Abstract
Missing cooperation between farmers and nature conservationists is an obstacle to conflictive social-ecological transformation processes of agro-systems in Germany. Conflict psychology research shows that agonistic conflict frames play a crucial role in the parties’ response to and perception of conflicts. However, the role of conflict frames regarding farmers’ response to conservation conflicts in Germany, which are a recurrent expression of social-ecological transformation, is yet unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we investigate whether farmers have different agonistic conflict frames and whether these are related to their perceptions of specific conflicts. To answer these questions, we developed a cluster analysis of farmers’ attitudes towards conflicts over river restoration in order to find indications for different conflict frames. We used data from a telephone survey from 2021 that was conducted with 300 farmers on the topic of river restoration conflicts. We captured conflict frames using four categories: rejection of others’ attitudes, perceived threat, perceived integrated potential, and delegitimization. In the second and third steps, we looked for differences between the groups with regard to the perception of concrete conflict and economic factors. The results of this explorative study show that it is possible to distinguish six agonistic conflict frames within the four categories. Moreover, the six groups show differences in how they perceive a concrete river restoration conflict. In five out of six groups, the perceived threat is indicated as high. The findings show that farmers have different perspectives on the conflict, indicating possible differences in needs and differences regarding the openness to communicative strategies. The groups differ in their concrete conflict perception, and only weak characterization with regard to the economic situation could be found. This knowledge can help policymakers and practitioners find practical and communicative strategies that constructively address farmers' different conflict frames.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- SRU:
-
German Advisory Council on the Environment
- WFD:
-
European water framework directive
- PnIP:
-
Perception of no integrative potential
References
Bar-Tal, D. 1989. Stereotyping and prejudice. Changing conceptions. SSSP. Springer-Verlag.
Bar-Tal, D. 1997. Formation and change of ethnic and national stereotypes: An integrative model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 21 (4): 491–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(97)00022-9.
Bar-Tal, D., K. Sharvit, E. Halperin, and A. Zafran. 2012. Ethos of conflict: The concept and its measurement. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 18 (1): 40–61.
Bartkowski, B., and S. Bartke. 2018. Leverage points for governing agricultural soils: A review of empirical studies of European farmers’ decision-making. Sustainability 10 (9): 3179. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093179.
Baur, I., M. Dobricki, and M. Lips. 2016. The basic motivational drivers of northern and central European farmers. Journal of Rural Studies 46: 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.001.
Beedell, J., and T. Rehman. 2000. Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies 16 (1): 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00043-1.
Best, H. 2007. Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study from West Germany. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (1): 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-007-9073-1.
Best, H. 2009. Organic Farming as a Rational Choice. Rationality and Society 21 (2): 197–224.
Blumberg, H.H., A.P. Hare, and A. Costin, eds. 2007. Peace psychology. A comprehensive introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Bos, J.M., B. Bovenkerk, P.H. Feindt, and Y.K. van Dam. 2018. The quantified animal: Precision livestock farming and the ethical implications of objectification. Food Ethics 2 (1): 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41055-018-00029-x.
Brühl, C.A., N. Bakanov, S. Köthe, L. Eichler, M. Sorg, T. Hörren, R. Mühlethaler, G. Meinel, and G.U.C. Lehmann. 2021. Direct pesticide exposure of insects in nature conservation areas in Germany. Scientific Reports 11 (1): 24144. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-03366-w.
Burton, R.J.F. 2004. Seeing through the ‘Good Farmer’s’ eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic Value of ‘Productivist’ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44 (2): 195–215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x.
Burton, R.J.F., J. Forney, P. Stock, and L. Sutherland. 2021. The good farmer. Culture and identity in food and agriculture. Earthscan food and agriculture. Taylor & Francis Group.
Canetti, D., I. Khatib, A. Rubin, and C. Wayne. 2019. Framing and fighting: The impact of conflict frames on political attitudes. Journal of Peace Research 56 (6): 737–752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319826324.
Chapman, M., T. Satterfield, and K.M.A. Chan. 2019. When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs? Land Use Policy 82: 464–475.
Coleman, P.T. 2004. Paradigmatic framing of protracted, intractable conflict: Paradigmatic framing of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a meta-framework-II. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 10 (3): 197–235.
Coleman, P.T. 2006. Conflict, Complexity, and Change: A Meta-Framework for Addressing Protracted, Intractable Conflicts—III. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 12 (4): 325–348.
Connolly, W.E. 2002. Identity difference. Democratic negotiations of political paradox. Univ. of Minnesota Press.
Daugbjerg, C., and P.H. Feindt. 2017. Post-exceptionalism in public policy: Transforming food and agricultural policy. Journal of European Public Policy 24 (11): 1565–1584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1334081.
Di Giuseppe, M., and J.C. Perry. 2021. The hierarchy of defense mechanisms: Assessing defensive functioning with the defense mechanisms rating scales Q-Sort. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 718440.
Duckitt, J., and K. Fisher. 2003. The impact of social threat on worldview and ideological attitudes. Political Psychology 24 (1): 199–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00322.
Eastwood, A., A. Fischer, A. Hague, and K. Brown. 2022. A cup of tea? – The role of social relationships, networks and learning in land managers’ adaptations to policy change. Land Use Policy 113: 105926.
Emery, S.B. 2014. Hard work, productivity and the management of the farmed environment in anthropological perspective. In Contemporary issues in management, ed. Lindsay Hamilton, Laura Mitchell, and Anita Mangan, 90–104. Edward Elgar.
Entman, R.M. 1993. Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
Fazio, R.H. 1986. How do attitudes guide behavior? In Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior, ed. R.M. Sorrentino, 204–243. Guilford.
Feindt, P.H., C. Krämer, A. Früh-Müller, A. Heißenhuber, C. Pahl-Wostl, K.P. Purnhagen, F. Thomas, C. van Bers, and V. Wolters. 2019. Ein neuer Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft. Wege zu einer integrativen Politik für den Agrarsektor, 1st ed. Springer.
Fickel, T., O. Schulz, K. Campe, C. Völker, and H. Kerber. 2019. Konflikte um die Renaturierung der Nidda. Analyse im Rahmen des Projektes NiddaMan. ISOE-Materialien Soziale Ökologie.
Flávio, H.M., P. Ferreira, N. Formigo, and J.C. Svendsen. 2017. Reconciling agriculture and stream restoration in Europe: A review relating to the EU water framework directive. The Science of the Total Environment 596–597: 378–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.04.057.
Fonseca, J.R.S. 2013. Clustering in the field of social sciences: That is your choice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 16 (5): 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2012.716973.
Frick-Trzebitzky, F., K. Brinkmann, K. Koböck, S. Liehr, and T. Fickel. 2021. Sozial-ökologische Konfliktanalyse zur Deichsanierung entlang der Weschnitz zwischen Biblis und Einhausen. ISOE-Materialien Soziale Ökologie.
Gillespie, A. 2020. Semantic contact and semantic barriers: Reactionary responses to disruptive ideas. Current Opinion in Psychology 35: 21–25.
Hallmann, C.A., M. Sorg, E. Jongejans, H. Siepel, N. Hofland, H. Schwan, W. Stenmans, A. Müller, H. Sumser, T. Hörren, D. Goulson, and H. de Kroon. 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas. PLoS ONE 12 (10): e0185809. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185809.
Heinze, R. G., R. Bieckmann, A. Küchler, and S. Kurtenbach. 2021. Sorgen und Proteste auf dem Land. www.hss-opus.ub.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/opus4/frontdoor/index/index/docId/7985. Accessed 21 February 2023.
Heldt, S., P. Budryte, H.W. Ingensiep, B. Teichgräber, U. Schneider, and M. Denecke. 2016. Social pitfalls for river restoration: How public participation uncovers problems with public acceptance. Environmental Earth Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5787-y.
Kappmeier, M., B. Guenoun, and K.H. Fahey. 2021. Conceptualizing trust between groups: An empirical validation of the five-dimensional intergroup trust model. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 27 (1): 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000537.
Laclau, E., and M. Chantal. 2014. Hegemony and socialist strategy. Towards a radical democratic politics. Verso.
Lécuyer, L., D. Alard, S. Calla, B. Coolsaet, T. Fickel, K. Heinsoo, K. Henle, I. Herzon, I. Hodgson, F. Quétier, D. McCracken, B.J. McMahon, I. Melts, D. Sands, E. Skrimizea, A. Watt, R. White, and Juliette Young. 2022. Chapter One - Conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe: Looking to the future by learning from the past. Advances in Ecological Research 65: 3–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2021.10.005.
Lokhorst, A.M., H. Staats, J. van Dijk, E. van Dijk, and G. de Snoo. 2011. What’s in it for Me? Motivational Differences between Farmers’ Subsidised and Non-Subsidised Conservation Practices. Applied Psychology 60 (3): 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00438.x.
Lokhorst, A.M., C. Hoon, R. Le Rutte, and G. de Snoo. 2014. There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy 39: 121–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.03.005.
Lütz, M., and O. Bastian. 2002. Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape—a case study from Saxony. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 92 (2–3): 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00300-0.
Mana, A., A. Srour, and S. Sagy. 2021. Sense of community coherence, perceptions of collective narratives, and identity strategies in intra- and interreligious group conflicts. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 27 (4): 669–673. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000538.
Marx, D., and S. Jin Ko. 2016. Stereotypes and Prejudice. In Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology, ed. O.J. Braddick and Wade E. Pickren. Oxford University Press.
Mehring, M., D. Hummel, B. Bernard, S. Liehr, and A. Lux. 2017. Halting biodiversity loss: How social–ecological biodiversity research makes a difference. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 13 (1): 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2017.1289246.
Mettepenningen, E., A. Verspecht, and G. van Huylenbroeck. 2009. Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (5): 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958206.
Meuwissen, M.P.M., P.H. Feindt, A. Spiegel, C.J.A.M. Termeer, E. Mathijs, Y. de Mey, R. Finger, A. Balmann, E. Wauters, J. Urquhart, M. Vigani, K. Zawalińska, H. Herrera, P. Nicholas-Davies, H. Hansson, W. Paas, T. Slijper, I. Coopmans, W. Vroege, A. Ciechomska, F. Accatino, B. Kopainsky, P.M. Poortvliet, J.J.L. Candel, D. Maye, S. Severini, S. Senni, B. Soriano, C. Lagerkvist, M. Peneva, C. Gavrilescu, and P. Reidsma. 2019. A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems. Agricultural Systems 176: 102656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102656.
Milfont, T.L., and C.G. Sibley. 2012. The big five personality traits and environmental engagement: Associations at the individual and societal level. Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2): 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2011.12.006.
Mouffe, C. 2005a. On the political. Routledge.
Mouffe, C. 2005b. The democratic paradox. Verso.
Mouffe, C. 2013. Agonistics. Thinking the world politically. Verso.
Myers, J.P., M.N. Antoniou, B. Blumberg, L. Carroll, T. Colborn, L.G. Everett, M. Hansen, P.J. Landrigan, B.P. Lanphear, R. Mesnage, L.N. Vandenberg, F.S. vom Saal, W.V. Welshons, and C.M. Benbrook. 2016. Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0.
O’Donoghue, C., A. Buckley, S. Chyzheuskaya, P. Green, S. Howley, V. Upton. Hynes, and M. Ryan. 2021. The spatial impact of rural economic change on river water quality. Land Use Policy 103: 105322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105322.
German Federal Statistical Office. 2006. Wirtschaft und Statistik 5: 516–526.
German Federal Statistical Office. 2021. Landwirtschaft im Wandel – erste Ergebnisse der Landwirtschaftszählung 2020. www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2021/LZ2020/statement-lz2020.pdf?__blob=publication. FileAccessed 3 August 2022.
Pedersen, A.B., H. Ørsted Nielsen, T. Christensen, and B. Hasler. 2012. Optimising the effect of policy instruments: A study of farmers’ decision rationales and how they match the incentives in Danish pesticide policy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55 (8): 1094–1110. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.636568.
Peter, S., G. Le Provost, M. Mehring, T. Müller, and P. Manning. 2021. Cultural worldviews consistently explain bundles of ecosystem service prioritisation across rural Germany. People and Nature 4 (1): 218–230.
Pettigrew, T.F. 2003. Peoples under threat: Americans, Arabs, and Israelis. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 9 (1): 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327949PAC0901_03.
Pruitt, D.G., S. Hee Kim, and J.Z. Rubin. 2004. Social conflict. Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. In McGraw-Hill series in social psychology, 3rd ed. McGraw-Hill.
Riley, M. 2016. How does longer term participation in agri-environment schemes [re]shape farmers’ environmental dispositions and identities? Land Use Policy 52: 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.12.010.
Rognes, J.K., and V. Schei. 2010. Understanding the integrative approach to conflict management. Journal of Managerial Psychology 25 (1): 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011013885.
Schmid, K., and O.T. Muldoon. 2015. Perceived threat, social identification, and psychological well-being: The effects of political conflict exposure. Political Psychology 36 (1): 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12073.
Schmitzberger, I., Th. Wrbka, B. Steurer, G. Aschenbrenner, J. Peterseil, and H.G. Zechmeister. 2005. How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 108 (3): 274–290.
Seibold, S., M.M. Gossner, N.K. Simons, N. Blüthgen, J. Müller, D. Ambarlı, C. Ammer, J. Bauhus, M. Fischer, J.C. Habel, K.E. Linsenmair, T. Nauss, C. Penone, D. Prati, P. Schall, E. Schulze, J. Vogt, S. Wöllauer, and W.W. Weisser. 2019. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574 (7780): 671–674. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1684-3.
Sherif, M., and C.I. Hovland. 1961. Social judgement. Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitutde change. Yale University Press.
Skrimizea, E., L. Lecuyer, N. Bunnefeld, J.R.A. Butler, T. Fickel, I. Hodgson, C. Holtkamp, M. Marzano, C. Parra, L. Pereira, S. Petit, D. Pound, I. Rodríguez, P. Ryan, J. Staffler, A.J. Vanbergen, P. van den Broeck, H. Wittmer, and J.C. Young. 2020. Sustainable agriculture: Recognizing the potential of conflict as a positive driver for transformative change. Advances of Ecological Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2020.08.003.
SRU - German Advisory Council on the Environment. 2020. Wasserrahmenrichtlinie für die ökologische Gewässerentwicklung nutzen. In Umweltgutachten 2020: Für eine entschlossene Umweltpolitik in Deutschland und Europa, ed. German Advisory Council on the Environment, 199–260. Berlin.
Steinhäußer, R., R. Siebert, A. Steinführer, and M. Hellmich. 2015. National and regional land-use conflicts in Germany from the perspective of stakeholders. Land Use Policy 49: 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.009.
Stephan, W.G., O. Ybarra, and K. Rios. 2016. Intergroup Threat Theory. In Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, 2nd ed., ed. Todd D. Nelson, 255–278. Psychology Press.
Tajfel, H. 2010. Human groups and social categories. Studies in social psychology. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Thomas, E., M. Riley, and J. Spees. 2020. Knowledge flows: Farmers’ social relations and knowledge sharing practices in ‘Catchment Sensitive Farming.’ Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104254.
Thórisdóttir, H., and J.T. Jost. 2011. Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology 32 (5): 785–811. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00840.x.
Tropp, L.R., ed. 2012. The Oxford handbook of intergroup conflict. Oxford library of psychology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Uluğ, Ö.M., and J.C. Cohrs. 2016. An exploration of lay people’s Kurdish conflict frames in Turkey. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 22 (2): 109–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/pac0000165.
van Dijk, W.F.A., A.M. Lokhorst, F. Berendse, and G.R. de Snoo. 2015. Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy 42: 759–766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.005.
van Herzele, A., A. Gobin, P. van Gossum, L. Acosta, T. Waas, N. Dendoncker, and B. Henry de Frahan. 2013. Effort for money? Farmers’ rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. Journal of Environmental Management 131: 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.030.
Westphal, M. 2013. Pluralismus und A(nta)gonismus. Chantal Mouffes agonale Demokratietheorie. Preprints and Working Papers of the Centre for Advanced Study in Bioethics. Münster.
Willems, U. 2016. Wertkonflikte als Herausforderung der Demokratie, 1st ed. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.
Yim, O., and K.T. Ramdeen. 2015. Hierarchical cluster analysis: Comparison of three linkage measures and application to psychological data. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology 11 (1): 8–21.
Young, J.C., K. Searle, A. Butler, P. Simmons, A.D. Watt, and A. Jordan. 2016. The role of trust in the resolution of conservation conflicts. Biological Conservation 195: 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.030.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Diana Hummel for reviews on the earlier draft of this paper and Georg Sunderer, Barbara Birzle-Harder, Engelbert Schramm, and Konrad Götz for support and ideas on conducting the survey. This publication is part of the institutional cooperation with the Senckenberg Research Center Biodiversity and Climate (SBiK-F).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix
Questionnaire Telephone Survey
Screening-Question | ||
|---|---|---|
Own involvement | 1a. Has in the past or does currently a renaturation process of a water body had an influence on the land use of your farm? - Yes - No IF „yes “ THEN Question 2 IF „no “ THEN Question 1b 1b. Have you been affected in the past or are you currently affected by a watercourse restoration planning process? - Yes - No IF „no “ THEN cancel survey | |
Conflict content | ||
Time | 2. What is the current status of the process? - Completed - Currently running - In planning → Important for further Question, save answer | |
Subject | 3. Which water body was or is this renaturation measure about? - Name: (response open) | |
Result | IF Question 2, Response: „completed “ or „currently running “ THEN Question 4a IF Question 2, Response: „in planning “ THEN Question 4b 4a. Have changes in land ownership or use occurred on your farm as a result of renaturation? → (yes/no/do not know) IF „no “ or „do not know “ THEN Question 4b 4b. Are changes in land ownership or use likely to occur on your farm as a result of renaturation? → (yes/no/do not know) IF „no “ or „do not know “ THEN Question 7 | |
Topic | 5. What changes are associated with renaturation for you? → (Yes/no/maybe) → Rotate! - Disposal of farmland - Exchange of farmland - Stricter requirements for the use of land adjacent to the water body - Loss of value due to water damage to adjacent land | |
Reasons | 6. Im Zuge der Umsetzung der Renaturierungsmaßnahme gab or gibt es unterschiedliche Auswirkungen für Ihren Betrieb. Welche treffen auf Sie zu? → (Yes/no) → Rotate! - Loss of Farmland - Advantages through exchange of farmland - No adequate compensation payment - There is behavioral restriction or heteronomy - Implementation and compliance with restrictions is too difficult - New form of farming does not fit into the operating procedures - Use of the water body as a drinking trough for livestock is no longer possible - In case of flooding, the adjacent land will be chemically contaminated - Damage due to the settlement of certain animal species (e.g. beavers, Egyptian geese) - Damage due to the settlement of harmful plant species | |
Process | ||
Conflict resolution processes | 7a. In which of the following processes and procedures regarding the renaturation project did you or a representative participate? → (Yes/no) → Rotate! - Informational event - Public participation process - Direct talks with - Negotiations on compensation payments - Land exchange procedure - Local counciul meetings - Legal procedure - Land consolidation procedure 7b. Was or is there a planning approval procedure? → (Yes/no/do not know) | |
Need for procedures | IF Question 2 Response: „completed “ THEN Question 8a IF Question 2 Response: „currently running “, or „in planning “ THEN Question 8b 8a. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree → Rotate! - The procedure was sufficiently transparent - There was sufficient participation - I was involved in the process at an early stage - There was the possibility of direct and unbureaucratic agreements - There was the possibility of legal advice - The general public was sufficiently involved - There was a realistic impact assessment - There was sufficient disclosure of conservation objectives - There is good planning for the long-term maintenance of the reanturated area Continue with Question 9 8b. To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the process? → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree → Rotate! - The procedure was sufficiently transparent - There was sufficient co-determination - I was involved in the process at an early stage - There was the possibility of direct and unbureaucratic agreements - There was the possibility of legal advice - The general public was sufficiently involved - There was a realistic impact assessment - There conservation goals were sufficiently disclosed - There is good planning for the long-term maintenance of the reanturated area Continue with Question 9 | |
Conflict perception | ||
Escalation | IF Question 2 Response: „completed “ THEN Question 9a IF Question 2 Response: „currently running “, THEN Question 9b IF Question 2, Response: „in planning “ THEN Question 9c 9a. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree - With regard to my business, I am satisfied with the current status of the renaturation - The contact with the project executing agency was very constructive - Both sides—my business and the renaturation project—win (win–win situation) → Continue with Question 10 9b. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree - With regard to my business, I am satisfied with the current status of the renaturation - The contact with the project executing agency was very constructive - Both sides—my business and the renaturation project—win (win–win situation) → Continue with Question 10 9c. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree - With regard to my business, I am satisfied with the current status of the renaturation - The contact with the project executing agency was very constructive - Both sides—my business and the renaturation project—win (win–win situation) → Continue with Question 10 | |
Cooperation | 10. To what extent do you agree with the following statement? - Personally, it makes sense for me to participate in a river restoration process. → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree | |
3 | Values | |
11. I will now read you a few statements on nature conservation and the role of agriculture. Please tell me to what extent you agree with each statement → Scale of four, strongly agree, rather agree, rather disagree, strongly disagree → Rotate! - Biodiversity conservation is an overrated fad - As a farmer, I also feel personally responsible for the conservation of biodiversity - Without strong nature conservation, we farmers cannot farm in the long term - Nature conservation is so extreme these days that it endangers our agriculture - We need as much land as possible where nature can recover - Renaturation is important so that nature can regain its balance - I stand up for renaturation, even if it sometimes contradicts my own interests as a farmer - If we can no longer produce effectively in this country, much more nature will be destroyed elsewhere - If too much nature conservation is demanded of us farmers here in Germany, we will no longer be able to ensure food security - Productive agriculture is certainly compatible with consistent nature conservation | ||
4 | Land and operation | |
Size Land | 12. How large is the land of your farm affected by the renaturation? → Value in hectares | |
Biodiv. value land | 13. In your opinion, what is the ecological potential of the land in terms of renaturation? → Scale of five, very big, rather big, rather small, very small, do not know | |
Agric. value | 14. What is the soil number of the affected land? → Value 15. What is the land value (market value, "tenure value") of the land? → Value 16. How much pressure do you experience on the lands around you? → (Scale of four, very strong, rather strong, rather weak, very weak) 17. Do you need even more land? → (Yes/no) | |
Workforce | 18. How many workers do you have, counting yourself? → Number | |
Type of operation | 19. What type of operation do you have? → Name one - Arable farm - Fodder farm - Finishing farms - Mixed farm - Special crop farm - Permanent crop farm - Horticultural farm - Other, what one? | |
Form of employment | 20. How do you operate your farm? - Professional farming - as an additional or sideline occupation | |
Ecolog. Agriculture | 21. Is your farm a certified organic farm? → Yes/No/in conversion | |
Income situation | 22. How would you describe the current income situation of your business? - Good - Rather good - So-so - Rather bad - Bad | |
Größe Betrieb | 23. What is the size of your farm in hectares? → Number in hectares | |
Tenure rate | 24. What is the tenure rate of your land in hectares? → Number in hectares | |
Farm succesion | 25. Is your farm succession arranged? → Yes/no/do not know | |
Socio-demographic data | 26. How old are you? → Value 27. What sex are you? → Male/female/non-binary 28. What is your highest professional education degree? - No completed education - Agricultural/horticultural vocational training certificate - Agricultural/horticultural economist/technician/master craftsman - Agricultural/horticultural university degree - Other training, namely: - I am still in the following training: | |
Recommendation | 29. Is there anything you would like to share with us as a recommendation on this topic? → Open | |
Completion | Thank you for your participation! | |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Fickel, T. Farmers` agonistic conflict frames regarding river restoration disputes. Agric Hum Values 40, 1653–1673 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5