IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i4d10.1007_s10460-023-10443-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers` agonistic conflict frames regarding river restoration disputes

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Fickel

    (ISOE – Institute for Social-Ecological Research, Biodiversity and People
    Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre SBiK-F, Ecosystem Services and Climate)

Abstract

Missing cooperation between farmers and nature conservationists is an obstacle to conflictive social-ecological transformation processes of agro-systems in Germany. Conflict psychology research shows that agonistic conflict frames play a crucial role in the parties’ response to and perception of conflicts. However, the role of conflict frames regarding farmers’ response to conservation conflicts in Germany, which are a recurrent expression of social-ecological transformation, is yet unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we investigate whether farmers have different agonistic conflict frames and whether these are related to their perceptions of specific conflicts. To answer these questions, we developed a cluster analysis of farmers’ attitudes towards conflicts over river restoration in order to find indications for different conflict frames. We used data from a telephone survey from 2021 that was conducted with 300 farmers on the topic of river restoration conflicts. We captured conflict frames using four categories: rejection of others’ attitudes, perceived threat, perceived integrated potential, and delegitimization. In the second and third steps, we looked for differences between the groups with regard to the perception of concrete conflict and economic factors. The results of this explorative study show that it is possible to distinguish six agonistic conflict frames within the four categories. Moreover, the six groups show differences in how they perceive a concrete river restoration conflict. In five out of six groups, the perceived threat is indicated as high. The findings show that farmers have different perspectives on the conflict, indicating possible differences in needs and differences regarding the openness to communicative strategies. The groups differ in their concrete conflict perception, and only weak characterization with regard to the economic situation could be found. This knowledge can help policymakers and practitioners find practical and communicative strategies that constructively address farmers' different conflict frames.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Fickel, 2023. "Farmers` agonistic conflict frames regarding river restoration disputes," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(4), pages 1653-1673, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10443-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Evy Mettepenningen & Ann Verspecht & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. "Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 649-667.
    2. 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.
    3. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Daphna Canetti & Ibrahim Khatib & Aviad Rubin & Carly Wayne, 2019. "Framing and fighting: The impact of conflict frames on political attitudes," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 56(6), pages 737-752, November.
    5. 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).
    6. Sebastian Seibold & Martin M. Gossner & Nadja K. Simons & Nico Blüthgen & Jörg Müller & Didem Ambarlı & Christian Ammer & Jürgen Bauhus & Markus Fischer & Jan C. Habel & Karl Eduard Linsenmair & Thoma, 2019. "Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers," Nature, Nature, vol. 574(7780), pages 671-674, October.
    7. Henning Best, 2009. "Organic Farming as a Rational Choice," Rationality and Society, , vol. 21(2), pages 197-224, May.
    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. Hao, Zhengzheng & Sturm, Astrid & Wätzold, Frank, 2020. "A novel spatially explicit hydro-economic modelling procedure to design cost-effective agri-environment schemes for mitigating nitrogen and phosphorus from agricultural land," MPRA Paper 102860, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    4. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    5. Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori & Laura Fastelli & Massimo Rovai, 2013. "Understanding the participation in agri-environmental schemes: evidence from Tuscany Region," ERSA conference papers ersa13p1084, European Regional Science Association.
    6. Latruffe , Laure & Piet, Laurent & Dupraz, Pierre & Le Mouël, Chantal, 2013. "Influence of Agricultural Support on Sale Prices of French Farmland: A comparison of different subsidies, accounting for the role of environmental and land regulations," Factor Markets Working Papers 163, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    7. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni, 2020. "Decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1502-1530.
    8. Osgathorpe, Lynne M. & Park, Kirsty & Goulson, Dave & Acs, Szvetlana & Hanley, Nick, 2011. "The trade-off between agriculture and biodiversity in marginal areas: Can crofting and bumblebee conservation be reconciled?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1162-1169, April.
    9. Jane Mills & Hannah Chiswell & Peter Gaskell & Paul Courtney & Beth Brockett & George Cusworth & Matt Lobley, 2021. "Developing Farm-Level Social Indicators for Agri-Environment Schemes: A Focus on the Agents of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.
    10. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    11. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    12. Felix Neff & Fränzi Korner-Nievergelt & Emmanuel Rey & Matthias Albrecht & Kurt Bollmann & Fabian Cahenzli & Yannick Chittaro & Martin M. Gossner & Carlos Martínez-Núñez & Eliane S. Meier & Christian , 2022. "Different roles of concurring climate and regional land-use changes in past 40 years’ insect trends," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-12, December.
    13. Christine Léger-Bosch, 2019. "Farmland tenure and transaction costs: Public and collectively owned land vs conventional coordination mechanisms in France [Régime de tenure foncière et coûts de transaction: terres publiques et c," Post-Print hal-02573765, HAL.
    14. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Assessing the performance of agglomeration bonus in budget-constrained conservation auctions," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334544, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    15. Preinfalk, Eva & Bednar-Friedl, Birgit & Mayer, Jakob & Lauk, Christian & Mayer, Andreas, 2024. "Sustainability transitions in the agri-food system: Evaluating mitigation potentials, economy-wide effects, co-benefits and trade-offs for the case of Austria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 226(C).
    16. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    17. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    18. Gerling, Charlotte & Wätzold, Frank, 2019. "Evaluating policy instruments for the conservation of biodiversity in a changing climate," MPRA Paper 95512, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Kuhfuss, Laure & Jacquet, Florence & Preget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 93(04), pages 395-422, December.
    20. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:4:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10443-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.