Systems and agency
In this section
This overarching research looks at the wider systems (including financial, policy, social) that surround farmers and growers, and how they interact to create conflicting pressures on farmers and growers, and where key points for overcoming these conflicts lie.
There are three key research areas.
- Developing a theoretical framework for the programme.
- Exploring the interactions between the systems influencing farmers’ operating environments.
- Identifying leverage points (or places to intervene in a system) not covered by the other research areas.
Research findings
Enabling change in land management practice – ‘one size doesn’t fit all’
Our summary paper highlights most aspects of the wider systems surrounding farmers and growers are beyond their control (e.g. what banks will fund, what training is offered) and fundamentally – ‘one size fits all’ approaches, policies and practices are not effective. Farmers and growers in similar contexts may take different routes and time periods to change management practices.
From interviews with 19 Southland farmers in 2023/24, five themes emerged around the challenges and opportunities to support farmers managing change – sensible regulation; agents of non-change (such as those who benefit from preserving the status quo); information, training, and knowledge systems; technology; and relationships with others. Our analysis, using a social practice theory (SPT) lens, finds there are limits to using ‘information’ as a driver of behaviour change. Instead, the analysis highlights there is no ‘best’ practice and that each farm context presents opportunities and challenges. An SPT lens highlights regulators, corporates and owner-operators understand farming in very different – and often conflicting – ways. SPT analyses also highlight how ‘social’ opportunities that bring these different groups together to make sense of new information, regulation and technology are crucial.
Conceptual framework to describe the conflict created by changing farm practices
We have developed a conceptual framework drawing on farm management theory, social practice theory and system dynamics. The framework identifies some of the systemic factors (internal and external to farms) that influence the adoption of practices that affect the environmental performance of farms. Farm practices are classified into types of change in the framework: strategic, tactical, complex, and simple. The types characterise the degree to which farms are locked into practices and, therefore, the nature of the conflict they experience when they consider changing practices. This paper describes all these types of change and shows how the same practice, depending on the farm system, may represent a different type of change for different farmers/growers.
Key ideas in the conceptual framework have been tested with respect to predicting the rate of adoption of agricultural innovations and identifying what is driving native vegetation management on farms.
Common factors influencing farmers’ and growers’ decisions
Some common factors that influence all farmers’ and grower’s decisions on practice change, one way or another, include trust in government, the credibility of policies (including the perverse and unintended effects of regulation), and research into new technologies and practices. Financial sector and government policy in relation to who pays for the cost of practice change influences certain types of change, such as catch cropping and intensive winter grazing. The ways in which these factors come together to influence farmers’ decisions are described in the following paper.
Extension: knowledge transfer for behavioural change
Our presentation on defining the target audience for an extension project is intended to help government and industry work more effectively with farmers and other land managers. The webinar was hosted by ‘A Lighter Touch’ an initiative of Horticulture NZ, several industry associations, and Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI).
Truth-telling by farmers and the public
Truth-telling insights have some real implications for research and government/industry-led initiatives. Through a comparison between farmers and members of the public on how truthful they are in their survey responses our paper showed that, in general, farmers are more truthful about actions they take that affect the environment (good and bad) than the public. For research this means the information we get from farmers through surveys and interviews is likely to be correct, benefitting policy development. While not tested directly in our research, this suggests reporting via self-auditing programmes is also likely to be generally reliable.
Applying the conceptual framework
The conceptual framework has been applied to the management of native vegetation on farms, farmer well-being and animal welfare, afforestation, and predicting rate of adoption of agricultural innovations.
Research in action
Testing the conceptual framework
We are conducting a national survey of dairy and drystock farmers to test how accurate the conceptual framework is at predicting the adoption of environmentally friendly practices. We are investigating the adoption of laneway buffers, fencing wet areas, fencing streams, and using cover crops.
Do farmers and the public differ in their appreciation of biodiversity?
Farmers are often singled out as behaving in ways that damage the environment. We are conducting a national survey of farmers and the public to measure their engagement with, and appreciation of, biodiversity. The results will show whether farmers behave like the public in terms of their engagement with, and appreciation of, biodiversity. If they do, this suggests that economic and practical farm management factors – rather than environmental attitudes – are stopping farmers from adopting environmentally friendly behaviours.
Evaluating the research
A key part of the research is the ongoing evaluation of the programme. We are evaluating both of its impact and how the research team is working together to address a range of key points to influence the environmental performance of farmers and growers.