Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand
- 455 Downloads
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.
KeywordsCognitive maps Causal maps Systems Conventional Integrated Organic Q methodology Sheep/beef farmers New Zealand
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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., 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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
- Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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.Google Scholar
- 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