Abstract
It is generally accepted that farmers manage a complex farm system. In this article we seek answers to the following questions. How do farmers perceive and understand their farm system? Are they sufficiently aware of their farm system that they are able to represent it in the form of a map? The research reported describes how causal mapping was applied to sheep/beef farmers in New Zealand and shows that farmers can create maps of their farm systems in ways that allow expression of both individual maps and the formation of group maps which represent the general character of farm systems. A group map was made for all the farmers studied and for subgroups using conventional, integrated, and organic management systems. The results are discussed in terms of the depth of meaning associated with individual elements of the map, map complexity and the limitations of causal mapping. Causal mapping has the potential to contribute to our knowledge of how farmers see their farm systems, and this can benefit farmers and other stakeholders concerned with the management of farms and their economic and environmental performance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
This is not to say that other factors beyond the farm do not have important direct effects on the farm environment, nor that structural factors, rather than individual factors, do not also play an important part in influencing farm management. These would, of course, take effect through management action.
The causal mapping was one component of work conducted by the Agriculture Research Group On Sustainability (ARGOS) which is investigating the social, environmental, and economic consequences of different management systems in different farming sectors in New Zealand (see www.argos.org.nz). The management systems being studied include conventional management, integrated management (some limitations on inputs in order to meet environmental and marketing goals), and organic management. Thirty-six farms, organized as three panels, are being studied with one panel for each management system within each sector.
This observation suggests that some farmers do not have a mental map of their farming system. However, these farmers were able to draw a map.
Not all of the 12 farmers in each panel were available at the time of interview.
Full reporting of the three panel maps is available in Fairweather et al. (2007).
References
Akimichi, T. 1996. Image and reality at sea: Fish and cognitive mapping in Carolinean navigational knowledge. In Redefining nature: Ecology, culture, and domestication, ed. R. Ellen and K. Fukui, 493–514. Oxford: Berg.
Beus, D.E., and R.E. Dunlap. 1991. Measuring adherence to alternative vs. Conventional agricultural paradigms—a proposed scale. Rural Sociology 56 (3): 432–460.
Botha, C.A.J., and G.A. Verkerk. 2002. Factors influencing inducing decision-making in dairy cows: A case study of scientists’ and producers’ views. 62nd Conference, Massey University, New Zealand, 24–26 June 2002. Proceedings of the New Zealand society of animal production 62: 257–260.
Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bryson, J.M., F. Ackerman, C. Eden, and C. Finn. 2004. Visible thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Chichester: Wiley.
Burgess, G., T. Clark, R. Hauser, and R. Zmud. 1992. The application of causal maps to develop a collective understanding of complex organizational contexts in requirements analysis. Accounting, Management and Information Technology 2 (3): 143–164.
Colfer, C., J. Newton, and B. Herman. 1989. Ethnicity: An important consideration in Indonesian agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 6 (3): 52–67.
Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 2004. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 152: 615–630.
Fairweather, J.R., and H.R. Campbell. 2003. Environmental beliefs and farm practices of New Zealand farmers: Opposing pathways to sustainability. Agriculture and Human Values 20 (3): 287–300.
Fairweather, J., L. Hunt, C. Rosin, H. Campbell, and D. Lucock. 2007. Understanding sheep/beef farm management using causal mapping: Development and application of a two-stage approach. ARGOS research report 07/02. http://www.argos.org.nz/pdf_files/Research_Report_07_02_SB_CausalMap.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.
Feinburg, R., U. Dymon, P. Paiaki, P. Rangituteki, P. Nukuriaki, and M. Rollins. 2003. “Drawing the coral heads”: Mental mapping and its physical representation in a Polynesian community. The Cartographic Journal 40 (3): 243–254.
Hjortso, C.N.S., M. Christensen, and P. Tarp. 2005. Rapid stakeholder and conflict assessment for natural resource management using cognitive mapping: The case of Damdoi Forest Enterprise, Vietnam. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 149–167.
How, A. 2006. Verstehen. In Encyclopedia of social theory, ed. A. Harrington, B. Marshall, and H. Muller, 656–657. London: Routledge.
Kearney, A.R., and S. Kaplan. 1997. Towards the methodology for the measurement of knowledge structures of ordinary people: The conceptual content cognitive map (3CM). Environment and Behaviour 29 (5): 579–618.
Kearney, A.R., G. Bradley, R. Kaplan, and S. Kaplan. 1999. Stakeholder perspectives on appropriate forest management in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Science 45 (1): 62–73.
Krystallis, A., and M. Ness. 2003. Motivational and cognitive structures of Greek consumer in the purchase of quality food products. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 16 (2): 7–36.
Markóczy, L., and J. Goldberg. 1995. A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps. Journal of Management 21 (2): 305–333.
McKenna, J., R. Quinn, D. Donnelly, and J. Cooper. 2008. Accurate mental maps as an aspect of local ecological knowledge (LEK): A case study from Lough Neagh, Northern Ireland. Ecology and Society 13 (1): 13. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss1/art13/. Accessed 20 Aug 2009.
McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Newbury Park: Sage.
Naidoo, G. 2002. The use of information structures at the cognitive level in the daily management of information by small-scale livestock keepers in a village in Mauritius. Paper presented at AMAS 2003, Food and Agricultural Research Council, Reduit, Mauritius, 8–9 May.
Outhwaite, W. 1975. Understanding social life: The method called verstehen. London: Allen and Unwin.
Özesmi, U. 1999. Conservation strategies for sustainable resource use in the Kizilirmak Delta, Turkey. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota.
Özesmi, U., and S.L. Özesmi. 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176: 43–64.
Popper, R., K. Andino, M. Bustamante, B. Hernandez, and L. Rodas. 1996. Knowledge and beliefs regarding agricultural pesticides on rural Guatemala. Environmental Management 20 (2): 241–248.
Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 135–147.
Ritter, E., and D. Dauksta. 2006. Ancient values and contemporary interpretations of European forest culture––reconsidering our understanding of sustainability in forestry. Proceedings of IUFRO 3.08 Conference, Galway, Ireland 18–23 June.
Robbins, P., and R. Kreuger. 2000. Beyond bias? The promise and limits of Q method in Human Geography. Professional Geographer 52 (4): 636–648.
Röling, N. 2009. Pathways for impact: Scientists’ different perspectives on agricultural innovation. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 7 (2): 83–94.
Scavarda, A.J., T. Bouzdine-Chameeva, S.M. Goldstein, J.M. Hays, and A.V. Hill. 2006. A methodology for constructing collective causal maps. Decision Sciences 37 (2): 263–283.
Schoon, B., and R. Te Grotenhuis. 1999. Values of farmers, sustainability, and agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12: 17–24.
Scoones, I., M. Leach, A. Smith, S. Stagl, A. Stirling, and J. Thompson. 2007. Dynamic systems and the challenge of sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 1. Brighton: STEPS Centre.
Shaw, D. 2002. Structuring electronic causal maps during group workshops. Aston Business School. Birmingham: Aston University.
Soini, K. 2001. Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map making. Landscape and Urban Planning 57: 225–239.
Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behaviour: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tikkanen, J., T. Isokaanta, J. Pykalainen, and P. Leskinen. 2006. Applying cognitive mapping approach to explore the objective-structure of forest owners in a northern Finnish case study. Forest Policy and Economics 9 (2): 139–152.
Valentine, I., E. Hurley, and W. Glass. 1993. Goals and management strategies of dairy farmers. Proceedings of the New Zealand society of animal production 53: 111–113.
van der Ploeg, J.D. 2003. The virtual farmer: Past, present, and future of the Dutch peasantry. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Wilson, J. 1995. An Introduction to systems thinking: Changing agriculture, Second edition. Kenthurst: Kangaroo Press.
Woodside, A. 2007. Training exercise in interpreting causal maps in tourism research. International Journal of Culture, Tourism, and Hospitality Research 1: 175–179.
Acknowledgments
The New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science, and Technology provided funding for this research. Dr. Hugh Campbell and Dr. Chris Rosin, CSAFE, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand and Dr. Ika Darnhofer, Department of Economic and Social Sciences, BOKU, University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna, Austria provided helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this article. Dr. Tiffany Rinne, AERU, Lincoln University, provided useful comments on the final draft. Comments from the editor helped to clarify the article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fairweather, J.R., Hunt, L.M. Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand. Agric Hum Values 28, 55–66 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9252-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9252-3