‘You can't be green if you're in the red’: Local discourses on the production-biodiversity intersection in a mixed farming area in south-eastern Australia

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number106306
JournalLand Use Policy
Volume121
ISSN0264-8377
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01.10.2022

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Elsevier Ltd

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Affective events and proactivity
  2. Foreign language learning in multilingual Germany
  3. Business Ideologies and Perceived Breach of Contract During Downsizing
  4. Organic Synthesis – Art or Science?
  5. Nachhaltige Entwicklung
  6. Datenschutz als Werkzeug zur Antidiskriminierung
  7. Foundations of Management & Entrepreneurship
  8. Mirror Writing
  9. An Asia-centric approach to team innovation
  10. Interactive Sustainability Reporting
  11. Do unbiased people act more rationally? - The case of comparative realism and vaccine intention
  12. Generative Probleme als transzendentaler Leitfaden?
  13. Modernization, cultural change, and democracy
  14. Notting Hill Gate 4
  15. Recommended classification and nomenclature of lunar highland rocks - A committee report
  16. Equivalence scales based on revealed preference consumption expenditures - the case of Germany
  17. Mentoring in schulischen Praxisphasen
  18. Ein unwetter in Jerusalem
  19. ‘We are all herd animals'
  20. ephemera: theory & politics in organization
  21. The role of space in the emergence and endurance of organizing: How independent workers and material assemblages constitute organizations
  22. Zur Wiederentdeckung des Körpers - die Feldenkraismethode
  23. Increased materiality judgments in financial accounting and external audit
  24. Analyzing social interactions
  25. Od Pacmana do Lary Croft. Jak badać postać w grach wideo?
  26. Art, Aesthetics and Organization
  27. Emerging Areas in Research on Higher Education for Sustainable Development
  28. To Bid or Not To Bid?
  29. Stichwort
  30. Organic farming affects the biological control of hemipteran pests and yields in spring barley independent of landscape complexity