IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i9p1383-d895775.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel C. Kenny

    (School of Information, Systems and Modelling, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia
    PERSWADE Research Center, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia)

  • Juan Castilla-Rho

    (Faculty of Business, Government & Law, University of Canberra (UC), Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia
    Center for Change Governance (CCG), Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis (IGPA), Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia)

Abstract

Regenerative agriculture (RegenAg) can help landholders attune their agricultural practices to the natural design of the earth’s cycles and support systems. The adoption of RegenAg, however, hinges not only on a good understanding of biophysical processes but perhaps more importantly on deep-seated values and beliefs which can become an obstacle for triggering widespread transitions towards synergistic relationships with the land. We designed and facilitated a Participatory Modelling exercise with RegenAg stakeholders in Australia—the aim was to provide a blueprint of how challenges and opportunities could be collaboratively explored in alignment with landholders’ personal views and perspectives. Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM) were used to unpack and formalise landholder perspectives into a semi-quantitative shared ‘mental model’ of the barriers and enablers for adoption of RegenAg practices and to subsequently identify actions that might close the gap between the two. Five dominant narratives which encode the key drivers and pain points in the system were identified and extracted from the FCM as a way to promote the internalisation of outcomes and lessons from the engagement. The Participatory Modelling exercise revealed some of the key drivers of RegenAg in Australia, highlighting the complex forces at work and the need for coordinated actions at the institutional, social, and individual levels, across long timescales (decades). Such actions are necessary for RegenAg to play a greater role in local and regional economies and to embed balancing relationships within systems currently reliant on conventional agriculture with few internal incentives to change. Our methods and findings are relevant not only for those seeking to promote the adoption of RegenAg in Australia but also for governments and agriculturalists seeking to take a behaviorally attuned stance to engage with landholders on issues of sustainable and resilient agriculture. More broadly, the participatory process reported here demonstrates the use of bespoke virtual elicitation methods that were designed to collaborate with stakeholders under COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-30, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1383-:d:895775
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1383/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/9/1383/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenny, Daniel C., 2017. "Modeling of natural and social capital on farms: Toward useable integration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 356(C), pages 1-13.
    2. Steven Gray, 2018. "Measuring systems thinking," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(8), pages 388-389, August.
    3. Luis F. Luna‐Reyes & Laura J. Black & Weijia Ran & Deborah Lines Andersen & Holly Jarman & George P. Richardson & David F. Andersen, 2019. "Modeling and Simulation as Boundary Objects to Facilitate Interdisciplinary Research," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 494-513, July.
    4. Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    6. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    7. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    8. Fairweather, John, 2010. "Farmer models of socio-ecologic systems: Application of causal mapping across multiple locations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(3), pages 555-562.
    9. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Baret, Philippe V. & Stilmant, Didier, 2014. "A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 1-11.
    10. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    11. Janssen, Marco A. & Anderies, John M. & Walker, Brian H., 2004. "Robust strategies for managing rangelands with multiple stable attractors," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 140-162, January.
    12. Quaas, Martin F. & Baumgartner, Stefan & Becker, Christian & Frank, Karin & Muller, Birgit, 2007. "Uncertainty and sustainability in the management of rangelands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 251-266, April.
    13. Oomen, Roelof J. & Ewert, Frank & Snyman, Hennie A., 2016. "Modelling rangeland productivity in response to degradation in a semi-arid climate," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 322(C), pages 54-70.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2, Center for Open Science.
    2. Evgenia Micha & Owen Fenton & Karen Daly & Gabriella Kakonyi & Golnaz Ezzati & Thomas Moloney & Steven Thornton, 2020. "The Complex Pathway towards Farm-Level Sustainable Intensification: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Micha, Evgenia & Fenton, Owen & Daly, Karen & Kakonyi, Gabriella & Ezzati, Golnaz & Moloney, Thomas & Thornton, Steven F, 2019. "Mapping the pathways towards farm-level sustainable intensification of agriculture: an exploratory network 3 analysis of stakeholders’ views," SocArXiv 2rqjd, Center for Open Science.
    4. Louis Tessier & Jo Bijttebier & Fleur Marchand & Philippe V. Baret, 2021. "Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: a critical methodological reflection," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1019, December.
    5. Victoria Alomia‐Hinojosa & Jeroen C. J. Groot & Jens A. Andersson & Erika N. Speelman & Andrew J. McDonald & Pablo Tittonell, 2023. "Assessing farmer perceptions on livestock intensification and associated trade‐offs using fuzzy cognitive maps; a study in mixed farming systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 146-158, January.
    6. Baumgärtner, Stefan & Quaas, Martin F., 2009. "Ecological-economic viability as a criterion of strong sustainability under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2008-2020, May.
    7. Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    8. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "No Stakeholder Is an Island: Human Barriers and Enablers in Participatory Environmental Modelling," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-26, February.
    9. Lalani, Baqir & Aminpour, Payam & Gray, Steven & Williams, Meredith & Büchi, Lucie & Haggar, Jeremy & Grabowski, Philip & Dambiro, José, 2021. "Mapping farmer perceptions, Conservation Agriculture practices and on-farm measurements: The role of systems thinking in the process of adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    10. Engler, John-Oliver & von Wehrden, Henrik & Baumgärtner, Stefan, 2019. "Determinants of farm size and stocking rate in Namibian commercial cattle farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 232-246.
    11. Rasch, Sebastian & Heckelei, Thomas & Storm, Hugo & Oomen, Roelof & Naumann, Christiane, 2017. "Multi-scale resilience of a communal rangeland system in South Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 129-138.
    12. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Baret, Philippe V. & Stilmant, Didier, 2014. "A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 1-11.
    13. Vanermen, Iris & Muys, Bart & Verheyen, Kris & Vanwindekens, Frederic & Bouriaud, Laura & Kardol, Paul & Vranken, Liesbet, 2020. "What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    15. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    16. Andersson, Ulf & Dasí, Àngels & Mudambi, Ram & Pedersen, Torben, 2016. "Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 153-162.
    17. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    18. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    19. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.
    20. Can Askan Mavi & Nicolas Quérou, 2020. "Common pool resource management and risk perceptions," DEM Discussion Paper Series 20-25, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:9:p:1383-:d:895775. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.