IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/asxr2.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Castilla-Rho, Juan
  • Kenny, Daniel

Abstract

Regenerative agricultural methods (RegenAg) can help farmers attune their agricultural practices to the natural design of earth’s cycles and support systems. Their adoption hinges not only on a good understanding of biophysical processes but perhaps more importantly on farmers’ values and beliefs, which can become an obstacle for triggering widespread transitions towards synergistic relationships with the land. We conducted a Participatory Modelling exercise with RegenAg stakeholders in Australia—the aim was to provide a blueprint of how challenges and opportunities could be explored in alignment with stakeholders' personal views and perspectives. A participatory Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping exercise was undertaken to unpack stakeholder perspectives into a formal representation or ‘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. To promote a better understanding and internalization of the outcomes of the engagement, we extracted the dominant narratives which encode the key drivers and pain points in the system. The process relied on a suite of innovative virtual delivery methods that were designed to conduct the stakeholder engagement under COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. For the first time, our Participatory Modelling exercise reveals 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 national economies, to bring balancing relationships to 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 adoption of RegenAg in Australia, but more broadly for governments and agriculturalists seeking to take a behaviorally-attuned stance to engage with farmers on issues of sustainable and resilient agriculture.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:asxr2
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/asxr2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/6253b33e840dd725e35c8a0b/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/asxr2?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
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    4. Ison, R. L. & Maiteny, P. T. & Carr, S., 1997. "Systems methodologies for sustainable natural resources research and development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 257-272, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Levine, Jordan & Chan, Kai M.A. & Satterfield, Terre, 2015. "From rational actor to efficient complexity manager: Exorcising the ghost of Homo economicus with a unified synthesis of cognition research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 22-32.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Herbert A. Simon, 1955. "A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 69(1), pages 99-118.
    13. Bent Erik Bakken, 2019. "Energy transition dynamics: Does participatory modelling contribute to alignment among differing future world views?," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 184-196, March.
    14. Juan Carlos Castilla-Rho & Rodrigo Rojas & Martin S. Andersen & Cameron Holley & Gregoire Mariethoz, 2017. "Social tipping points in global groundwater management," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(9), pages 640-649, September.
    15. 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.
    16. Michael A. Levy & Mark N. Lubell & Neil McRoberts, 2018. "The structure of mental models of sustainable agriculture," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(8), pages 413-420, August.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    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. 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.
    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. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Moshe Farjoun & Christopher Ansell & Arjen Boin, 2015. "PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 1787-1804, December.
    10. Luciana D’Adderio, 2014. "The Replication Dilemma Unravelled: How Organizations Enact Multiple Goals in Routine Transfer," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1325-1350, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.
    13. Chelsie Romulo & Bhawani Venkataraman & Susan Caplow & Shamili Ajgaonkar & Craig R. Allen & Aavudai Anandhi & Steven W. Anderson & Caterina Belle Azzarello & Katja Brundiers & Eunice Blavascunas & Jen, 2024. "Implementing interdisciplinary sustainability education with the food-energy-water (FEW) nexus," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Fabian Weckesser & Michael Beck & Kurt-Jürgen Hülsbergen & Sebastian Peisl, 2022. "A Digital Advisor Twin for Crop Nitrogen Management," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-22, February.
    16. Brunswicker, Sabine & Schecter, Aaron, 2019. "Coherence or flexibility? The paradox of change for developers’ digital innovation trajectory on open platforms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    17. Dominik Dellermann & Nikolaus Lipusch & Philipp Ebel & Jan Marco Leimeister, 2019. "Design principles for a hybrid intelligence decision support system for business model validation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 29(3), pages 423-441, September.
    18. 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.
    19. Felipe A. Csaszar & Harsh Ketkar & Hyunjin Kim, 2024. "Artificial Intelligence and Strategic Decision-Making: Evidence from Entrepreneurs and Investors," Papers 2408.08811, arXiv.org.
    20. Kieran M. Findlater & Terre Satterfield & Milind Kandlikar, 2019. "Farmers’ Risk‐Based Decision Making Under Pervasive Uncertainty: Cognitive Thresholds and Hazy Hedging," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(8), pages 1755-1770, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:osfxxx:asxr2. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    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.