Agriculture and Human Values

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 55–66 | Cite as

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

Article

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.

Keywords

Cognitive maps Causal maps Systems Conventional Integrated Organic Q methodology Sheep/beef farmers New Zealand 

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bryson, J.M., F. Ackerman, C. Eden, and C. Finn. 2004. Visible thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colfer, C., J. Newton, and B. Herman. 1989. Ethnicity: An important consideration in Indonesian agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. How, A. 2006. Verstehen. In Encyclopedia of social theory, ed. A. Harrington, B. Marshall, and H. Muller, 656–657. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Markóczy, L., and J. Goldberg. 1995. A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps. Journal of Management 21 (2): 305–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar
  21. Outhwaite, W. 1975. Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Özesmi, U. 1999. Conservation strategies for sustainable resource use in the Kizilirmak Delta, Turkey. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar
  27. Robbins, P., and R. Kreuger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Röling, N. 2009. Pathways for impact: Scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (2): 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schoon, B., and R. Te Grotenhuis. 1999. Values of farmers, sustainability, and agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Shaw, D. 2002. Structuring electronic causal maps during group workshops. Aston Business School. Birmingham: Aston University.Google Scholar
  33. Soini, K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map making. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. van der Ploeg, J.D. 2003. The virtual farmer: Past, present, and future of the Dutch peasantry. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  38. Wilson, J. 1995. An Introduction to systems thinking: Changing agriculture, Second edition. Kenthurst: Kangaroo Press.Google Scholar
  39. Woodside, A. 2007. Training exercise in interpreting causal maps in tourism research. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1: 175–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agribusiness and Economics Research UnitLincoln UniversityLincolnNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations