Reckenholz.Google Scholar
  29. Prasuhn, V., and Weisskopf, P. (2004a). Current approaches and methods to measure, monitor and model agricultural soil erosion in Switzerland. paper presented at Agricultural Impacts on Soil Erosion and Soil Biodiversity: Developing Indicators for Policy Analysis., Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  30. Prasuhn, V., and Weisskopf, P. (eds.), (2004b). Current approaches and methods to measure, monitor and model agricultural soil erosion in Switzerland.Google Scholar
  31. Reichert, D., Fry, P., Heid, C., and Steinemann, U. (2000). Wissenschaft als Erfahrungswissen. Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  32. Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., and Wiesmann, U. (2006). “It Was Hard to Come to Mutual Understanding” The Multidimensionality of Sociallearning Processes Concerned with Sustainable Natural Resource Use in India, Africa and Latin America. Journal of Systemic Practice and Action Research 19: 219–237. doi: 10.1007/s11213-006-9014-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rist, S., Chiddambaranathan, M., Escobar, C., Wiesmann, U., and Zimmermann, A. (2007). Moving from Sustainable Management to Sustainable Governance of Natural Resources: The Role of Social Learning Processes in Rural India, Bolivia and Mali. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 23–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Röling, N. G. (2002). Beyond the aggregation of individual preferences. Moving from multiple to distributed cognition in resource dilemmas. In Leeuwis, C., and Pyburn, R. (eds.), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management. Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV, Assen, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
  35. Röling, N. G., and Wagemakers, M. A. E. (2000). A new practice: facilitating sustainable agriculture. In Röling, N. G., and Wagemakers, M. A. E. (eds.), Facilitating Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp. 3–22.Google Scholar
  36. Roux, M. (1997). Lernprozesse für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft in Kulturlandschaften. LBL, Lindau.Google Scholar
  37. Roux, D. J., Rogers, K. H., Biggs, H. C., Ashton, P. J., and Sergeant, A. (2006). Bridging the science-management divide: moving from unidirectional knowledge transfer to knowledge interfacing and sharing. Ecology and Society 11(1): Article 4 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss11/art14/. [online] URL:
  38. Schneider, F., Ledermann, T., Fry, P., and Rist, S. (2009). Soil conservation in Swiss agriculture—Approaching abstract and symbolic meanings in farmers’ life-worlds. Land Use Policy. Corrected proof.Google Scholar
  39. Schusler, T. M., Decker, D. J., and Pfeffer, M. J. (2003). Social Learning for Collaborative Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources 16(4): 309–326. doi: 10.1080/08941920390178874
  40. Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J. P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., and Roche, B. (2007). The Role of Knowledge and Research in Facilitating Social Learning among Stakeholders in Natural Resources Management in the French Atlantic Coastal Wetlands. Environmental Science & Policy 10(6): 537–550. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tàbara, J. D., and Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Sustainability Learning in Natural Resource Use and Management. Ecology and Society 12(2): 3. [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss12/art13/. [online] URL:.Google Scholar
  42. Van-Champ, L., Bujarrabal, B., Gentile, A. R., Jones, R. J. A., Montanarella, L., Olazabal, C., and Selvaradjou, S. (2004). Volume - II. Erosion. Reports of the Technical Working Groups. European Commission European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
  43. Vinck, D. (1999). Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique. Contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. Revue française de sociologie 2(40): 385–414. http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/rfsoc_0035–2969_1999_num_40_2_5173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Warner, K. D. (2007). Agroecology in Action: Extending Alternative Agriculture Through Social Networks. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusets.Google Scholar
  45. Warner, K. D. (2008). Agroecology as Participatory Science. Emerging Alternatives to Technology Transfer Extension Practice. Science, Technology & Human Values 33(6): 754–777. doi: 10.1177/0162243907309851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisshaidinger, R., and Leser, H. (2006). Switzerland. In Boardmann, J., and Poesen, J. (eds.), Soil erosion in Europe. John Wiley, Chichester, pp. 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Woodhill, J. (2002). Sustainability, social learning and the democratic imperative. Lessons from the Australian landcare movement. In Leeuwis, C., and Pyburn, R. (eds.), Wheelbarrows Full of Frogs: Social Learning in Rural Resource Management Koninklijke Van Gorcum BV, Assen, pp. 317–331.Google Scholar
  48. Woodhill, J., and Röling, N. G. (2000). The second wing of the eagle: the human dimension in learning our way to more sustainable futures. In Röling, N. G., and Wagemakers, M. A. E. (eds.), Facilitating sustainable Agriculture. Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 46–72.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Flurina Schneider
    • 1
  • Patricia Fry
    • 2
  • Thomas Ledermann
    • 1
  • Stephan Rist
    • 1
  1. 1.CDE—Centre for Development and EnvironmentUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Knowledge Management Environment LLCZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations