IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i11p1987-d117050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Values-Based Approach to Exploring Synergies between Livestock Farming and Landscape Conservation in Galicia (Spain)

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Swagemakers

    (Department of Applied Economics, Faculty of Business and Tourism, University of Vigo, Campus Universitario As Lagoas s/n, 32004 Ourense, Spain)

  • Maria Dolores Dominguez Garcia

    (Department of Applied Economics IV, Faculty of Social Work, Complutense University of Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, 28223 Pozuelo de Alarcón, Spain)

  • Amanda Onofa Torres

    (Farming Systems Ecology Group, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Henk Oostindie

    (Rural Sociology Group, Department of Social Sciences, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands)

  • Jeroen C. J. Groot

    (Farming Systems Ecology Group, Department of Plant Sciences, Wageningen University & Research, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, 6708 PB Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The path to sustainable development involves creating coherence and synergies in the complex relationships between economic and ecological systems. In sustaining their farm businesses farmers’ differing values influence their decisions about agroecosystem management, leading them to adopt diverging farming practices. This study explores the values of dairy and beef cattle farmers, the assumptions that underpin them, and the various ways that these lead farmers to combine food production with the provision of other ecosystem services, such as landscape conservation and biodiversity preservation. This paper draws on empirical research from Galicia (Spain), a marginal and mountainous European region whose livestock production system has undergone modernization in recent decades, exposing strategic economic, social and ecological vulnerabilities. It applies a Q-methodology to develop a values-based approach to farming. Based on a sample of 24 livestock farmers, whose practices promote landscape conservation and/or biodiversity preservation, the Q-methodology allowed us to identify four ‘farming styles’. Further analysis of the practices of the farmers in these groups, based on additional farm data and interview material, suggests that all 24 farmers valorize landscape and nature and consider cattle production and nature conservation to be compatible within their own farm practices. However, the groups differed in the extent to which they have developed synergies between livestock farming and landscape conservation. We conclude by discussing how rural development policy in Galicia could strengthen such practices by providing incentives to farmers and institutionally embedding a shift towards more diversified farming and product development.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Swagemakers & Maria Dolores Dominguez Garcia & Amanda Onofa Torres & Henk Oostindie & Jeroen C. J. Groot, 2017. "A Values-Based Approach to Exploring Synergies between Livestock Farming and Landscape Conservation in Galicia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1987-:d:117050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1987/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/11/1987/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gianluca Brunori & Francesca Galli & Dominique Barjolle & Rudolf Van Broekhuizen & Luca Colombo & Mario Giampietro & James Kirwan & Tim Lang & Erik Mathijs & Damian Maye & Kees De Roest & Carin Rougoo, 2016. "Are Local Food Chains More Sustainable than Global Food Chains? Considerations for Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-27, May.
    2. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    3. Gianluca Brunori & Francesca Galli, 2016. "Sustainability of Local and Global Food Chains: Introduction to the Special Issue," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-7, August.
    4. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    5. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    6. Fairweather, John R. & Keating, Norah C., 1994. "Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 44(2), pages 181-200.
    7. Andy Pike & Andres Rodriguez-Pose & John Tomaney, 2007. "What Kind of Local and Regional Development and for Whom?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(9), pages 1253-1269.
    8. Bolund, Per & Hunhammar, Sven, 1999. "Ecosystem services in urban areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 293-301, May.
    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. Romero-Castro, N. & López-Cabarcos, M.A. & Piñeiro-Chousa, J., 2023. "Finance, technology, and values: A configurational approach to the analysis of rural entrepreneurship," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    2. Ibán Vázquez-González & María do Mar Pérez-Fra & Ana Isabel García-Arias & Bernardo Valdês-Paços & Edelmiro López-Iglesias, 2021. "Rendered Agroecosystem Services and Dysservices of Dairy Farming: A Bottom-Up Approach in Galicia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    3. Paul Swagemakers & Maria Dolores Dominguez Garcia & Johannes S. C. Wiskerke, 2018. "Socially-Inclusive Development and Value Creation: How a Composting Project in Galicia (Spain) ‘Hit the Rocks’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    5. Pogue, Sarah J. & Kröbel, Roland & Janzen, H. Henry & Alemu, Aklilu W. & Beauchemin, Karen A. & Little, Shannan & Iravani, Majid & de Souza, Danielle Maia & McAllister, Tim A., 2020. "A social-ecological systems approach for the assessment of ecosystem services from beef production in the Canadian prairie," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    6. Raquel Fernández-González & Félix Puíme-Guillén & Mirela Panait, 2022. "A case study of agri-food systems in rural Spain: Impacts, responses and institutional lessons," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(5), pages 159-170.

    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. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    2. Hu, Yun-fei & You, Fei & Luo, Qi-you, 2018. "Characterizing the attitudes of the grain-planting farmers of Huaihe Basin, China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 224-234.
    3. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    4. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    5. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    6. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Ana Moragues-Faus & Alizée Marceau, 2018. "Measuring Progress in Sustainable Food Cities: An Indicators Toolbox for Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    8. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    9. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    10. Zardo, L. & Geneletti, D. & Pérez-Soba, M. & Van Eupen, M., 2017. "Estimating the cooling capacity of green infrastructures to support urban planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 225-235.
    11. McInnes, R.J. & Everard, M., 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Wetland Ecosystem Services (RAWES): An example from Colombo, Sri Lanka," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 89-105.
    12. Dickinson, Dawn C. & Hobbs, Richard J., 2017. "Cultural ecosystem services: Characteristics, challenges and lessons for urban green space research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 179-194.
    13. Ira R. Cooke & Elizabeth H. A. Mattison & Eric Audsley & Alison P. Bailey & Robert P. Freckleton & Anil R. Graves & Joe Morris & Simon A. Queenborough & Daniel L. Sandars & Gavin M. Siriwardena & Paul, 2013. "Empirical Test of an Agricultural Landscape Model," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(2), pages 21582440134, April.
    14. Sha Chen & Guan Li & Zhongguo Xu & Yuefei Zhuo & Cifang Wu & Yanmei Ye, 2019. "Combined Impact of Socioeconomic Forces and Policy Implications: Spatial-Temporal Dynamics of the Ecosystem Services Value in Yangtze River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-22, May.
    15. Pereira, Mariana A. & Fairweather, John R. & Woodford, Keith B. & Nuthall, Peter L., 2016. "Assessing the diversity of values and goals amongst Brazilian commercial-scale progressive beef farmers using Q-methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-8.
    16. Hugo F. Alrøe & Marion Sautier & Katharine Legun & Jay Whitehead & Egon Noe & Henrik Moller & Jon Manhire, 2017. "Performance versus Values in Sustainability Transformation of Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-31, February.
    17. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    18. Danley, Brian & Widmark, Camilla, 2016. "Evaluating conceptual definitions of ecosystem services and their implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 132-138.
    19. Góngora, R. & Milán, M.J. & López-i-Gelats, F., 2019. "Pathways of incorporation of young farmers into livestock farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 183-194.
    20. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.

    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:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:11:p:1987-:d:117050. 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.