IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v9y2020i10p356-d420358.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Kpienbaareh

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Western University, Social Science Centre, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada)

  • Rachel Bezner Kerr

    (Department of Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA)

  • Isaac Luginaah

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Western University, Social Science Centre, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada)

  • Jinfei Wang

    (Department of Geography and Environment, Western University, Social Science Centre, London, ON N6A 5C2, Canada)

  • Esther Lupafya

    (Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC), P.O. Box 36 Ekwendeni, Malawi)

  • Laifolo Dakishoni

    (Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC), P.O. Box 36 Ekwendeni, Malawi)

  • Lizzie Shumba

    (Soils, Food and Healthy Communities (SFHC), P.O. Box 36 Ekwendeni, Malawi)

Abstract

Amid climate change, biodiversity loss and food insecurity, there is the growing need to draw synergies between micro-scale environmental processes and practices, and macro-level ecosystem dynamics to facilitate conservation decision-making. Adopting this synergistic approach can improve crop yields and profitability more sustainably, enhance livelihoods and mitigate climate change. Using spatially explicit data generated through a public participatory geographic information system methodology ( n = 37), complemented by spatial analysis, interviews ( n = 68) and focus group discussions ( n = 4), we explored the synergies between participatory farmer-to-farmer agroecology knowledge sharing, farm-level decisions and their links with macro-level prioritization of conservation strategies. We mapped farm conditions and ecosystem services (ES) of two village areas with varying knowledge systems about farming. Results of the farm-level analysis revealed variations in spatial perception among farmers, differences in understanding the dynamics of crop growth and varying priorities for extension services based on agroecological knowledge. The ES use pattern analysis revealed hotspots in the mapped ES indicators with similarities in both village areas. Despite the similarities in ES use, priorities for biodiversity conservation align with farmers’ understanding of farm processes and practices. Farmers with training in agroecology prioritized strategies that are ecologically friendly while farmers with no agroecology training prioritized the use of strict regulations. Importantly, the results show that agroecology can potentially contribute to biodiversity conservation and food security, with climate change mitigation co-benefits. The findings generally contribute to debates on land sparing and land sharing conservation strategies and advance social learning theory as it pertains to acquiring agroecological knowledge for improved yield and a sustainable environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Kpienbaareh & Rachel Bezner Kerr & Isaac Luginaah & Jinfei Wang & Esther Lupafya & Laifolo Dakishoni & Lizzie Shumba, 2020. "Spatial and Ecological Farmer Knowledge and Decision-Making about Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:9:y:2020:i:10:p:356-:d:420358
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/356/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/9/10/356/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Darvill, Rachel & Lindo, Zoë, 2015. "Quantifying and mapping ecosystem service use across stakeholder groups: Implications for conservation with priorities for cultural values," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 153-161.
    2. Wolf, Isabelle D. & Wohlfart, Teresa & Brown, Greg & Bartolomé Lasa, Abraham, 2015. "The use of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for park visitor management: A case study of mountain biking," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 112-130.
    3. Cristiana Peano & Stefano Massaglia & Chiara Ghisalberti & Francesco Sottile, 2020. "Pathways for the Amplification of Agroecology in African Sustainable Urban Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Puppim de Oliveira, Jose A. & Fra.Paleo, Urbano, 2016. "Lost in participation: How local knowledge was overlooked in land use planning and risk governance in Tōhoku, Japan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 543-551.
    5. M. Muro & P. Jeffrey, 2008. "A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(3), pages 325-344.
    6. Zulu, Leo Charles, 2010. "The forbidden fuel: Charcoal, urban woodfuel demand and supply dynamics, community forest management and woodfuel policy in Malawi," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3717-3730, July.
    7. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    8. Jennifer Schneiderhan-Opel & Franz X. Bogner, 2020. "The Relation between Knowledge Acquisition and Environmental Values within the Scope of a Biodiversity Learning Module," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-19, March.
    9. Bruna De Marchi, 2003. "Public participation and risk governance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 171-176, June.
    10. Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    11. Franks, Jeremy R., 2019. "An assessment of the landscape-scale dimensions of land based environmental management schemes offered to farmers in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-159.
    12. Thomas, Emma & Riley, Mark & Spees, Jack, 2020. "Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    13. Ramirez-Gomez, Sara O.I. & Torres-Vitolas, Carlos A. & Schreckenberg, Kate & Honzák, Miroslav & Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Willcock, Simon & Palacios, Erwin & Pérez-Miñana, Elena & Verweij, Pita A. , 2015. "Analysis of ecosystem services provision in the Colombian Amazon using participatory research and mapping techniques," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 93-107.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel Kpienbaareh & Evans Sumabe Batung & Isaac Luginaah, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Change of Land Cover in Protected Areas in Malawi: Implications for Conservation Management," Geographies, MDPI, vol. 2(1), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Kansanga, Moses Mosonsieyiri & Kangmennaang, Joseph & Bezner Kerr, Rachel & Lupafya, Esther & Dakishoni, Laifolo & Luginaah, Isaac, 2021. "Agroecology and household production diversity and dietary diversity: Evidence from a five-year agroecological intervention in rural Malawi," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 288(C).
    3. Ľuboš Slovák & Jan Daněk & Tomáš Daněk, 2023. "The use of focus groups in cultural ecosystem services research: a systematic review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    4. Kansanga, Moses Mosonsieyiri & Bezner Kerr, Rachel & Lupafya, Esther & Dakishoni, Laifolo & Luginaah, Isaac, 2021. "Does participatory farmer-to-farmer training improve the adoption of sustainable land management practices?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Evans Sumabe Batung & Kamaldeen Mohammed & Moses Mosonsieyiri Kansanga & Hanson Nyantakyi-Frimpong & Isaac Luginaah, 2023. "Credit access and perceived climate change resilience of smallholder farmers in semi-arid northern Ghana," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 321-350, January.

    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. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Chen, Chundi & Wang, Yuncai & Jia, Junsong & Mao, Longfei & Meurk, Colin D., 2019. "Ecosystem services mapping in practice: A Pasteur’s quadrant perspective," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    3. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    4. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    5. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Franks, Jeremy R., 2019. "An assessment of the landscape-scale dimensions of land based environmental management schemes offered to farmers in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-159.
    7. Miroslav Kopáček, 2021. "Land-Use Planning and the Public: Is There an Optimal Degree of Civic Participation?," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    8. Thomas, Emma & Riley, Mark & Spees, Jack, 2020. "Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming’," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    9. Prager, Katrin, 2022. "Implementing policy interventions to support farmer cooperation for environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    10. Broadmeadow, Samantha & Nisbet, Tom & Palmer, Robert & Webb, Louise & Short, Chris & Chivers, Charlotte-Anne & Hammond, John & Lukac, Martin & Miller, Anne & Gantlett, Richard & Clark, Joanna, 2023. "Incorporating technical and farmer knowledge to improve land use and management for natural flood management in lowland catchments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    11. Kusi, Kwadwo Kyenkyehene & Khattabi, Abdellatif & Mhammdi, Nadia & Lahssini, Said, 2020. "Prospective evaluation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services in the Ourika watershed, Morocco," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    12. Juita-Elena (Wie) Yusuf & Burton St. John & Pragati Rawat & Michelle Covi & Janet Gail Nicula & Carol Considine, 2019. "The Action-oriented Stakeholder Engagement for a Resilient Tomorrow (ASERT) framework: an effective, field-tested approach for engaging stakeholders," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 409-418, December.
    13. Gunther Bensch & Jörg Peters, 2013. "Alleviating Deforestation Pressures? Impacts of Improved Stove Dissemination on Charcoal Consumption in Urban Senegal," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 89(4), pages 676-698.
    14. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Rebecca Page & Lisa Dilling, 2020. "How experiences of climate extremes motivate adaptation among water managers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 499-516, August.
    16. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. Arki, Vesa & Koskikala, Joni & Fagerholm, Nora & Kisanga, Danielson & Käyhkö, Niina, 2020. "Associations between local land use/land cover and place-based landscape service patterns in rural Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    18. Matthias Bürgi & Panna Ali & Afroza Chowdhury & Andreas Heinimann & Cornelia Hett & Felix Kienast & Manoranjan Kumar Mondal & Bishnu Raj Upreti & Peter H. Verburg, 2017. "Integrated Landscape Approach: Closing the Gap between Theory and Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, August.
    19. Joop de Kraker & Astrid Offermans & Merel M. van der Wal, 2021. "Game-Based Social Learning for Socially Sustainable Water Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, April.
    20. Maes, Wouter H. & Verbist, Bruno, 2012. "Increasing the sustainability of household cooking in developing countries: Policy implications," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4204-4221.

    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:9:y:2020:i:10:p:356-:d:420358. 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.