Comparing stakeholders’ representations of social-ecological systems: mental models of the functioning of contrasted French rural landscapes

Comparing stakeholders’ representations of social-ecological systems: mental models of the

functioning of contrasted French rural landscapes

Carole Vuillot1* and Raphaël Mathevet1

1CEFE CNRS MONTPELLIER, FRANCE

* Presenting author: [email protected]

1

AAG Annual Meeting

21st APRIL 2015

Chicago, Illinois

Evolution of European farmed landscapes

• Intensification of agricultural systems and practices

Landscape simplification

Biodiversity loss

Evolution of European farmed landscapes

• Intensification of agricultural systems and practices

Landscape simplification

Biodiversity loss

• EU Common Agricultural Policy

Land sparing

FamLand research projet

Cro

p co

mpo

sitio

n

Crop configuration

https://farmland-biodiversity.org


Cro

p co

mpo

sitio

n

Crop configuration

Armorique

Plaine-Val de Sèvre

East Anglia Goettingen

Camargue

Gascony Valleys and Hills Lleida

Ontario


?


Cro

p co

mpo

sitio

n

Crop configuration


?


Cro

p co

mpo

sitio

n

Crop configuration


?

?

How to deal with complex social-ecological systems ?

• Agricultural landscapes = social-ecological systems

• You can’t manage or care for interactions you don’t perceive

• Conservation policies in farmed landscape inefficient due to lack of relevance to on-ground context

“The soundness of a politic often lies upon our ability to understand the various types of knowledge and worldviews of the relevant stakeholders “ (Ostrom 2005)

C. Vuillot 2013

eliciting farmers’ world views

Three contrasted landscapes

Gascony Valleys and Hills Plaine et val de Sèvre Camargue

A gradient of territorial coordination and institutionalization of biodiversity conservation

Hypotheses

consensus on the system

Integrated vision of links between nature and agriculture

European N2000 area Regional Nature Park

Armorique

Plaine-Val de Sèvre

East Anglia Goettingen

Camargue

Gascony Valleys and Hills Lleida

Ontario




EU N2000 site Regional Nature Park




Hypotheses

consensus on the social-ecological system


EU N2000 site Regional Nature Park

Theoretical background: a mental model approach

Adapted from Clayton and Myers (2009) , Cosquer (2012)

Biodiversity

Behavior/ practices

Mental model

Local social interactions

Natural and economical assets and disadvantages

• Internal representation of an external system • Individual cognitive structure

• socially elaborated • on which , reasoning, attitudes, and behavior are based

Carley and Palmquist (1992) Lynam and Brown (2011)

Hoffman (2015) Agricultural landscape

Affective components

attachment – fear - denial

Socio-economic background

Social norms values

Cognitive components Knowledge – beliefs

Theoretical background: a mental model approach

Adapted from Clayton and Myers (2009) , Cosquer (2012)

Biodiversity

Behavior/ practices

Mental model

Local social interactions

Natural and economical assets and disadvantages

• Internal representation of an external system • Individual cognitive structure

• socially elaborated • on which , reasoning, attitudes, and behavior are based

Carley and Palmquist (1992) Lynam and Brown (2011)

Hoffman (2015) Agricultural landscape

Affective components

attachment – fear - denial

Socio-economic background

Social norms values

Cognitive components Knowledge – beliefs

Network of linked concepts

Mental models elicitation technique

• Iterative elicitation of a conceptual model of the system functioning :

Özesmi et Özesmi (2004)

Mathevet et al. (2011)

Etienne et al. (2011) C. Vuillot. 2014

How would you describe the functioning of the agricultural landscape ?

– « Stakeholders»

– « Biophysical Components»

– « Drivers of change »

– « Interactions» : directed arrow + verb

Individual concept map (ICM)

TO

Crops Farmers …

Crops 0 0 …

Farmers 1 0 …

… … … …

FRO

M

ICM

Aggregated ICMs

Analysis of directed graphs and group conceptual maps

Transmitter variables (T) forcing function, givens

Receiver variables (R) utility variables, ends

Ordinary variables (O) means

Bougon et al., (1977) Vanwindekens et al., (2014)

R/T ratio

Crops Farmers …

Crops 0 1 …

Farmers 1 0 …

… … … …

Crops Farmers …

Crops 0 1 …

Farmers 1 0 …

… … … …

GCM = group concept map

Concept categorization

Individual adjacency matrices

Sampling

Gascony Valleys and Hills Plaine et val de Sèvre Camargue n = 29 n=30 n=30

Fert 2014 Education

Age

N= 89

None Middle School High School High School + 2 License degree Master degree

Comparing map structures at the individual level: R/T ratio

R>T Emphasis on consequences

R<T Emphasis on causes

Qualitative comparative analysis at the site level : Patterns in Group Concept Maps

• Qualitative Pattern detection B

S S



S S

Gascony Valleys and Hills

Ø



S S

Gascony Valleys and Hills Plaine et Val de Sèvre



S S

Camargue Gascony Valleys and Hills Plaine et Val de Sèvre

3 SITES; minimum weight = 50%;

farmers Annual crops

Content analysis: what consensus across and within sites ?

Consensus seem slightly stronger in the Camargue

• 200 different concept categories 1275 different directed links

Plaine et Val de Sèvre Camargue Gascony Valleys and Hills

Fisher’s Exact test : p <0,001

A1

A2

A

3

one ICM

Comparing contents of maps at the site level

• Selecting the most consensual links in Group Concept Maps by study site

Frequency threshold

• Can we find any significant difference in frequency of citation between study sites for some key links ?

Fisher’s Exact test for count data

Fisher exact test for count data ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 Gascony Valleys and Hills

minimum link frequency = 20%

Plaine et Val de Sèvre

*

Fisher exact test for count data ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05


Fisher exact test for count data ** p < 0.01 * p < 0.05 Camargue


Qualitative comparison in a nutshell

Camargue



• Great emphasis put on production means like agricultural machine and inputs feeling of path dependency

• Farmers exploit woodlands

• Emphasis put on hedges and trees in a plain where they almost disappeared

• Central and local authorities play a significant role

• Irrigated crops organize the landscape • More links between landscape components • Protected area management structures play

a significant role

What visions of links between nature and agriculture ?

Integrated vision



Integrated vision

Fauna in the margins of the farmed areas




Integrated vision


Absence of fauna; Ø

Camargue




Integrated vision


Absence of fauna; Segregated from farmed landscape and associated with wetlands in farmers’ mind ?

Camargue



Conclusion Gascony Valleys and Hills Plaine et val de Sèvre Camargue


territorial coordination and institutionalization of biodiversity conservation

consensus on the system

Discussion on mental model methods

• PROS – Stay close to people’s own perception – Transparency kept all along data processing – Facilitate research on complex social-ecological

systems • CONS

– Time consuming – Critical categorization process – Great number of variables vs small samples, need

for further research on data analysis techniques

Take home messages

• Great diversity of mental models of the landscape between and within regions

• Conservation institutions and concertation processes do not necessary lead to social learning

• Conservation policies in French farmed landscape still fail to promote effective land sharing integrated approaches

• Perspectives = collectively build models of the socio-ecosystem functioning in participatory fashion

[email protected]

35

Thank you for your attention

Any questions ?

Comparing stakeholders’ representations of social-ecological systems: mental models of the functioning of contrasted French rural landscapes

Documents