TY - JOUR

T1 - ‘You can't be green if you're in the red’

T2 - Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia

AU - Schaal, Tamara

AU - Jacobs, Annie

AU - Leventon, Julia

AU - Scheele, Ben C.

AU - Lindenmayer, David

AU - Hanspach, Jan

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Ltd

PY - 2022/10/1

Y1 - 2022/10/1

N2 - Limiting biodiversity loss is a global challenge, especially in areas where biodiversity conservation conflicts with intensifying agricultural production. The different views and preferences about how to protect biodiversity, and why it is valuable, make concerted action to improve conservation outcomes difficult. Exploring different discourses that represent shared understandings of an issue or a topic can help to understand this plurality. We focused on a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia where intensive agricultural production is linked to an ongoing loss of biodiversity. Using the Q-methodology, we conducted 94 interviews with people who may influence biodiversity outcomes in farming landscapes to explore shared understandings of the farming-biodiversity intersection. We also sought to understand how such discourses relate to perceptions of biodiversity in agricultural contexts and if they are associated with particular stakeholder groups. We identify four discourses on the relationship between farming and biodiversity, the farmers’ role and responsibility for biodiversity, and the preferred approaches to improve biodiversity outcomes. Our findings highlight how perceptions of biodiversity by agricultural stakeholders varied substantially between discourses, but that discourses were not significantly associated with stakeholder group. We discuss our findings in the context of policy development and broader governance. We consider how a balanced mix of policy instruments, including market and community-based instruments, can better engage with contrasting understandings of the production-biodiversity intersection. To improve biodiversity outcomes, it is necessary to integrate a plurality of biodiversity values and ensure a broad and balanced set of policy instruments that supports land managers as stewards of the land.

AB - Limiting biodiversity loss is a global challenge, especially in areas where biodiversity conservation conflicts with intensifying agricultural production. The different views and preferences about how to protect biodiversity, and why it is valuable, make concerted action to improve conservation outcomes difficult. Exploring different discourses that represent shared understandings of an issue or a topic can help to understand this plurality. We focused on a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia where intensive agricultural production is linked to an ongoing loss of biodiversity. Using the Q-methodology, we conducted 94 interviews with people who may influence biodiversity outcomes in farming landscapes to explore shared understandings of the farming-biodiversity intersection. We also sought to understand how such discourses relate to perceptions of biodiversity in agricultural contexts and if they are associated with particular stakeholder groups. We identify four discourses on the relationship between farming and biodiversity, the farmers’ role and responsibility for biodiversity, and the preferred approaches to improve biodiversity outcomes. Our findings highlight how perceptions of biodiversity by agricultural stakeholders varied substantially between discourses, but that discourses were not significantly associated with stakeholder group. We discuss our findings in the context of policy development and broader governance. We consider how a balanced mix of policy instruments, including market and community-based instruments, can better engage with contrasting understandings of the production-biodiversity intersection. To improve biodiversity outcomes, it is necessary to integrate a plurality of biodiversity values and ensure a broad and balanced set of policy instruments that supports land managers as stewards of the land.

KW - Biodiversity conservation

KW - Farming landscapes

KW - Private landholders

KW - Q methodology

KW - Trade-offs

KW - Values

KW - Ecosystems Research

KW - Environmental planning

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85136151300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106306

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/448f8710-f2c0-3d3e-b008-bef84a641595/

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106306

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106306

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85136151300

VL - 121

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

M1 - 106306

ER -