Turning Farmers into Conservationists? Progress and Prospects

Turning Farmers into Conservationists? Progress andProspects

Mark Riley*Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth

Abstract

Agri-Environment Schemes (AESs) are seen as important instruments in the delivery of sustainablecountryside management. Central to the success of AESs are farmer participation and engagement.Social scientists, and geographers in particular, have now paid significant attention to these themesand this paper seeks to survey some key developments within this work. The paper begins byreflecting on the key themes emerging from AES ‘adoption’ research, and then discusses a recentstrand of AES research which has paid specific attention to the ways that farmers socially constructtheir environments and identities. The paper then considers whether, after several decades inplace, there is evidence from the extant literature that AESs are serving to change famer attitudesand farming cultures. Finally, the article concludes by sketching out potentially fruitful avenues forfuture farmer–AES research.

Introduction

For some time now, farmers have been referred to as protectors and ‘stewards of thecountryside’ (DEFRA 2004, 23) – a position officially cemented in the reforms of theCommon Agricultural Policy in the 1990s. Several EU regulations, most notably797 ⁄85 ⁄EEC and 20798 ⁄92 ⁄ EEC, laid the foundations for agri-environmental measuresaimed at environmental protection and Agri-Environment Schemes (hereafter AESs) havebecome seen as central instruments for the delivery of more sustainable management ofthe countryside.1 The UKs flagship ‘Environmental Stewardship Scheme’, which super-seded the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme (ESA) and Countryside StewardshipScheme (CSS) in 2005, covered close to 60% of utilisable agricultural area at the end ofJanuary 2010 (Natural England 2010) and the importance of AESs at the EU level isreflected in a rapidly increasing spend from the mid-1990s, with 6.8 billion euros of theEUs 2007–2013 budget needed to fund this (Espinosa-Goded et al. 2010).2

Following a critical analysis of policy design (Hodge and Mcnally 1998; Potter 1988),there has been some considerable debate about the successfulness of the AESs, with eco-logical (Kleijn et al. 2004), economic (Stewart et al. 1997) and more multi-disciplinaryapproaches (Carey et al. 2003) taken to the question. Although there remains disagree-ment on how effective schemes are and whether, and how, success can be measured,there is agreement that farmers, as owners and managers of land, have a central role toplay.3 Indeed it has been suggested that in the absence of consensus on how to quantifyand measure this, farmer participation has been taken as a proxy for scheme success (Wil-son and Hart 2000). Understanding farmers’ participation in AESs is therefore a crucialaspect of environmental management and, as a result, geographers and other social scien-tists have had a central role to play in investigating this. Whilst work from an economicperspective has investigated the ‘provider gets’ principle which underpins AESs (Hanley

Geography Compass 5/6 (2011): 369–389, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00423.x

ª 2011 The AuthorGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

et al. 1998) – whereby farmers are financially recompensed for ‘environmentally friendly’practices and that such financial incentives can serve to modify behaviours – Wilson(2008, 369) has argued that viewing farmers as ‘rational’ homo economicus elides severalimportant social and cultural factors which may also impact significantly on farmers agri-environmental activities. In their landmark paper, Morris and Potter (1995) suggested athree phase (pilot, consolidation and mature) research trajectory (Figure 1) in relation tofarmers and AESs. The pilot phase of this research focussed on quantifying schemeuptake, whilst the consolidation phase involved profiling scheme participants ⁄non-partici-pants, and more recent mature phase research has centred on the more explicit and in-depth understandings of attitudes, motivations and actions of these groups (Morris andPotter 1995, 54). A considerable literature has now emerged within the latter phases oftheir spectrum, varying in scale of enquiry from that focussing on local, through to thoseconsidering national schemes (Fish et al. 2003; Lobley and Potter 1998), pan-Europeancomparisons (Siebert et al. 2006) and international variations (Robinson 2006; Wilson2007). The following paper seeks to survey these contributions to understanding farmer–AES relations.4 Following a brief discussion of the consolidation phase research that con-siders ‘resistance’ factors and barriers to AES participation, the paper explores the recentlyemerging tranche of mature phase research considering the relevance of how farmers‘make sense of, and socially construct their environments and identities’ (Tsouvalis et al.2000, 913) to farmer–AES research. The paper then reflects on the important maturephase question of whether AESs and AES participation – of which we have now had sev-eral decades – has served to change attitudes towards conservation, before concludingwith some suggestions for future research.

Stages in thedevelopmentof policy

Pilot Consolidation Mature

Maximising experimental value of schemes - raising participation

rates within target population

- monitoring relationship between payment rates and scheme conditions and pattern and rate of participation

Adjusting and refining scheme design and targeting to ensure maximum environmental value for money

Further extending participation by improving delivery and removing barriers to enrolment

Maximising additionality effect

Safeguarding and sustainingenvironmental benefitsproduced

Inculcating a stewardshipmentality

Creating a countryside management sector

Policypriorities

Quantifying: numbers of farmers participating

Levels of uptake over time

Amount of land entered (proportion of holding -whole/part/farm)

Profiles and comparisons of adopters and non-adopters

Identification of 'resistance' factors and barriers to entry

Motives and outlook of adopters and non-adopters

Evidence of attitudinal shifts and increasing commitment

Researchpriorities

Fig. 1. The coevolving Agri-Environment Scheme (AES) policy and research priorities identified by Morris and Potter(1995).

370 Turning farmers into conservationists

ª 2011 The Author Geography Compass 5/6 (2011): 369–389, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00423.xGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

Studying AES Participation

Although farmland conservation had not been completely absent from social scientificresearch prior to the 1980s,5 the introduction of AESs brought forward more systematicanalyses of participation. Early research in this area considered the interrelation betweenfarmers’ willingness and ability to participate (Potter and Gasson 1988), but as Siebertet al. (2006, 319) observe ‘the reality of conservation … is a much more complex setof issues’. The now voluminous literature in this area has served to highlight the multi-plicity of factors thought to influence AES [non]participation, which Wynn et al.(2001) categorise into: (i) physical farm factors, (ii) farmer characteristics, (iii) businessfactors and (iv) situational factors.6 Table 1 serves as an illustration, although notexhaustive account, of the range of these factors, and whilst space precludes an exten-sive review here (see Siebert et al. 2006; Wynn et al. 2001) several conclusions can bedrawn from the research.

A common finding throughout much of the literature summarised in Table 1 is thateconomic reasons, rather than a conservation ethos per se, are reported as a predominantfactor in willingness to participate (Wilson and Hart 2000). Importantly, however, Siebertet al. (2006, 327) note that ‘although economic reasons are almost always brought up ininterviews, they are accompanied by other reasons and explanations’. Lobley and Potter(1998) extended this observation, through comparing ESA and CSS participation, toshow that the balance between financial and conservation orientations may vary betweenAESs. Furthermore, Siebert et al. (2006) show that the lure of financial payments is notjust the result of a desire for profit maximisation, but also relates to risk minimisation andlonger-term financial viability.

A second contribution of social scientists to this literature has been in articulatingthe geographies of AESs. International (Robinson 2006) as well as national (Evans andMorris 1997; Lobley and Potter 1998) differences have been observed in the emphasesof different AESs, whilst at the macro-level greater adoption rates have been observedin more marginal areas of extensive land use (Buller 2000). At the farm-level it iswidely accepted that farmers hold very different attitudes towards different habitatsand species across their farms (Dutton et al. 2008) and may be constrained in theiractions by their social and economic circumstances. Whilst there may be a willingnessto conserve ‘non-productive’ habitats (Battershill and Gilg 1996b), those habitats thatrequire more active managements are often a less attractive conservation option (Riley2005, 2006) – resulting in what Wilson (1997a,b) and Robinson (2005) have termeda ‘halo effect’.

Farmers’ social and cultural contexts have been seen to be vital (Burton et al. 2008;Fish et al. 2003). As Wilson (2001, 86) has noted, the preoccupation with political econ-omy approaches, which put greater emphasis on state and policies, means that: ‘the farm-ing community has often been viewed as responding almost entirely to outside forces,with little acknowledgement of possible changes from within’. Social science research hasgone some way towards highlighting that AES participation cannot be viewed as eitherstatic nor reducible to single factors, but results from a complex interplay of individualcharacteristics and wider social and cultural contexts (Siebert et al. 2006, 334). The‘cultural turn’, as will be seen in the next section of the paper, has further informed thisargument, shifting the debate away from realist perspectives on the environment to:‘explore cultures of nature(s); the spatially and temporally contingent ways in whichpeople come to understand and apply meaning to nature and the environment’ (Morrisand Evans 2004, 102).

Turning farmers into conservationists 371


Table 1. Factors impacting on AES participation.

Physical farm FactorsFarm size Larger farm size related to higher participation rates (Ilbery and Bowler 1993);

contrasting evidence that farm size is not an important variable inparticipation (Wossink and Van Wenum 2003), and may negatively effectspecific biodiversity schemes (Siebert et al. 2006). Larger farms often havemore areas of extensively managed land suitable for conservation and may havegreater financial flexibility to enter AESs (Wilson 1997a,b) and may be morewilling to change crop practices and land use (Damianos and Giannakopoulos2002)

Eligibility Participation strongly related to the amount and availability of habitats suitablefor conservation (Wilson 1997a, b), with this availability often shaped byhistorical management of these habitats (Riley 2006; Sinclair 1983)

Farm type Different farm types impact differently on wildlife resources (Webster and Felton1993). Dairy and arable farms often found to have less features of conservationvalue (Morris and Young 1997); greater willingness to conserve ‘non-productive’habitats (Battershill and Gilg 1996a,b; Macdonald and Johnson 2000; Morriset al. 2000)

Farm labour Lack of available farm labour may preclude participation (Battershill and Gilg1996a,b). Scheme participation seen to increase reliance on contract labour(Lobley and Potter 1998)

Farmer characteristicsFarmer age Younger farmers more predisposed to environmentally friendly practices (Ellis

et al. 1999), risk taking (Ilbery and Bowler 1993) and thus participating in AESs(Mathijs 2003; Wilson and Hart 2000; Wynn et al. 2001). Presence of successorspositively affects decision to enter AESs where emphasis is on ‘extensification’(Brotherton 1991; Drake et al. 1999; Potter and Lobley 1992), but may benegative where ‘active’ and ongoing management is required (Riley 2006).Contrasting evidence to suggest age or succession where not significantlyrelevant to participation (ADAS 1996)

Education Those with more formal education are more likely to be aware of theenvironmental consequences of their farming practices (Ellis et al. 1999);positive correlation between education attainment levels and participation(Drake et al. 1999; Wilson and Hart 2000), part of which relates to farmers’ability to fully interpret AES literature and scheme prescriptions (Dupraz et al.2003)

Health issues Scheme administration found to be too much for those with ill-health(Hounsome et al. 2006); new scheme participation strongly associatedwith farmer stress (Mcgregor et al. 1995); correlation found betweenpoor mental health of farmers and non-adoption of AESs (Hounsome et al.2006)

Reduction of freedom Lack of participation amongst farmers who believe measures will reduce theirfreedoms and agency (discussed by many, but see Burton et al. 2008;Fish et al. 2003; Nordstrom Kallstrom and Ljung 2005)

Scheme factorsVoluntary nature of schemes impacts on participation (Baldock et al 1990);payment rates may impact on participation (Brotherton 1989); no correlationfound between payments and attitudes to ‘remnant’ habitats (Wilson 1996);scheme duration – including time lags in scheme renewal – impact on thenature and extend of participation (Wilson 1997a); severity of change toexisting management (see also cross-compliance below) (Brotherton 1989;Wilson 1997b)



Seeing the Same Places Differently – A Turn to Knowledge(s)

The tendency, in some branches of AES research, to conceptualise AES adoption in thesame way as the adoption of agricultural technologies, arguably casts farmers as recipientsof practices and knowledge generated elsewhere and thus fails to:

make connections between the knowledge of farmers and the development of agricultural prac-tices … and as a consequence the epistemological bases of diverse worldviews and the processesthrough which farm organisation is preformed or enacted as specific manifestations of knowl-edge are not illuminated(Raedeke and Sanford Rikoon 1997, 146)

Although such knowledge had been implicitly discussed within attitudinal research, the1990s – reflecting a general interest within geography and the social sciences (see Tovey2008) – saw more specific attention to themes of knowledge within agri-environmentalresearch. Taking heed from both development studies and the Sociology of ScientificKnowledge, which sought to problematise the hegemony of scientific ⁄ expert knowledge(see Kloppenberg 1991) and explore the ‘dialogical interpretation of different accounts ofreality’ (Long and Long 1992, 269), AES research paid greater attention to the contestedmeaning of the natural world and applied to the discussion of AESs the growing recogni-tion that ‘nature’ and ‘society’ need not necessarily be seen an ontologically distinct.7

Mceachern’s (1992) ethnographic study explored how farmers and conservationists dif-ferently construct the environment and environmental management. In particular, it wasobserved how farmers were able to discursively place themselves as ‘creators of the

Table 1. (Continued)

Farm business factorsTenure Occupancy change, or predicted occupancy change in future, may influence

non-participation (Marsden and Munton 1991); contrary evidence of nostatistical significance between tenure status and participation (Wilson1997a,b); evidence that farmers may display different conservation behavioursto owned and rented land (Riley 2006; Walford 2002), with payment of rentacting as a stimulus to production rather than conservation (Westmacott andWorthington 1997)

Other gainful activities Adhering to AES prescriptions may interfere with off-farm employmentopportunities (Jongeneel et al. 2008) and extent to which farmers rely onfarm for income shapes participation (Wilson 1997a,b; Wossink and VanWenum 2003)

Cross-compliance Conflict of AES prescriptions with: production (discussed by many authors – seeWilson and Hart (2000) for an interesting discussion), and pollution (Loweet al. 1997)

Situational factorsFarmer–advisorrelations

Negotiation between ‘scheme officials’ and farmers significant within thedecision to participate – both positively (Drake et al. 1999; Wynn et al. 2001)negatively (Harrison et al. 1998) – and farmers’ application and post-agreement experiences (Morris 2004, 2006); advice from other ‘experts’outside scheme officials also important (Curry 1997; Juntti and Potter 2002)

Information network Ability to seek advice from neighbouring farmers (Skerratt 1994); ‘follow theleader’ mentality to participation (Wilson 1996), observation of successful AESimplementation on neighbouring farms may lead farmers to participate(Robinson 2006)



landscape’, and their position as working with nature, to challenge what they saw as a falsedualism inherent within the environmentalist claim that they were conservers and exploitersof the countryside. Walsh et al. (1996) and Walsh (1997) added to this work by high-lighting the intricate geographies of these knowledge conflicts. They drew on farmers’narratives to highlight how their contestation centred on the decontextualised andplaceless nature of science, embodied in what were perceived to be standardised, rigid,prescriptions of AESs.8 Mchenry (1998) also considered these different constructions,exploring how working in the landscape afforded farmers a different perspective to scien-tists. Mchenry (1998) and Morris and Young (1997) began to tease out how farmers havesets of meanings and values, reproduced through everyday practices, which shape howthey understand the agri-environment. They further noted how farmers were less predis-posed to conserving species that they constructed as ‘pests’ within production-based man-agement.

In addition to recognising the differences, and conflicts, between farmers’ and conser-vationists’ understandings, other work at this time considered how local stocks of know-ledge were often ignored, particularly in the formulation of AES prescriptions, in favourof scientific understandings (Clark and Murdoch 1997; Harrison et al. 1998). Wilson(1997a,b) encapsulates the issue of such a ‘top-down’ approach, in noting that farmersunderstandings go unnoticed in favour of more ‘positivist quantitative approaches …[gleaning] … more ‘‘solid’’ information’ in the eyes of scheme officials. He goes on toargue that due to their long, practical, engagement with their farms, farmers could actu-ally provide important information on the ecology and sustainable management of theirlocal areas.

Other research offered a critique of the assumed hierarchy in which farmers’ knowl-edge becomes, de facto, subsumed by scientific understandings. Treating knowledge, Clarkand Murdoch (1997) suggested, in such a monolithic way arguably served to reify it –both casting local knowledge as irrelevant and also negating the ability of scientificknowledge to develop, transform and move into different contexts.9 At one level, anumber of studies went on to show the overlap between the understandings of farmersand scientists. Common amongst these was a recognition of the long history of farmerengagement with agricultural production science, a pre-existing scientific element tomany farming practices, as well as clear evidence of scientific experimentation withinfarmers’ everyday managements (Harrison et al. 1998; Wilson 1997a,b). At a second,interrelated, level greater attention was paid to the social relations and politics underpin-ning these knowledges in the context of AESs, with a reflection both on who comes tospeak for the environment and the ways in which they understand and construct it.Illustrative of the issue here is Jasanoff’s (2003, 392) reinterpretation of the knowledgeconflict observed by Wynne (1996) between farmers and radiation experts in the wakeof the Chernobyl disaster:

it is not merely that farmers and radiation experts possessed different and complementaryknowledges … but more significant is the fact that these discrepancies were rooted in differentlifeworlds … the knowledges stemming from these divergent experiential contexts were notsimply additive; they represented radically ‘other’ ways of understanding the world

Two publications from the same year – Burgess et al. (2000) and Tsouvalis et al. (2000) –were significant in exploring such farmer–scientist knowledge relations. Burgess et al.(2000) illustrate the value of actor-network theory (ANT) (following Callon 1986; Latour1987) in treating the accounts of farmers and conservationists symmetrically, rather thanprioritising conservationists as the ‘ ‘‘listened to’’ voice when it comes to knowledge,



understanding and action’ in relation to AESs (Burgess et al. 2000, 120). They utilisedin-depth discussion groups to explore the theme of ‘translation’ – that is, the effort to‘speak for others and to impose particular definitions and roles on them’ (Burgess et al.2000, 123) – and examine the way that farmers resisted translation by conservations, anddid not simply accept their advice and rulings as correct. They observed how farmerswere often ‘partially enrolled’, as they drew on their long histories of marshland farmingto contest the appropriateness of formulaic and rigid scheme prescriptions, suggesting aneed to further incorporate such local knowledge as ‘neither farmers nor conservationistsknow best’ (Burgess et al. 2000, 131).

Although Tsouvalis et al. (2000) used precision farming, rather than AESs, as theirempirical focus, their study provided a conceptual springboard for subsequent AESresearch. They argued for a more post-modern concern for marginalised Others – wish-ing to open up greater space for non-scientific forms of understanding which, Harvey(1996) suggests, are so often sidelined by the powerful societal status of science. Theypaid attention to the politics of knowledge through employing the heuristic device of‘knowledge cultures’, which helps to open up a considerations of intricate and complexrelations and processes that underpin differential knowledge construction. Knowledgecultures, they suggest, are:

not a form [sic] of knowledge; it is neither a ‘knowing-that’ (or a theoretical form of know-ledge that provide facts or theoretical principles) nor a ‘knowing-how’ (or a technical form ofknowledge or a craft or skill) … But provides a means for interaction with others that instructsthem about the cultural significance capitalism or chess has for the community of which theyare part.(Tsouvalis et al. 2000, 192)

Knowledge cultures, therefore, offered a useful tool for considering AESs. They offered aless dichotomous approach in recognising that different, multiple, forms of knowledgecan exist within knowledge cultures, but shifted emphasis towards a consideration of howdiscourse is structured, both historically and in the present, and the complex social rela-tions which set out the rules of what counts as ‘legitimate’ knowledge.

Elements of both Burgess et al. (2000) and Tsouvalis et al.’s (2000) work were takenforward in the context of AESs by Morris (2004, 2006). Whilst the majority of previouswork had focussed on the participation decision, a key contribution of both Morris’papers was to look at events – including the preparation of the application and the nego-tiation and actual implementation of the agreement – which occurred once such decisionshad been made. Furthermore, Morris (2004) took up Wilson and Hart’s (2000, 2162)observation that: ‘motivations for participation in AESs can only be fully understood ifthe wider economic, social and cultural frameworks within which European farmersoperate are taken into account’, but noted that such ‘wider frameworks’ had hithertobeen dealt with in a rather abstract fashion, often underplaying the full social contextsand diverse range of actors involved. Instead, Morris (2004, 178) called for ‘a more socia-lised account of this process’. Morris (2004, 178) also utilised ANT as a conceptualframework that could usefully ‘capture’ the diverse range of actors involved and exploredthe CSS ‘as a process involving the active construction and evolution of an actor net-work’. In the parlance of ANT, DEFRA was seen as the ‘initiating entity’ and agreementholders (AH), alongside a vast range of other human and non-human entities, need to be‘enrolled’ in order to achieve and sustain the environmental outcomes. The paper goeson to explore the successfulness of DEFRA in translating and representing these variousentities in achieving its goals. Key amongst the paper’s contributions is highlighting thediverse range of actors, in addition to AHs, who are significant in the translation process.



These include: information and advice givers10; those providing assistance and skills inimplementing schemes; what are termed ‘regulators’ (including landlords and supermar-kets); other land users on agreement land; and a range of non-human entities. At onelevel, it is concluded by Morris (2004) that the large number of conforming AHs is testa-ment to DEFRAs successes in enrolment and translation in their construction of anactor-network. The paper goes on to hint, however, at the potential instability of thesenetworks, particularly as many actors refused to fully accept their translation. Local speci-ficity was also important, as it was seen that nature does not always conform to the rigidway that it is defined within the CSS actor network. Morris (2004) critiques the narrowtranslation – based on the ‘traditional farmer’ (190) – used by DEFRA, suggesting that itfails to recognise the diverse range of AHs.11

Taking a slightly different conceptual lens, Morris (2006) observed the parallelsbetween the knowledge cultures of yield-mapping (Tsouvalis et al. 2000) and what sherefers to as the policy knowledge cultures of AESs.12 Importantly, Morris (2006) chal-lenges the assumed knowledge hierarchies in AESs by exploring the ‘porosity’ of theboundary between state-led and farmer approaches to ‘knowing nature’. Specifically, andechoing some of the findings of earlier attitudinal research, Morris (2006) noted how thecodified, universal, knowledge embodied within scheme prescriptions is contested on theground. This, it is argued, is because farmers are often situated within ‘agrarian know-ledge cultures’, which come to know the farming environment in the context of produc-ing food as to opposed to environmental goods. Morris (2006) explores the ‘productiveinteraction’ between the AES policy knowledge culture and agrarian knowledge cultures,noting that farmers’ understandings were not limited to ‘local’ of ‘lay’ understandings, butalso through scientific lenses too. Differences were not simply limited to these under-standings, but also wider social processes such as feelings of isolation from wider society.Morris (2006, 125) notes the importance of identity, particularly collective identity,which farmers use to position themselves as ‘environmentally knowledgeable actors’.Significantly Morris’ (2006, 126) study suggests that ‘the farmers’ voice is being listenedto’ as there is a level of accommodation of farmers’ knowledge within the AES policyknowledge culture as these adapt through constructive dialogue over time. It is noted thatin the same way that farmers’ understandings should not be seen as monolithic, so tooscience should be seen as more plastic and amenable (cf. Clark and Murdoch 1997) toother ways of knowing.

Riley (2008) also considers knowledge cultures in exploring the intersection betweenAES prescriptions and farmers’ experiential understandings of farm practices. Specifically,Riley notes the central importance of temporality within these understandings. It wasnoted, for example, that time was often viewed socially and in a compressed way, suchthat farmers linked themselves closely with the work and practices of their predecessorswhich allowed them to discursively position a divide between us (farmers whose practiceswere seen as longstanding and thus more durable and certain) and them (a position whichconflates conservation scientists, policy makers, scheme officials and administrators) andthus cast scientific understandings as more uncertain and transient. Riley’s (2008) paperdraws on Bourdieu’s (1977) notion of the habitus in exploring how the actions of farm-ing predecessors often present farmers with a blueprint for current action, with such his-tories drawn out by farmers in highlighting what they feel to be gaps in the knowledgeof conservation scientists who they position as culturally outside the farming knowledgeculture. Unlike scientific knowledge which tends to be perceived as more universal andgeneralised geographically (see Clark and Murdoch 1997), farmers often develop spatiallyspecific rules that are generalised over time. These rules and understandings – born out of



intimate, experiential understandings of their practices over time – often incorporatedetailed knowledge of habitats, landscapes and the impacts of particular practices on these.It is suggested that there is significant potential for these more experiential and embodiedunderstandings to be drawn on and utilised in AESs.

The explorations of farmer and advisor knowledge interaction within sustainable soilmanagement by Ingram and Morris (2007) and Ingram (2008) is also enlightening for thediscussion of AESs, both in the way it further questions the binaries of expert and layknowledge and in that it is one of the few studies that has focussed on the knowledge(s)of farm advisors. They utilise Lundvall and Johnson’s (1994) typology in identifying fourforms of knowledge held and used by soil advisors: know-what, know-why, know-howand know-who13 and reveal both the considerable breadth of knowledge, across thesetypes, held by soil advisors, as well as the complex interplay between them. They suggestthat these advisors are only ‘fit for purpose’ when they have a full complement of know-what, know-why and know-how and that such knowledge forms are not discrete, butrelational. So, a combination of facts and information acquired through guides, observa-tion, and training, all provide the basis through which advisors understand the use oftools and subsequent recommendations. Similarly, Ingram and Morris (2007) observe, theknow-why element relies on the more tacit ‘know-how’ when it comes to farm-levelinterpretation and implementation. The research adds further complexity by illustratingthat far from being ubiquitous ‘officials’, utilising standardised knowledge, different advis-ors hold different types of knowledges and draw together different combinations of these.Importantly, the study shows that advisors’ environmental knowledge covers a greaterrange of elements than seen in earlier research (e.g. Curry 1997; Eldon 1988).

Morris (2009), focusing on the Landscape Heritage Scheme (LHS), offers one of thefew studies which have considered the environmental knowledge(s) of smaller-scale land-owners and again challenges the farmer ⁄ science knowledge dualism by noting how,through education and self-teaching, many of these landholders drew on more codifiedknowledge in discussing their practices. The work suggests that there is less evidence ofdiscordances between more ‘tacit’ knowledges and the codified knowledge associatedwith AESs than seen in other studies (e.g. Mchenry 1998). It is here that the scale of thestudy may be significant. It is suggested, for example, that the more localised nature ofthe scheme may mean that locally specific understandings may have been incorporatedinto its design. Furthermore, Morris (2009) suggests that explanations for this may includethe fact that the LHS only impacts partly on landholders’ property rights and that theirshort-term engagement with the land may mean that the small-holders have had less timeto develop more tacit knowledges. The work poses the question as to whether previousstudies may have focused too singularly on how farmers’ knowledge has been overlooked,rather than giving attention to cases where it has been successfully incorporated. The factthat the smaller-scale farmers may already have a level of codified knowledge suggests thatthey are more accommodating of the codified knowledge within conservation schemes.Morris points to the willingness of respondents to admit to gaps in their understandings,as a potential reason for less conflict with scheme officials noting that where contestationdoes arise – for example around the use of pesticides – it may be around different formsof codified knowledge rather than between tacit and codified knowledges.

Towards Conservation-Orientated Attitudes?

It has been argued by Lowe et al. (1998, 271) that: ‘it would reasonably be expected thatthere would already be discernable changes in farmers’ attitudes, and even farming



cultures, from participation in agri-environmental schemes’.14 Whilst early studies notedevidence of initial participation being accompanied by conservationally orientated think-ing – for example the ‘active adopters’ in Morris and Potter’s (1995) study – as well asevidence of a raised awareness of farm wildlife resulting from participation (Battershill andGilg 1996a), there was perhaps more compelling evidence to suggest that attitudinalchange was not a prerequisite of participation, with many farmers making little change totheir existing practices on entry (e.g. Whitby 1994; Wilson 1996).

More recent studies, with respondents who have a longer history of participation, showsome mixed conclusions. Fish et al. (2003) recorded that over 90% of all the land manag-ers they spoke to ‘responded positively’ when asked whether they had sympathy with theconservation goals of AESs. They observe that this is a more positive response than earlierobserved by Morris and Potter (1995), but it should be noted these samples are not alike-for-like comparison, and as the authors themselves speculate: ‘whether this is indica-tive of an evolution in land-manager attitudes is not clear’ (Fish et al. 2003, 23). Simi-larly, in their monitoring and evaluation study Carey et al. (2003) noted that amongst150 participants, only 11.2% identified ‘environmental’ motivations for participating in ascheme, whilst over 60% cited a range of financial reasons for participating.

Despite noticing what they refer to as a ‘pragmatic’ approach to scheme participation,whereby only ‘suitable’ land is often entered, Wilson and Hart (2000) go as far to suggestthat in comparison to earlier studies (e.g. Whitby 1994) a ‘new hypothesis’ may haveemerged amongst EU farmers. In their pan-European study they observed an increasingacknowledgement amongst farmers of the environmental benefits that scheme participa-tion may provide, with the way AESs are sold by scheme officials one possible explana-tion. One caveat they append to this is that greater evidence was found of this sympathytowards environmental goals in Northern Europe than in Mediterranean countries – hint-ing at a potential North–South divide [also observed by Buller et al. (2000) and Wilsonet al. (1999)] in the way that AESs are sold to farmers and the type of farmers recruitedinto schemes.

Macdonald and Johnson (2000) undertook one of the few longitudinal studies of farmersconservation attitudes, drawing on questionnaires in 1981 and 1998 to try and ascertainfarmers motivations for action towards hedgerows on their land. Whilst they noted posi-tive attitudes towards conservation in the 1970s had been converted into AES participa-tion in the 1990s, the latter survey found a conflict with contemporary production. Theysuggested that they could find little evidence of a link between wildlife interest per se andhedgerow removal (with fieldsports being a more determinant factor) and that a largeproportion of the farmers contacted did not seek conservation advice or participate inschemes. Although Kleijn et al. (2004, 786) were concerned primarily with attempting toascertain the effectiveness of AESs through ecological assessment, they similarly observedthe continuation of productive, often intensive, practices and concluded that other deter-minants served to ‘neutralise’ the effects of AES measures.

Schmitzberger et al. (2005), utilising Van Der Ploeg’s (1993) farming styles, suggestedthere was evidence in Austria that younger farmers with more conservation-orientatedthinking were replacing more ‘traditional’ farmers. Despite this, they go on to note theemphasis given to ‘tidy landscapes’ – which themselves are likely to conflict with bio-diversity conservation – and conclude that the commitment to AESs is not wholeheartedas many high value habitats on these farms were not entered into schemes. Ellis et al.(1999) noted similar generational differences in the Grampain region of Scotland, whereit was observed that younger farmers were farming less intensively than their predecessors.Significantly, however, the dominant reasons given for this change of emphasis were



alternative income through pluriactivity, as well as higher levels of education makingthese younger farmers more aware of the potential financial benefits of lower intensityfarming systems.

Other European examples have gleaned similarly mixed findings. In evaluating theRural Environment Protection Scheme in Western Ireland, Aughney and Gormally(2002) noted that despite being over 10 years in place that there was little difference inthe level of understanding of the nature conservation value of their land by farmers. Simi-larly, in a comparative study of Finland and Estonia, Herzon and Mikk (2007) noted thatdespite a high level of interest (82%) amongst their respondents, the awareness of practicesmore beneficial to biodiversity conservation had not significantly increased since partici-pation. Drawing on interviews with 22 Swiss land managers, Schenk et al. (2007, 72),suggested that the economic problems facing agriculture, particularly in mountain regions,means that more farmers are turning to subsidies and AESs, but they argue that ‘it ismainly the economic situation that has caused farmers to change and does not mean theyhave necessarily changed their minds about the necessity of nature conservationmeasures’.

Elands and Praestholm (2008) report, in a review of a number of European studies, apositive disposition of farmers towards the inclusion of trees on their farms. Significantly,however, they observe that such a conservation ethos is not uniform across holdings, withintensive agriculture often continuing on other areas of the farm. Gorton et al. (2008)provide an EU-wide comparative discussion of ‘farming futures’ and note within this thatfarmers remained strongly wedded to policy measures supporting agricultural production,and reported less clear support for agri-environmental policies, with a general preferencefor policies which allow agricultural production and conservation to co-exist on the samefarm.

Burton and Wilson’s (2006) work is significant in reflecting on how, rather than beingable to typologise farmers into ‘conservationists’ or ‘non-conservationists’, a ‘more com-plex and multidimensional self-structure exists’ (96). They introduce from social psychol-ogy the idea of complex self-structure – which they apply to the context of farmingthrough the term ‘entrenched productivist farmer selves’ – which is made of multiple andhierarchical identities. The important message for AES research is that whilst farmers’environmental attitudes and behaviour may be seen as a shift along a production-orien-tated to conservation-orientated spectrum, productivist identities may still predominate.So although agricultural policies may have shifted from a production to conservationfocus, farmers’ self concepts may not have done likewise – what they refer to as the ‘tem-poral discordance’ between macro-level policy and micro-level actions.15 Burton et al.(2008) extend on this in considering the possible cultural aspects underpinning this tem-poral discordance. Drawing on Bourdieu’s (1998) ideas of systems of capital, they arguethat an important reframing of the question is how the adoption of (often new) AESpractices may alter capital generation and accumulation in contemporary agriculture.They suggest that:

If financial loss is compensated by agri-environmental payments but new land uses and activitiesare unable to generate symbolic capital, then the net result could be that farmers lose significantamounts of capital despite apparently generous financial compensation. (Burton et al. 2008, 21)

They go on to critique AESs by suggesting that they offer too few opportunities forfarmers to demonstrate ‘status-generating’ farming skills. Similar to previous research theycritique the standardised scheme prescriptions – not so much for their ability to deliver



environmental goods, but the lack of opportunity they offer farmers to innovate, discusswith other farmers, or develop new ideas on conservation managements. As a result, theysuggest, a reason for non (or resistant) adoption is that ‘conservation behaviour is often oflittle social importance’ (Burton et al. 2008, 30). Other research has sought to flesh outthe importance of this wider social milieu, noting the importance of friends and neigh-bourhoods networks (Burton 2004; Solano et al. 2003) family (Potter and Lobley 1992;Riley 2009a,b) and advisor networks in the development and circulation of social capital(Mathijs 2003).

There has been some, albeit more limited, evidence presented of attitudinal change inrelation to AESs. Davies and Hodge (2006) discuss cross-compliance and suggest thatalthough farmers attitude at the point of instigation may be negative, it may gain somelevel of acceptability when farmers are forced to comply. Whilst they prefix their conclu-sions with the admission that: ‘It is not possible on the basis of the static analysis con-ducted in this study to know if, or in what ways, farmer attitudes may evolve from onegrouping to another over time’, the important point they make is that behaviour changemay lead to attitudinal change, rather than positive attitudes needing to precede conserva-tion action (see also Wilson and Hart 2001).

Although Selman and Wragg (1999, 329) have suggested, in the rhetoric of ANT, thatthrough the processes of enrolment and translation associated with the AES applicationand implementation, farmers may ‘become committed to a conventional wisdom orenduring mindset’, there is seemingly sparse evidence of this on the ground. Burton andWilson (2006) suggest a ‘temporal discordance’ between structure and agency, such thatscheme participation may be possible, but at the same time production-orientated rolesmay continue to shape identities and the self-concept of the farmer. Indeed they highlightthe methodological challenges in studying these changes, observing how a ‘conservationidentity’ may be ‘made temporarily salient through the social interaction with theresearcher, thereby seemingly overshadowing underlying productivist attitudes towardsfarming’ (2006, 103). Such identities, they suggest, are firmly entrenched, and indeedthey suggest that these identities could again become strongly dominant if post-productivepolicies – of which AESs are part – are relaxed. This echoes Dufour et al. (2007) who,although using slightly different terminology, suggest a longer-term nature to these iden-tity changes, pointing to the need for a period of ‘acculturation’ in order that new prac-tices will become accepted into the farming profession and associated farming identities.

Future Directions?

From the research discussed, a number of future research trajectories for farmer–AESresearch can be suggested. The last section highlighted perhaps the most obvious gap –research that considers changes in attitude, or culture (cf. Burton and Wilson 2006), overtime, and the influence of AES participation on this. Although retrospective interviewswith farmers who are now well entrenched within schemes is one such approach (afterMorris 2006), more robust longitudinal studies, which revisit the same AHs with replica-ble sets of questions, are arguably essential. Within this, further empirical work is neededto more fully explore Burton and Wilson’s (2006) hypothesis of a temporal discordancebetween macro-level policy and micro-scale action – particularly given that the empiricaldata on which they base some of their thinking is now over a decade old. Morris (2009)suggests potential for a life history approach for exploring the origins of the environmen-tal knowledge(s) of smaller-scale farmers, and it can be argued that this approach couldalso be beneficial in studying more commercial or ‘traditional’ farm enterprises (see also



Riley 2010). There has been some evidence of different attitudes towards nature andconservation amongst different age groups and generations (e.g. Potter and Lobley 1992)and different genders (Egri 1999; Little and Panelli 2003), and more farm-level research isneeded to explore how these understandings interact and are co-dependent within boththe decision to enter agreements, and then within the development of AES knowledgecultures over time.

Given the now well established nature of AESs, more research is needed, using Mor-ris’s (2006) template, exploring the nature and evolution of AES knowledge cultures, fur-ther laying bare the nature and processes of knowledge sharing and (co)construction.Two directions may be fruitful here. At a very practical level, more detailed studies areneeded into how farmers understandings of particular places and practices (Riley 2008;Wilson 1997a,b) can be harnessed. At present the suggestions of potential here are specu-lative, and more detailed analysis is required into what Stringer and Reed (2007) refer to‘hybridising’ these knowledges in delivering effective management. At one level thiscould involve farmers monitoring future change (after Gunderson and Holling 2002;Reed et al. 2008), whilst Riley’s (2008, 1287) observation that farmers develop ‘spatiallyspecific rules generalised over time’, suggests great potential for their understandings to beutilised in extrapolating the longer-term and cumulative impacts of particular manage-ments.

Drawing on the insights of work on farming cultures more generally may provide asecond avenue of future research on AES knowledge cultures. Burton (2004), for exam-ple, has suggested that there may be regionally specific farming cultures (referring forexample to the ‘wheat baron’ identity farmers in his Bedfordshire study associated with).Taken alongside passing reference to associations with regionally specific habitats such asWilson and Hart’s (2000) discussion of Culm grassland in Devon, and the importance ofthe micro-geographies and politics between farmers and advisors (see Morris 2006), futureresearch could explore the many different local and regional AES knowledge cultures thatare likely to exist.16 Within such research, attention could focus on what underpins thesedifferences and investigate whether successful conservation cultures in one area can betransposed to another.

The post-structuralist concern for Other knowledges, which has influenced some ofthe work reviewed earlier, necessarily leads to a consideration of those knowledges andperspectives that have still to feature prominently in AES research. Morris (2009) consid-eration of smaller scale farmers suggests a need for more work in this area. DEFRA(2009) figures suggest that the number of ‘very small’ holdings (<9600 euros standardgross margin) may be increasing and, as Morris (2009) work implies, this may have impli-cations for the type of environmental knowledge(s) and understandings that these landholders may bring to the table. Both Morris (2009) and Holloway’s (2000) work showthe diversity of landholders who may be classified ‘small holder’ and just as AES researchhas explored the heterogeneity of more ‘commercial’ farmers (Beedell and Rehman2000), so too future research needs to tease out the variations in attitudes and knowledgesamongst smallholders and smaller-scale farmers. Other ‘non-traditional’, but still impor-tant, actors also warrant further consideration. Often a factor of methodological approach,Morris and Evans (2004, 104) suggest that a tendency to gravitate, and be pointedtowards, the ‘principal operator’ of the farm means that ‘non-family hired workers, con-tractors, … shepherds, rare breed keepers and independent women farmers … remainsorely neglected’. (Morris and Evans 2004, 104). These other actors, as intimated in anumber of studies (e.g. Riley and Harvey 2005, 2007), may hold significant knowledgesrelating to the management of particular areas of land and specific practices and the



potential exists to investigate these further. More ethnographic approaches (after Gray1996, 1998), may be one way of coming into contact with these people, giving greatervoice to their roles, and exploring the important environmental knowledge and conserva-tion understandings that they may possess. Here, there could be significant attention paidto the plurality of knowledges – shifting the lens from an expert-lay dichotomy to onewhich recognises that farm practices are commonly the result of numerous, collective,rather than individual understandings, particularly on family farms for example.

Just as the lens could be widened to look at the divergent range of farm actors, so toocould greater discrimination could be made between the group(s) that are called ‘experts’.Reference to ‘scientists’ and ‘scheme officials’ (commonly perpetuated in the discursivestrategies of farmers discussed earlier) often serves to mask the heterogeneous range ofactors involved and the divergent perspectives, knowledge(s) and social positions that theymay hold (see also Clark and Murdoch 1997). As Juntti and Potter (2002) and Morris(2006) note, equally as important as those ‘scientists’ whose experiments and forecastsunderpin scheme prescriptions, are those scheme officials at the interface with farmers onthe ground who help shape experiences and understandings. Research attention hasfocussed more heavily on the perspective of farmers, and hence their accounts of ‘offi-cials’ and ‘experts’, so future research might usefully follow Ingram’s (2008) example forsoil advisors in exploring the perspectives of the range of advisors and officials associatedwith AESs, considering the range of codified and more experiential understandings thatthey draw together.

An important theme of recent cultural analyses is the challenge to farmers’ ‘professionalidentity’ that a change in their practices may invoke (Burton et al. 2008; Candau 2006),and here Burton et al.’s (2008) suggestion of species targets – where farmers are given tar-gets that may allow them to mimic, or develop, forms of social capital important in con-temporary agriculture – may be an interesting one in this context (e.g. Mathijs 2003).One obvious caution is against what may be termed ‘trophy conservation’.17 Burton(2004) notes the importance of ‘roadside farming’ and prestige indicators within agricul-ture – an example being the appearance of crops – and whilst species targets may providesimilarly tangible ways of expressing ‘good [conservation] farming’, there is a likelihood thatthose more observable species may be prioritised over less conspicuous ones.18 Burtonet al.’s (2008) idea could usefully be combined with Herzon and Mikk’s (2007) sugges-tion that farmers’ conservation work needs to be understood and celebrated by the widerpublic, by making ‘species targets’ (and the resulting achievements) public. As Davies andHodge (2006) suggest, AES agreements could more fruitfully be seen as a ‘contract withsociety’ by farmers, rather than a restriction on their ‘freedom(s) to farm’. Within suchsuggestions, ‘joined up’ thinking is important. It is widely argued that AESs need tomove beyond the individual farmer level, to consider habitat connections and landscapeconservation (Macfarlane 1998) and that joint AES applications and agreements areneeded (Franks and Mc Gloin 2007a). There is some limited evidence to suggest thatfarmers, hypothetically at least, would be willing to undertake joint agreements (Dolmanet al. 2001) and evidence of successful co-operation in other areas of agriculture, but asDavies et al. (2004) point out, actual examples of environmental management co-opera-tion between farmers are rare. Here, again, geographers have a future role to play –exploring the micro-politics and knowledge cultures of these potential collaborations.

Future change in the nature of AESs is also an important consideration. Recentchanges in the UK, for example, suggest that Agri-environmental policy will continue topay greater attention to wider ecosystem services such as carbon storage and flood man-agement (Natural England 2009). Whilst much of the research reviewed in this paper



considers biodiversity conservation, rather than wider ecosystem management, the directpayments and voluntary nature of payments for ecosystem services (DEFRA 2010) suggestthat the findings presented here on scheme participation will still have relevance. AsFranks and Mcgloin (2007b) suggest, the future is likely to see greater attention given tothe catchment and landscape level, rather than just the farm scale. It has been argued thatwhilst the particular practices or specific species – which have historically featured promi-nently in AESs – may be easily understood, the idea of services is more complicated(Rollett et al. 2008), specifically when attempting to define operational measures (Daleand Polasky 2007, 287). More research is needed into both how farmers understand theirroles within these wider ecosystems, as well as how they are willing to cooperate indelivering ecosystem services. A potential positive of these moves towards ecosystem ser-vices is, Smith (2006) suggests, that the work of individual farmers will be more easilyrecognisable by the wider public.

A key issue arising from the research reviewed is the extent to which its impacts andrelevance have been seen beyond the academy. There is evidence to suggest that many ofthe studies discussed here have informed policy – both through scheme assessment and,in part at least, in the evolution and development of AESs (e.g. DEFRA 2007, chapter3). Morris and Reed (2007) utilise Peck’s (1999, 133) spectrum of policy relevance insuggesting that much AES research has tended towards impact evaluation rather thanchallenging the ‘parameters, presumptions and premises’ of AESs. They suggest aMcDonaldization of AES policy through the four dimensions of efficiency, calculability,predictability and control. Through this lens they offer critique of AESs ability to deal withecological variability as well as non-standardised forms of understanding. Further researchis arguably needed in this mould which, as Morris and Reed (2007) suggest, ques-tions the ideologies underpinning AESs, rather than simply focussing on their impactoutcomes and thus being subservient to the state and unproblematically maintaining thestatus quo.

Acknowledgement

Thanks to the anonymous referees and Geoff Wilson for their very helpful comments onan earlier draft of this paper.

Short Biography

Mark Riley is a senior lecturer in geography at the University of Portsmouth. Prior tothis he held AHRC-funded research fellowships at both the University of Exeter andUniversity of St Andrews. His broad research interests relate to the social and culturalaspects of rural and environmental change. He is currently working on a Leverhulme-funded research project investigating pro-environmental behaviours in the home. Hiswork has appeared in journals including Environment and Planning A, Geoforum, Journal ofRural Studies, Social and Cultural Geography, Applied Geography, Journal of Historical Geogra-phy, and Gender, Place and Culture.

Notes

* Correspondence address: Mark Riley, Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Buckingham Build-ing, Lion Terrace, Portsmouth PO13HE, UK. E-mail: [email protected].



1 Others have traced the longer genealogy of more formalised contracts for farmland conservation – including the‘access orders’ of the 1949 National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act (Gibbs and Whitby 1975) and thecontracts given to farmers alongside the designation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest under the Wildlife andCountryside Act 1981(Whitby 2000).2 For a UK reflection on the evolution of AESs into the contemporary form, see Hodge and Reader (2010).3 Although ‘Farmers’ may be seen as an essentialist term, it is used here as the most common descriptor used in

the research reviewed.4 As Primdahl et al. (2003, 130) note, there is considerable ‘diversity in policy design and implementation, as well

as the variations in landscapes and farming structures affected by the AES’ across different countries. Although thepaper draws on insights from various geographical contexts, in discussing specific policy it focuses primarily on theUK case.5 Newby et al. (1977), for example, observed how less market-orientated ‘family farmers’ were often more favour-

ably predisposed towards conservation practices than more market-orientated ‘agri-businesses’.6 The variation in nomenclature used by different authors to categorise these sets of factors is testament to both

the different conceptual approaches taken, the range of empirical contexts in which research has taken place, andthe lack of consensus over the relative importance of individual factors.7 See Castree (2005) for an excellent, and much more wide-ranging, discussion of the history of the separation of

nature and society in Western thinking, and for a review of the influential works in challenging this dualistic thinking.8 AESs provide farmers with a set of management prescriptions, including themes such as desired stocking rates

and the designated times for particular management activities, to which they must adhere to receive scheme pay-ments.9 Parallel debates cautioning against such dualistic thinking were more longstanding in development studies (see

Agrawal 2002), whilst studies from within the sociology of science (see Wynne 1996) noted the reifying nature ofsuch prefixes as ‘expert’ and ‘lay’.10 The Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG) being important amongst Morris (2004) sample.11 Morris (2004) also reflects on ANT itself as an approach – echoing Woods’s (1998) critique as to whether wecan ever fully accommodate all actors.12 Riley (2008) likens this AES development to Jasanoff’s (2002) case of breast-implant science in the USA. Whilstthere was no easily defined, pre-existing, body of agri-environmental expertise available when AESs were designed as apolicy solution, disparate groups were assigned, and assumed, roles of experts in the evolving knowledge culture [seeCurry and Winter (2000) for reference to some of the diverse actors involved].13 ‘Know-what’ refers to the largely codified knowledge about facts – that which is commonly observed, recordedand classified; ‘Know why’ refers to ‘the knowledge of principles, rules and ideas of science and technology’ and‘Know-how’ refers to ‘skills, the capability to do something at practical level, as reflected in action and has a signifi-cant tacit component’ (Ingram and Morris 2007, 104). ‘Know-who’, in this context, is the knowledge of individualsthat is gained through interaction and networking.14 It should be noted that reference to overarching ‘farming cultures’ and a potential ‘farming conservation cul-ture(s)’ is problematic given both the contested nature of ‘culture’ itself (see Mitchell 1995) and also in light of themultiplicity of farming ‘styles’ and ‘cultures’ commonly observed (see Vanclay et al. 2006). Emphasis in the currentpaper is on the evidence of more general attitudinal change.15 These arguments are part of a much wider, and ever-growing, debate around the productivist ⁄ post-productivisttransition. For a review of these debates, see Wilson (2008).16 It could be argued that the heightened concern around food security in recent years (see Feagan 2007) is likelyto further reshape the activities from which farmers may derive social and cultural capital, and this is worthy of fur-ther research attention.17 There is some evidence of this type of approach already in action – for example the UK’s Farming and WildlifeAdvisory Group’s ‘Silver Lapwing Award’ – see http://www.fwag.org.uk/silver-lapwing.htm.18 See the themed issue of Journal of Applied Ecology edited by Whittingham (2007) for an interesting discussion ofthe impacts of AESs on different habitats and species.

References

ADAS (1996). Economic evaluation of stage 1 ESAs. Report for MAFF Economics (Resource Use) Division. Septem-ber 1996.

Agrawal, A. (2002). Indigenous knowledge and the politics of classification. International Social Science Journal 54 (3),pp. 287–297.

Aughney, T. and Gormally, M. (2002). The nature conservation of lowland farm habitats on REPS and non-REPSfarms in County Galway and the use of traditional farm methods for habitat management under the Rural Envi-ronment Protection Scheme (REPS). Irish Journal of Agrienvironmental Research 2, pp. 1–14.

Baldock, D., Cox, C., Lowe, P. and Winter, M. (1990). Environmentally Sensitive Areas: incrementalism orreform? Journal of Rural Studies 6, pp. 143–162.



Battershill, M. R. J. and Gilg, A. W. (1996a). New approaches to creative conservation on farms in South-westEngland. Journal of Environmental Management 48 (4), pp. 321–340.

Battershill, M. R. J. and Gilg, A. W. (1996b). Traditional farming and agro-environment policy in southwest Eng-land: back to the future. Geoforum 27 (2), pp. 133–147.

Beedell, J. and Rehman, T. (2000). Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour.Journal of Rural Studies 16 (1), pp. 117–127.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: on the theory of action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Brotherton, I. (1989). Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some observations from theory.

Journal of Rural Studies 5, pp. 299–304.Brotherton, I. (1991). What limits participation in ESA’s? Journal of Environmental Management 32, pp. 241–249.Buller, H. (2000). Regulation 2078: patterns of implementation. In: Buller, H., Wilson, G. and Holl, A. (eds) Agri-

environmental policy in the European Union. London: Ashgate, pp. 219–254.Buller, H., Wilson, G. and Holl, A. (eds) (2000). Agri-environmental policy in the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate.Burgess, J., Clark, J. and Harrison, C. (2000). Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-

environment scheme. Ecological Economics 35, pp. 119–132.Burton, R. (2004). Seeing through the ‘good farmer’s’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social sym-

bolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2), pp. 195–215.Burton, R., Kuczera, C. and Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environ-

mental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (1), pp. 16–37.Burton, R. and Wilson, G. (2006). Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency:

towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies 22 (1), pp. 95–115.Callon, M. (1986). The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In: Callon, M., Law, J. and

Rip, A. (eds) Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: Macmillan Press, pp. 19–34.Candau, P. D. J. (2006). Farming and landscape management: how French farmers are coping with the ecologiza-

tion of their activities. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (6), pp. 563–585.Carey, P. D., et al. (2003). The multi-disciplinary evaluation of a national agri-environment scheme. Journal of Envi-

ronmental Management 69 (1), pp. 71–91.Castree, N. (2005). Nature. London: Routledge.Clark, J. and Murdoch, J. (1997). Local knowledge and the precarious extension of scientific networks: a reflection

on three case studies. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1), pp. 38–60.Curry, N. (1997). Providing new environmental skills for British farmers. Journal of Environmental Management 50

(2), pp. 127–134.Curry, N. and Winter, M. (2000). EUROPEAN BRIEFING: The Transition to Environmental Agriculture in

Europe: Learning Processes and Knowledge Networks. European Planning Studies 8 (1), pp. 107–121.Dale, V. and Polasky, S. (2007). Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecological Eco-

nomics 64, pp. 286–296.Damianos, D. and Giannakopoulos, N. (2002). Farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes in Greece.

British Food Journal 104 (3), pp. 261–273.Davies, B., Blackstock, K., Brown, K. and Shannon, P. (2004). Challenges in creating local agri-environmental cooperation

action amongst farmers and other stakeholders. Aberdeen: The Macaulay Institute.Davies, B. and Hodge, I. (2006). Farmers’ preferences for new environmental policy instruments: determining the

acceptability of cross compliance for biodiversity benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57, pp. 393–414.DEFRA (2004). Review of the Rural White Paper Our countryside: the future. London: DEFRA Publications.DEFRA (2007). Rural development programme 2007–2013. London: HMSO.DEFRA (2009). Observatory monitoring framework – indicator data sheet. [Online]. Retrieved on 18 September 2010

from: http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/statistics/foodfarm/enviro/observatory/indicators/b/b1_data.htm.DEFRA (2010). Payments for ecosystem services – a short introduction. London: DEFRA publications.Dolman, P., Lovett, A., O Riordan, T. and Cobb, D. (2001). Designing whole landscapes. Landscape Research 26

(4), pp. 305–335.Drake, L., Bergstrom, P. and Svedsater, H. (1999). Farmers’ attitudes and uptake. In: Van Huylenbroeck, G. and

Whitby, M. (eds) Countryside Stewardship: farmers, policies and markets. Amsterdam: Pergamon, pp. 89–111.Dufour, A., et al. (2007). Multifunctionality in agriculture and its agents: regional comparisons. Sociologia Ruralis 47

(4), pp. 316–342.Dupraz, P., Vermersch, D., De Frahan, B. and Delvaux, L. (2003). The environmental supply of farm households:

a flexible willingness to accept model. Environmental and Resource Economics 25 (2), pp. 171–189.Dutton, A., Edwards-Jones, G., Strachan, R. and Macdonald, D. (2008). Ecological and social challenges to biodi-

versity conservation on farmland: reconnecting habitats on a landscape scale. Mammal Review 38 (2–3), pp. 205–219.

Egri, C. (1999). Attitudes, backgrounds and information preferences of Canadian organic and conventional farmers:implications for organic farming advocacy and extension. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 13 (3), pp. 45–72.



Elands, B. and Praestholm, S. (2008). Landowners’ perspectives on the rural future and the role of forests acrossEurope. Journal of Rural Studies 24, pp. 72–85.

Eldon, J. (1988). Agricultural change, conservation and the role of advisors. ECOS 9 (4), pp. 14–20.Ellis, N., Heal, O., Dent, J. and Firbank, L. (1999). Pluriactivity, farm household socio-economics and the botanical

characteristics of grass fields in the Grampian region of Scotland. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 76 (2–3),pp. 121–134.

Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurle, J. and Ruto, E. (2010). What do farmers want from agri-environmentalscheme design? A choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61 (2), pp. 259–273.

Evans, N. and Morris, C. (1997). Towards a geography of agri-environmental policies in England and Wales. Geoforum28, 189–204.

Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’in local food systems. Progress in Human Geography 31,p. 23.

Fish, R., Seymour, S. and Watkins, C. (2003). Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agri-environmen-tal policy. Environment and Planning A 35 (1), pp. 19–41.

Franks, J. and Mc Gloin, A. (2007a). Environmental co-operatives as instruments for delivering across-farm envi-ronmental and rural policy objectives: lessons for the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 23, pp. 472–489.

Franks, J. and Mcgloin, A. (2007b). Joint submissions, output related payments and environmental co-operatives:can the Dutch experience innovate UK agri-environment policy? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management50 (2), pp. 233–256.

Gibbs, R. S. and Whitby, M. C. (1975). Local authority expenditure on access land. Newcastle upon Tyne: AgriculturalAdjustment Unit, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.

Gorton, M., Douarin, E., Davidova, S. and Latruffe, L. (2008). Attitudes to agricultural policy and farming futuresin the context of the 2003 CAP reform: a comparison of farmers in selected established and new Member States.Journal of Rural Studies 24, pp. 322–336.

Gray, J. (1996). Cultivating farm life on the borders: Scottish hill sheep farms and the European Community. Socio-logia Ruralis 36 (1), pp. 27–50.

Gray, J. (1998). Family farms in the Scottish borders: a practical definition by hill sheep farmers. Journal of RuralStudies 14 (3), pp. 341–356.

Gunderson, L. and Holling, C. (2002). Panarchy synopsis: understanding transformations in human and natural systems.Washington: Island Press.

Hanley, N., Kirkpatrick, H., Simpson, I. and Oglethorpe, D. (1998). Principles for the provision of public goodsfrom agriculture: modeling moorland conservation in Scotland. Land Economics 74 (1), 102–113.

Harrison, C. M., Burgess, J. and Clark, J. (1998). Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and residents’ understandings ofnature conservation goals and policies. Journal of Environmental Management 54 (4), pp. 305–320.

Harvey, D. (1996). Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Cambridge, MA ⁄ Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Herzon, I. and Mikk, M. (2007). Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through

agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 15 (1),pp. 10–25.

Hodge, I. and Mcnally, S. (1998). Evaluating the environmentally sensitive areas: the value of rural environmentsand policy relevance. Journal of Rural Studies 14 (3), pp. 357–367.

Hodge, I. and Reader, M. (2010). The introduction of Entry Level Stewardship in England: extension or dilutionin agri-environment policy? Land Use Policy 27 (2), pp. 270–282.

Holloway, L. (2000). ‘Hell on earth and paradise all at the same time’: the production of smallholding space in theBritish countryside. Area 32 (3), pp. 307–315.

Hounsome, B., Edwards, R. T. and Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). A note on the effect of farmer mental health onadoption: the case of agri-environment schemes. Agricultural Systems 91 (3), pp. 229–241.

Ilbery, B. W. and Bowler, I. R. (1993). The farm diversification grant scheme: adoption and nonadoption inEngland and Wales. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 11 (2), pp. 161–170.

Ingram, J. (2008). Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soilmanagement? An analysis of farmer and advisor views Journal of Environmental Management 86 (1), pp. 214–228.

Ingram, J. and Morris, C. (2007). The knowledge challenge within the transition towards sustainable soilmanagement: an analysis of agricultural advisors in England. Land Use Policy 24 (1), pp. 100–117.

Jasanoff, S. (2002). Science and the statistical victim: modernizing knowledge in breast implant litigation. SocialStudies of Science 32 (1), pp. 37–70.

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Breaking the waves in science studies: comment on H.M. Collins and Robert Evans, ‘The ThirdWave of science studies. Social Studies of Science 33 (3), pp. 389–400.

Jongeneel, R., Polman, N. and Slangen, L. (2008). Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land Use Policy25 (1), pp. 81–94.

Juntti, M. and Potter, C. (2002). Interpreting and reinterpreting agri-environmental policy: communication, trustand knowledge in the implementation process. Sociologia Ruralis 42 (3), pp. 215–232.



Kleijn, D., et al. (2004). Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes inthe Netherlands. Conservation Biology 18 (3), pp. 775–786.

Kloppenberg, J. R. (1991). Social theory and the de ⁄ reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for analternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56 (4), pp. 519–548.

Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Milton Keynes: Open UniversityPress.

Little, J. and Panelli, R. (2003). Gender research in rural geography. Gender, Place and Culture 10 (5), pp. 281–289.Lobley, M. and Potter, C. (1998). Environmental stewardship in UK agriculture: a comparison of the Environmen-

tally Sensitive Area programme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in South East England. Geoforum 29(4), pp. 413–432.

Long, N. and Long, A. (1992). Battlefields of knowledge: the interlocking of theory and practice in social research anddevelopment. London: Routledge.

Lowe, P., Clark, J., Seymour, S. and Ward, N. (1997). Moralizing the environment: countryside change, farming andpollution. London: UCL Press.

Lowe, P., Ward, N. and Potter, C. (1998). Attitudinal and institutional indicators for sustainable agriculture. In:Brouwer, F. and Crabtree, B. (eds) Environmental indicators and agricultural policy. Oxford: CAB International, pp.263–278.

Lundvall, B. and Johnson, B. (1994). The learning economy. Industry & Innovation 1 (2), pp. 23–42.Macdonald, D. W. and Johnson, P. J. (2000). Farmers and the custody of the countryside: trends in loss and

conservation of non-productive habitats 1981-1998. Biological Conservation 94 (2), pp. 221–234.Macfarlane, R. (1998). Implementing agri-environment policy: a landscape ecology perspective. Journal of Environ-

mental Planning and Management 41 (5), pp. 575–596.Marsden, T. and Munton, R. J. C. (1991). The farmed landscape and the occupancy change process. Environment

and Planning A 23, pp. 663–676.Mathijs, E. (2003). Social capital and farmers willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on Agri-

culture 32 (1), pp. 13–16.Mceachern, C. (1992). Farmers and conservation – conflict and accommodation in farming politics. Journal of Rural

Studies 8 (2), pp. 159–171.Mcgregor, M., Willock, J. and Deary, I. J. (1995). Farmer stress. Farm Management 9, pp. 57–65.Mchenry, H. (1998). Wild flowers in the wrong field are weeds! Examining farmers’ constructions of conservation.

Environment and Planning A 30 (6), pp. 1039–1053.Mitchell, D. (1995). There’s no such thing as culture: towards a reconceptualization of the idea of culture in geog-

raphy. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20, pp. 102–116.Morris, C. (2004). Networks of agri-environmental policy implementation: a case study of England’s Countryside

Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21, pp. 177–191.Morris, C. (2006). Negotiating the boundary between state-led and farmer approaches to knowing nature: an analy-

sis of UK agri-environment schemes. Geoforum 37, pp. 113–127.Morris, C. (2009). Environmental knowledge and small-scale rural landholding in south-west England. Geographical

Journal 176 (1), pp. 77–89.Morris, C. and Evans, N. (2004). Agricultural turns, geographical turns: retrospect and prospect. Journal of Rural

Studies 20 (1), pp. 95–111.Morris, C. and Potter, C. (1995). Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental

Schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (1), pp. 51–63.Morris, C. and Reed, M. (2007). From burgers to biodiversity? The McDonaldization of on-farm nature conserva-

tion in the UK. Agriculture and Human Values 24, pp. 207–218.Morris, C. and Young, C. (1997). Towards environmentally beneficial farming? An evaluation of the countryside

stewardship scheme. Geography 82 (357), pp. 305–316.Morris, J., Mills, J. and Crawford, I. M. (2000). Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environment schemes: the Coun-

tryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy 17 (3), pp. 241–254.Natural England (2009). Look after your land with Environmental Stewardship. Sheffield: Natural England.Natural England (2010). Environmental Stewardship Update, February 2010, Issue 7. [Online]. Retrieved on 18

September 2010 from: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/Images/esupdate7_tcm6-16816.pdf.Newby, H., Bell, C., Saunders, P. and Rose, D. (1977). Farmers’ attitudes to conservation. Countryside Recreation

Review 2, pp. 23–30.Nordstrom Kallstrom, H. and Ljung, M. (2005). Social sustainability and collaborative learning. Ambio 34, pp. 376–

382.Peck, J. (1999). Editorial: grey geography? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 24, pp. 131–135.Potter, C. (1988). Environmentally sensitive areas in England and Wales: an experiment in countryside manage-

ment. Land Use Policy 5 (3), pp. 301–313.Potter, C. and Lobley, M. (1992). The conservation status and potential of elderly farmers: results from a survey in

England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 8 (2), pp. 133–143.



Potter, C. and Gasson, R. (1988). Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some predictions froma survey. Journal of Rural Studies 4 (4), pp. 365–375.

Primdahl, J., et al. (2003). Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. Journal of Envi-ronmental Management 67, pp. 129–138.

Raedeke, A. H. and Sanford Rikoon, J. (1997). Temporal and spatial dimensions of knowledge: implications forsustainable agriculture. Agriculture and Human Values 14, pp. 145–158.

Reed, M., Dougill, A. and Baker, T. (2008). Participatory indicator development: what can ecologists and localcommunities learn from each other. Ecological Applications 18 (5), pp. 1253–1269.

Riley, M. (2005). Silent meadows: the uncertain decline and conservation of hay meadows in the British landscape.Landscape Research 30, pp. 437–458.

Riley, M. (2006). Reconsidering conceptualizations of farmer conservation behaviour: the case of conserving haymeadows. Journal of Rural Studies 22 (3), pp. 337–353.

Riley, M. (2008). Experts in their fields: farmer-expert knowledges and environmentally friendly farming practices.Environment and Planning A 40 (6), pp. 1277–1293.

Riley, M. (2009a). Bringing the ‘invisible farmer’ into sharper focus: gender relations and agricultural practices inthe Peak District (UK). Gender, Place & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography 16, pp. 665–682.

Riley, M. (2009b). ‘The next link in the chain’: children, agri-cultural practices and the family farm. Childrens Geo-graphies 7, pp. 245–260.

Riley, M. (2010). Emplacing the research encounter: exploring farm life histories. Qualitative Inquiry 16, p. 651.Riley, M. and Harvey, D. (2005). Landscape archaeology, heritage and the community in Devon: an oral history

approach. International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, pp. 269–288.Riley, M. and Harvey, D. (2007). Oral histories, farm practice and uncovering meaning in the countryside. Social

and Cultural Geography 8 (3), pp. 391–415.Robinson, G. (2005). Stewardship, ‘proper farming’ and environmental gain: contrasting experiences of agri-envi-

ronmental schemes in Canada and the UK. In: Essex, S., Gilg, A. W., Yarwood, R., Smithers, J. and Wilson, R.(eds) Rural change and sustainability: agriculture, the environment and communities. Wallingford: CABI Publishing, pp.135–150.

Robinson, G. (2006). Canada’s environmental farm plans: transatlantic perspectives on agri-environmental schemes.Geographical Journal 172 (3), pp. 206–218.

Rollett, A., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M. and Kumar, P. (2008). Delivering environmental services through agri-envi-ronment programmes: a scoping study. Nottingham: University of Nottingham.

Schenk, A., Hunziker, M. and Kienast, F. (2007). Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation mea-sures – a qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management 83 (1), pp. 66–79.

Schmitzberger, I., et al. (2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural land-scapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 108 (3), pp. 274–290.

Selman, P. and Wragg, A. (1999). Local sustainability planning: from interest-driven networks to vision-drivensuper-networks? Planning Practice and Research 14 (3), pp. 329–340.

Siebert, R., Toogood, M. and Knierim, A. (2006). Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversitypolicies. Sociologia Ruralis 46 (4), pp. 318–340.

Sinclair, G. (1983). The Upland Landscapes Study. Dyfed: Environment Information Services.Skerratt, S. (1994). Itemised payments within a single system: the case of Bredalbane. In: Whitby, M. (ed.) Incentives

for countryside management: the case of environmentally sensitive areas. Wallingford: CAB International, pp. 105–134.Smith, K. (2006). Public payments for environmental services from agriculture: precedents and possibilities. American

Journal of Agricultural Economics 88, pp. 1167–1173.Solano, C., Leon, H., Perez, E. and Herrero, M. (2003). The role of personal information sources on the decision-

making process of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 76, pp. 3–18.Stewart, L., Hanley, N. and Simpson, I. (1997). Economic valuation of the agri-environment schemes in the Uni-

ted Kingdom. Unpublished Report by the Environmental Economics Research Group, University of Stirling, toHM Treasury and MAFF.

Stringer, L. and Reed, M. (2007). Land degradation assessment in southern Africa: integrating local and scientificknowledge bases. Land Degradation & Development 18 (1), pp. 99–116.

Tovey, H. (2008). Introduction: rural sustainable development in the knowledge society era. Sociologia Ruralis 48(3), pp. 185–199.

Tsouvalis, J., Seymour, S. and Watkins, C. (2000). Exploring knowledge-cultures: precision farming, yield mapping,and the expert-farmer interface. Environment and Planning A 32 (5), pp. 909–924.

Vanclay, F., Howden, L. and Mesiti, L. (2006). The social and intellectual construction of farming styles: testingDutch ideas in Australian agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 46, pp. 61–82.

Van Der Ploeg, J. D. (1993). Rural sociology and the new agrarian question. A perspective from the Netherlands.Sociologia Ruralis 32 (2), pp. 240–260.

Walford, N. (2002). Agricultural adjustment: adoption of and adaptation to policy reform measures by large-scalecommercial farmers. Land Use Policy 19 (3), pp. 243–257.



Walsh, M. (1997). The view from the farm: farmers and agri-environmental schemes in the Yorkshire Dales. TheNorth West Geographer 1, pp. 17–28.

Walsh, M., Shackley, S. and Grove-White, R. (1996). Fields apart – what farmers think of nature conservation schemes inthe Yorkshire dales. A report for English nature and the Yorkshire dales national park authority, centre for the study of envi-ronmental change, Lancaster University. Lancaster: University of Lancaster.

Webster, S. and Felton, M. (1993). Targeting for nature conservation in agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 10 (1),pp. 67–82.

Westmacott, R. and Worthington, T. (1997). Agricultural landscapes: a third look. Great Britain: Countryside Com-mission.

Whitby, M. (ed.) (1994). Incentives for countryside management. Wallingford: CAB International.Whitby, M. (2000). Reflections on the costs and benefits of agri-environment schemes. Landscape Research 25 (3),

pp. 365–374.Whittingham, M. (2007). Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not?

Journal of Applied Ecology 44 (1), pp. 1–5.Wilson, G. (1996). Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation. Geoforum 27 (2), pp. 115–131.Wilson, G. (1997a). Assessing the environmental impact of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme: a case for

using farmers’ environmental knowledge. Landscape Research 22 (3), pp. 303–326.Wilson, G. (1997b). Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Journal

of Environmental Management 50, pp. 67–93.Wilson, G. (2001). From productivism to post-productivism ... and back again? Exploring the (un)changed natural

and mental landscapes of European agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26 (1), pp. 77–102.Wilson, G. (2007). Multifunctional agriculture: a transition theory perspective. Oxford: CABI Publishing.Wilson, G. (2008). From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transi-

tional pathways. Journal of Rural Studies 24, pp. 367–383.Wilson, G. and Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for partici-

pation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A 32, pp. 2161–2185.Wilson, G. A. and Hart, K. (2001). Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-

oriented thinking? Sociologia Ruralis 41 (2), pp. 254–274.Wilson, G., Petersen, J. and Holl, A. (1999). EU member state responses to Agri-Environment Regulation

2078 ⁄ 92 ⁄ EEC-towards a conceptual framework? Geoforum 30 (2), pp. 185–202.Woods, M. (1998). Researching rural conflicts: hunting, local politics and actor-networks. Journal of Rural Studies 14

(3), pp. 321–340.Wossink, G. A. A. and Van Wenum, J. H. (2003). Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and con-

tingent participation. European Review of Agricultural Economics 30 (4), pp. 461–485.Wynn, G., Crabtree, B. and Potts, J. (2001). Modelling farmer entry into the environmentally sensitive area

schemes in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 52 (1), pp. 65–82.Wynne, B. (1996). May the sheep safely graze? A reflexive view of the expert-lay knowledge divide. In: Lash, S.,

Szerszynski, B. and Wynne, B. (eds) Risk environment and modernity: towards a new ecology. London: Sage, pp. 44–83.



Documents

Turning Farmers into Conservationists? Progress and Prospects