global science global: Comparing system visions of farmers and experts

Comparing system visions of farmers and experts

Regina Schöll ^,^a^, and Claudia Binder^a^,

^aDepartment of Geography, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zürich, Switzerland

Available online 4 May 2009.

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to identify farmers’ future in terms of the pesticide management of potato growing farmers in Vereda la Hoya (Boyacá, Colombia).

To achieve this goal we applied the Future-Structured Mental Model Approach (Future-SMMA) and interviewed 10 farmers concerning their future perspectives and expectations to derive their future visions. Subsequently, 10 experts were interviewed about the feasibility and the consequences of farmers’ future visions.

Applying the Future-SMMA, we analyzed farmers’ future visions and found that farmers take account of social and environmental threats and that their visions are optimistic. In addition we compared farmers’ and experts’ perceptions of external constraints on farmers’ future and discovered that the future visions of farmers and experts were inconsistent. Finally, we determined how farmers’ livelihood assets and self-perception influence the formation of farmers’ future visions and found that the more a person was able to differentiate his livelihood assets the more differentiated were the future visions of that person.

In discussing our findings, we deduce that the inconsistency of future visions found is due to diverging attitudes towards future scenarios and differing opinions about who should take responsibility for the knowledge management of farmers.

Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Study area
3. Methods
4. Results
5. Discussion and conclusion
Acknowledgements
References

1. Introduction

Despite considerable improvements in food production over the last 50 years, food security remains a problem in many parts of the world [1] and [2]. According to the latest estimations of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) 852 million people were undernourished between the years 2000 and 2002. Pesticides, once praised as yield savers, securing harvests in quality and amount [3], and thereby regarded as crucial to feeding the growing world population, have failed to fulfill expectations [1].

Furthermore, despite improvements in plant protection [1] and [3] the control of plant pests¹ still entails substantial use of pesticides, which have been shown to cause a variety of unexpected negative side effects on the environment [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8] and on human health, not only of pesticide users but also of consumers of contaminated goods [4], [9], [10] and [11]. Ongoing misuse of pesticides continues to deplete soils and destroy biodiversity [12] and these effects are expected to worsen in the future [1]. Farmers, especially in less developed regions, seem to be unaware of these effects as they continue to misuse pesticides despite an observed deterioration in their means of subsistence [13] and [14].

How will the pesticide application saga continue? Where is agricultural production technology heading? What underlying factors determine this development? The future of agricultural production is closely connected to the future of farmers producing agricultural products. For the purpose of our research we have focused on the viewpoint of farmers and their future. The future of farmers is determined by a wide variety of factors. We grouped the factors determining farmers’ future into two subgroups according to different types of influence: external factors and internal factors. What we mean by these influences, the existing research on the future of these influences and their interplay in determining farmers’ future will be explained in the following two sections, the first referring to external and the second to internal-factors.

1.1. External factors influencing farmers’ future

The term external factors refers to factors like environmental conditions (climate, pests, soil quality) or structural factors (technical advisor organizations or the development of agricultural markets), which influence farmers’ future but develop independently of farmers’ wishes, i.e., factors which cannot be controlled by the farmers.

With reference to this definition, farmers’ future will be determined by four major external factors: (1) changing climate [1] and [15]; (2) the spread of pests throughout the world [1]; (3) changing agricultural markets reshaped by the demand for organic food and bio fuels [1]; and (4) changing agricultural technologies, e.g., an increasing degree of mechanization or the use of genetically modified plants [16].

External factors constitute possible external constraints on farmers’ future and these are best known to experts like farmers’ technical advisers, extension officers and governmental agencies [17]. Moreover, local experts’ perspectives on farmers’ livelihood reveal exactly how external factors contribute to farmers’ future. Local experts are even in a position to distinguish whether external factors influence farmers’ future directly or indirectly via changing farmer livelihoods, which in turn influence farmers’ future.

Even though local experts determine to a large extent how and what type of information regarding external changes reaches farmers, they have rarely been the objects of research [17]. To the knowledge of the authors external factors influencing farmers’ future have neither been analyzed through the eyes of local experts who advise farmers nor in the context of farmers’ livelihood assets.

1.2. Internal factors influencing farmers’ future

Similarly to the external factors presented above, internal factors have to be borne in mind when investigating farmers’ future. In contrast to the external factors, we use the term internal factors for factors which are directly determined by the farmers themselves, like farmers’ education, perception or decision-making.

The importance of internal factors for agricultural development has been stressed by several research groups, especially while trying actively to influence agricultural development. The influence of agricultural development encompasses situations in which there are major differences regarding perceptions of the nature of the problem, the need for action and what type of action should be taken. Research on integrated resource management emphasizes the need to develop methods combining approaches from soft² and hard³ system analysis [18]. According to the studies of Ross [19] and Ryder [20] farmers have to be actively involved in the decision and developing process of development projects in order for their development to be facilitated toward more sustainable agriculture. Furthermore other researchers report that in the past, many local development projects failed, because they did not address the needs identified by the target communities themselves. The projects imposed solutions that were not perceived as relevant by local people and were consequently abandoned [21] and [22]. Additionally Lynam et al. [23] and Ramirez [24] found that there is increasing recognition that positive changes are more likely to be initiated when the attitudes, beliefs or preferences of the people managing or depending on resources are considered in the identification of problems and the development of solutions.

The internal factors can be roughly divided into four groups: first farmers’ livelihood assets, second farmers’ self-perception,⁴ third farmers’ behavior⁵ and fourth farmers’ future visions. The “livelihood assets”-factors determine the flexibility of a farmer in acting on or reacting to changes in external factors. The “self-perception”-factors determine how farmers calculate their present position and the “behavioral”-factors determine how they actually act on/react to a change (but will not be further analyzed in this study). Finally, farmers’ future vision-factors include farmers’ expectations and perspectives for the future and farmers’ future scenarios. Therefore farmers’ future vision-factors determine what position in the future farmers are hoping for. In other words, how well farmers cope with future challenges will depend on the condition of “livelihood assets”, “self-perception” and “behavior”. And, finally, what they are willing and prepared to confront will depend on future visions.

To the knowledge of the authors no studies so far have been conducted specifically targeting farmers and farmers’ perspectives on future pesticide application. The studies focusing on future visions in general give indications about points to consider when farmers and problems involving rational thinking are to be investigated. These epistemological indications are of the nature of internal factors like the ones presented above.

For example the influence of internal factors on people's future has been widely discussed in the epistemology of Future Studies among others by Innayatullah [25], MacKay and McKiernan [26] and Aligica [27].

Innayatullah [25] present three ways to frame the future and future studies: predictive/empirical, interpretive/cultural and critical/postmodern. The internal factors are representatives of the interpretative/cultural frame and are especially important for farmers.

MacKay and McKiernan [26] focuses, in his epistemology of future studies, on cognitive linkages between past, present and future. Past experiences are stored within farmers’ livelihood assets in the form of human capital which according to MacKay and McKiernan [26] influences farmers’ future visions. He analyses the role of hindsight in foresight and stresses the importance to consider psychological biases in scenario thinking.

Aligica [27] demands an epistemology of prediction as a part of Future Studies and its consequences, giving an additional argument for the importance to consider livelihood knowledge in the construction and understanding of future visions. He emphasises that the social aspect of prediction represents the difference between explanation and prediction. Aligica concludes that background information and personal, local and tacit knowledge play a major role in predictive arguments and procedures and such that they have to be consider in the construction and analysis of future visions.

Also Rubin and Linturin [28], Chenoweth et al. [29], Quinn et al. [30] and Chaves and Riley [31] base their analysis of future visions on the premise that internal factors influence future visions.

For example self-perception is represented in Rubin's Future Image Index Map [28] by general knowledge and social knowledge elements such as general beliefs and ethics. In Rubin's tool these elements are considered to influence the build up of future images (which we call future visions in this paper). In addition some livelihood assets like gender, skills and profession are represented in Rubin's tool by the elements of identity. However other livelihood assets such as financial or natural capital are not considered in her tool. These may not be important to compare teachers and adolescents’ future images but play a key role in farmers’ future images and therefore should be considered.

Similarly Chenoweth et al.’s [29] research on the future visions of students, revealed that environment and past experiences of students influenced their understanding of the future.

Likewise Quinn et al. [30] shows that people's perception of future problems depends not only on the environmental condition they live in but also on their social situation and livelihood strategy. He stresses that to incorporate livelihood knowledge, not only the perception of local communities has to be considered but also the livelihood context itself. Regarding pesticide use in particular, farmers’ local knowledge has been shown to provide information about their awareness of pesticide effects, but the effect of local knowledge on future visions has not been investigated so far. Research on people's future visions has hardly ever been applied to farmers and their future.

Diverse attempts have been undertaken to investigate and derive peoples’ future visions and their influence on peoples future. Known methods for assessing future orientations are: AgFutures a decision support tool to develop sustainable agricultural futures [32], Future Image Index Map method [28], the Foresighting Workshops method used by Chenoweth et al. [29] developed by the UK foresight program [33] and Future Search [34]. Results from these research programs have shown that the awareness of future visions also influences the future itself. But the approaches presented have not explicitly incorporated the effect of livelihood assets on future visions and have not yet been applied to assess neither farmers’ future nor the future of farmers concerning pesticide application.

1.3. The Future-Structured Mental Model Approach

One method for analyzing farmers’ livelihood assets, farmers’ self-perception and farmers’ future visions together with experts’ views is the Structured Mental Model Approach (SMMA) developed by Binder and Schöell [35] and first applied by Schöell and Binder [36]. The SMMA method combines the Mental Models Approach (MMA) [37] and [38] with the DFID Livelihood Framework [39].

The SMMA was originally developed to integrate farmers risk perception in the framework of their livelihood assets and to compare this perception with the evidence-based risk assessment derived by local experts. So far the SMMA has been applied in analyzing risks concerning pesticide management [36]. For this first application the DFID Livelihood Framework was slightly adapted to the needs of a health risk focused problem such as pesticide management. That is, health was defined as a distinct livelihood capital in addition to the capitals used in the DFID Livelihood Framework. For the purpose of this research, the SMMA tailored to pesticide management was adapted to investigate the future of pesticide management. By adapting the focus from “present risk perception” to “future visions” we consider that the SMMA is an appropriate tool to derive farmers’ “self-perception” in the frame of their “livelihood assets” and to compare these findings with the view of experts. In the remaining parts of the paper we refer to the method applied as “Future-Structured Mental Model Approach” (Future-SMMA).

The Future-SMMA determines what agricultural future farmers and experts expect based on the development of the assets of farmers’ future livelihoods. Furthermore, it allows for analyzing how farmers “livelihood assets” and “self-perception” influence farmers’ future visions and farmers’ future.

The goal of this paper is to identify farmers’ future in terms of the pesticide management of potato growing farmers in Vereda la Hoya (Boyacá, Colombia). To achieve this goal the authors applied the Future-SMMA in order to:

(1) Investigate farmers’ future visions in the context of their livelihoods.
(2) Compare farmers’ and experts’ future visions and perceptions of external constraints on farmers’ future.
(3) Determine how farmers’ livelihood assets and self-perception influence the build up of farmers’ future visions.

Using the SMMA theoretical framework the three aims of the study are presented in Fig. 1.

Full-size image (68K)

Fig. 1. Research aims within the SMMA theoretical-framework [35] 1 = farmers’ future visions in the context of their livelihoods, 2 = future external constraints in the context of farmers’ livelihood, 3 = how farmers’ livelihood assets influence the construction of farmers’ future visions.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Initially, the study area is presented followed by an outline of the “Future-SMMA”-method. Subsequently, the results of the Future-SMMA are presented. Finally, in a Section 5, the results are summarized and the consequences of these results for the future of farmers are outlined.

2. Study area

The selected study area Vereda la Hoya is located in the rural part of Tunja, the capital of the Departamento de Boyacá (Colombia). La Hoya ranges from 2700 m to 3250 m a.s.l., and has an area of 8 km² (840 ha), an average temperature of 12 °C, and a population of about 747 inhabitants (130 families). The main source of income is farming. Farmers cultivate minifundios, with an average size of 6.6 ha [40] and [41]. The land use pattern in the year 2004 was: crop production 40%, animal husbandry 25%, fallow land 33%, and forest 2%. The main agricultural crops grown in la Hoya are: potato 27%, vetch (carrots) 23%, corn 18%, horse bean 18%, wheat 9%, and onion 5%. Usually the land is cultivated in two cycles a year (September to February and March to August), which permits two harvesting seasons. The typical rotation consists of 2–3 cycles of potato, 1–2 cycles of carrots, and 2–4 cycles of fallow land. In Colombia, agriculture accounts for 21% of the GNP and 40% of the labor force [42] and [43].

Potato production in la Hoya is vulnerable to three major pests, the soil-dwelling larvae of the Andean weevil (Premnotrypes vorax, “Gusano blanco”), the late blight fungus (Phytophthora infestans, “Gota”), and the Guatemalan potato moth (Tecia solanivora, “Polilla Guatemalteca”). Farmers and agricultural scientists alike consider insecticides and fungicides necessary for the control of these pests. Up to 12 applications of each are required [44]. In our study region the predominant pesticide used for potato production is carbofuran (an insecticide and nematicide; potential health effect: respiratory system failure) followed by mancozeb (a fungicide; potential health effect: sensitization rashes) and methamidophos (an insecticide; potential health effect: delayed neurological problems) [40], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50].

A number of educational interventions were organized in the region by pesticide selling companies and governmental agencies during the years 2006 and 2007. Two agencies, CORPOBOYACA⁶ and CORPOCHIVOR,⁷ aim at securing the watershed management of the Chicamocha river (ensuring constant water quality and quantity for the water reservoir of an energy plant). A further agency, UMATA,⁸ tries to promote the development of cooperatives to secure a sufficient supply for three governmentally organized potato washing points.

3. Methods

3.1. The future-SMMA method

The Future-SMMA method is an adaptation of the SMMA [35] and [36]. It was developed to investigate farmers’ and local experts’ perception of the future of the agricultural system in general and for a timeframe of 10 years, i.e., until 2017.

It differs from the SMMA in two main aspects:

(1) In the Future-SMMA, the farmers are interviewed first. The experts’ interviews are built on the findings of the farmers’ interviews.
(2) For the Future-SMMA all the questions of the SMMA interview were reformulated to reflect the viewpoint of the future. That is, each present-question was reformulated as a future-question.⁹

The Future-SMMA consists of a prerequisite phase and three analytical parts, namely: (i) definition and ranking of possible futures; (ii) potential effect of these futures on farmers’ livelihood; and (iii) future agent network (Table 1).

Table 1.

The three analytical parts of the Future-SMMA.

Future-SMMA	Farmers’ model of their desired future livelihood	Experts’ model of farmers’ possible future livelihood
Part I	Construction of desired futures (first in general, subsequently for the year 2017)	Discussion of farmers’ desired futures
	Discussion of feasibility of four (previously constructed) future scenarios	Discussion of expected preferences of farmers concerning the four future scenarios
	Preference ranking these four future scenarios	Feasibility ranking of the four future scenarios

Part II	Answering open-ended questions about the relations of the capital groups with respect to the farmers’ preferred future	Elucidating how the key capital elements will develop by 2017, by naming three expected stages of development for each element^a. The levels were: (1) best case, (2) an intermediate case and (3) worst case
	Naming whom they will turn to for help to achieve the desired future	Naming own role and plans concerning agricultural development projects

Part III	Designing future agent network^b	Discussing the future agent network of farmers in relation to farmers’ future

Full-size table

^a These elements were selected as being key to the system by experts and farmers in a WS on an earlier occasion.
^b The future agent network was derived from an earlier network the farmers drew in an earlier interview campaign.

3.1.1. Prerequisites

As in the SMMA we consider that five types of capital define the livelihood of a farmer: human, health, natural, financial and social capital. Each type of capital is composed of several elements which were previously defined together with experts and farmers in the region. The definition of the capitals and the element allocation for the study regions [36] are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Definition of the four individual capitals, the social capital and capital related system elements.

Capital	Definition	System element	Definition (as defined by the interview participants in a preceding work shop (2005))
Human capital	People and their ability to be economically productive. It includes educational level, skills, experience, knowledge, creativity and innovativeness [61]	Education	Education is a way of living, obtaining knowledge and training for personal improvement (personal best), influencing the community by transmission of specific knowledge. It is the package of knowledge transmitted for the personal formation of the community

		Tradition	Customs, myths, cultural values and crafts inherited and learned from our ancestors

Health capital	The level of healthiness that allows a person to perform his or her economic and social activity (own definition) [35] and [36]	Pesticide management	Process of activity to apply the product by recommendations and/or customs in the use of the pesticides to control and prevent plagues and sicknesses

		Alimentation	Consumption of elements or products which give energy and force to living beings for the development of their functions

		Housing	A place of refuge (shelter) and habitation to share all types of relations as a basis for development of the individual and his/her family

Natural capital	The natural resource base available for pursuing an agricultural activity. It includes land and soil quality, access to water, etc. [61]	Soil	Resource of the environment, basic for agricultural and animal husbandry production

		Water	Necessary resource for all activities of life, whose economic value has not been recognized

		Forest	Natural space and symbol of life, fundamental to maintaining an equilibrium of natural resources

		Livestock	Economic activity of breeding, raising and obtaining sub-products from diverse types of domestic animals (livestock)

Financial capital	Money, machinery, tools, equipment and buildings needed to produce goods and services and to live [62] and [63]	Market	Space were producers, middlemen and consumers converge to stock up and sell products, achieving an economic benefit

		Harvest	Productive system established by means of familiarly forces in order to obtain a benefit

		Agricultural technology	Mechanical, hand made and/or systematized tool that facilitates the productive process, saving time, money and labor (manpower)

Social capital	Process of social networking among people that leads to accomplishing a goal of mutual social benefit, usually characterized by trust and involvement in the community [61] and [63]	Agents of the network	Church, Government, ICA, Market, Pesticide seller, Pesticide producer, University, UMATA, Union

Full-size table

3.1.2. Part I: definition and ranking of possible futures

The goal of this part is to first obtain an idea of farmers’ general view of the future; and second to prioritize four futures that farmers envision. The latter were defined and weighted first by farmers, then by experts.

3.1.2.1. Farmers’ interview

Initially, farmers were asked to talk about a desired future from a broader perspective. Then, the question was narrowed down to a future timeframe of 10 years, i.e., the system state in the year 2017. Subsequently, four scenarios (Table 3) were shown to the farmers, which had been developed by the interviewer beforehand,¹⁰ and the farmers were asked to discuss their feasibility. Finally, farmers were asked to rank the 4 scenarios in order of preference.

Table 3.

Description of the four scenarios presented to farmers and experts.

Future	Characteristics
Cooperative	Creating a farmers’ cooperative. The cooperative could improve (a) irrigation systems, (b) seed quality and (c) bring unaffordable technology to the farmers (like their own washing station for carrots)

Technical training	Training courses farmers could attend. Possible topics of the courses could be: how to handle pesticides, how to protect personal health and crop quality
	The courses could be taught in the form of lectures or farm field schools
	The courses could be taught to a farmers’ assembly and could be provided by known technicians, or sellers

IPM^a	Try to move toward decreasing use of pesticides. A step further in this future scenario would even imply trying to abandon pesticide use entirely and to practice organic farming

Status quo	La Hoya stays like it is

Full-size table

^a IPM abbreviation for Integrated Pest Management, pest control strategy that uses an array of complementary methods: natural predators and parasites, pest resistant varieties, cultural practices, biological controls, various physical techniques, and the strategic use of pesticides [64] and [65].

3.1.2.2. Experts’ interview

The future expectations of farmers obtained as described were summarized as preparation for the expert interview. Initially, experts were asked to comment on the general future scenarios farmers had developed. Afterwards, they were shown the same four scenarios (Table 3), and asked to discuss them according to the preferences they expected the farmers would have. Subsequently, farmers’ rankings of the four scenarios were shown to the experts and the experts were asked to comment on it. Finally, they were asked to rank them with respect to their feasibility.

3.1.3. Part II: potential effect of farmers’ future visions on farmers’ livelihood

The goal of this part is first to understand how farmers perceive the consequences of their visions for the future on their current situation from a system development perspective. Second, it aims at obtaining local experts’ views on the constraints farmers might face in reaching their preferred future.

3.1.3.1. Farmers’ interview

Farmers answered 10 open-ended questions about the relations of the elements of the capital groups with respect to their preferred future selected in part I. The questions and the relation between the questions and the capital groups are depicted in Table 4. Subsequently, the farmers were asked whom they would ask for help to reach their desired future. This question was designed to find out if the farmers would mention one of the interviewed experts as their direct “helping hand” to achieve the desired future.

Table 4.

Ten open-ended questions from farmer interview part II of Future-SMMA.

System element	Ten open-ended questions
Livestock	In view of the desired future, how would the traditional method of potato cultivation change? …the way potatoes are produced or the quantity which is produced? What would happen to the other work you do, other crops you produce or your animal husbandry?
Tradition
Harvest

Education	How should the education change?…what ability do you lack to change or improve the way you cultivate? Would you need more mechanization (more technical equipment?) a new plough (“renovadora de suelos”), a tractor…?
Agricultural technology

Tradition	Would the traditional way of cultivating potatoes change (compared to the way your fathers did it or taught you)? Would the “tradition” or method of using pesticide in cultivating potatoes change? Would it have to change?
Pesticide management

Pesticide management	How would the handling of pesticides change? What would you do in the desired future if infestations occurred? Would you predict more or less infestations than nowadays? Would new pests arise?

Water	How would the quality of your water change?…if you changed your cultivation technique? How would the quality of your soils change? Would you continue to cultivate in cycles (why)? How would the forestes of the vereda change?
Soil
Forest
Agricultural technology
Livestock

Pesticide management	What would you ask the technician about security issues (or appropriate handling) of new products or new techniques of applying pesticides? Would you change (adjust) the way you protect yourself while applying pesticides,…why…?

Harvest	How do you expect the harvest to change? To whom would you sell your products? Would you sell alone or in cooperation?…together with a person that helped you reach your desired future?…or half alone-half in cooperation ?
Market

Market	How do you think the (product) market (markets) will change? How would the markets change with in your desired future? Will the prices change,… why? …how?

Alimentation	How will your house change? How will your food change?… will your customs concerning alimentation change? …how?
Housing
Tradition

Housing	What would you do if you had more money?
Agricultural technology

Full-size table

3.1.3.2. Experts’ interview

Experts were asked to elucidate how the system elements (Table 2) would develop by the year 2017 by naming three expected levels of development for each element. The levels were: (1) best case, (2) intermediate case and (3) worst case. For example, for the element water the experts were asked: “What will the water quality and quantity of the region (Vereda la Hoya) be in 10 years? What is the best water condition you can envision? What is the worst? What is a possible “intermediate condition between the two?”

Subsequently, they were asked to talk about their own projects (concerning educational or development plans) which might affect farmers’ future. Finally, the experts were asked if they were planning to coordinate their projects with any other agency in the region.

3.1.4. Part III: future agent network

The goal of this part is to obtain an agent network that reflects the relative importance of agents necessary to achieve farmers’ envisioned future. The agents were selected before the interview, preferably in experts’ and farmers’ interviews [35] and [36]. Finally, farmers and experts were asked if any agents should be omitted or added to the agent network.

3.1.4.1. Farmers’ interview

Farmers had to depict their future agent network by placing 10 photographic representations of agents in relation to themselves. The closer an agent was placed with respect to the farmer, the more important the agent was for achieving the envisioned future.

3.1.4.2. Experts’ interview

The experts were initially familiarized with the pictures of the agents and asked to construct the network they thought would be helpful for farmers in reaching their desired future.¹¹

3.2. The subjects

For the study 13 experts and 10 local farmers were interviewed in the Future-SMMA.

3.2.1. Farmers

The 10 farmers interviewed were all male and between 24 and 40 years of age. They were selected by purposeful sampling from different parts of the study region, and covered all kinds of livelihoods in the region by differing in characteristic elements of the farmers’ livelihoods. That is, the livelihood of the selected farmers covered different states of human, health, financial, natural and social capital (Table 5).

Table 5.

Overview of possible capital states of the interviewed farmers.

Capital^a	High (state)	Low (state)
Human	Education: 8 years of primary school	Education: no formal education
Health	No specification^b	No specification^b

Natural	Soil: fertile soils	Soil: less fertile soils
	Slope: low	Slope: high
	Forest: owns land with natural forest	Forest: does not own any land with natural forest

Financial	10 ha of own land	Landless farm worker
Social	Status: community leader	Status: isolated member of the community

^a Covering the livelihood of farmers; see Section 3 for definition.
^b As there was no information about health effects related to inappropriate pesticide use, the farmers could not be selected by their difference in health capital state.

All participants were familiar with the system element definitions used in the interview, e.g., 7 of the 10 chosen farmers already had participated in the preceding SMMA-study [36]; 3 of the farmers had participated in a system analysis workshop held in the region in 2005.

By covering all forms of livelihood-capital combinations we aimed at covering all kinds of mental models in the area. Moreover following the Maharik et al. [51] study we limited the farmer sample to 10 participants, as throughout the Future-SMMA the characteristic drop off of new concepts was observed after interviewing 4–5 farmers.

3.2.2. Experts

The sample of 13 experts consisted of 5 females and 8 males, half of whom were between 30 and 40 years of age, and half between 40 and 50. In order to cover all important experts’ mental models relevant to farmers’ future a combination of professionals from different scientific fields of the system being analyzed were selected [35]. The experts group included: representatives of pesticide producers, i.e., pesticide sellers, representatives from governmental technical assistance institutes and health ministries, toxicologists, medical doctors, economists and an agronomist. Two of them had been locally involved, five had a regional perspective and six worked at a national level (Table 6).

Table 6.

Overview of interviewed experts.

Age	Gender	Education	Profession	Working entity
30–40	f	Agricultural engineer	Pesticide seller	Regional level
30–40	f	Toxicologist	Laboratory technician	National Health Institute^a
30–40	m	Toxicologist	Laboratory technician	National Health Institute^a
40–50	m	Chemist	Laboratory technician	National Health Institute^a
40–50	m	Economist	Professor	University^b
30–40	f	Microbiologist	Laboratory technician	National Health Institute^a
30–40	f	Agronomist	Private technical assistance	Independent regional cooperation of Boyaca^c
30–40	m	Agricultural engineer	Private technical assistance	Independent regional cooperation of Boyaca^c
30–40	m	Agricultural engineer	Professor	University^d
30–40	m	Agricultural engineer	Public technical assistance	Municipal entity of agricultural technical assistance^e
40–50	f	Medical doctor	Pesticide stewardship	National level
40–50	m	Economist	Professor	University^d
40–50	m	Medical doctor	Medical doctor	Hospital St. Raphael

Full-size table

^a Instituto Nacional de Salud, INS.
^b Universidad de los Andes, Bogota.
^c Corporación Autónoma Regional, CORPOBOYACA.
^d UNIBOYACA, Tunja.
^e Unidad Municipal de Asistencia Técnica Agropecuaria, UMATA.

The experts differed in the following criteria: (i) knowledge of the local, regional, or national system; (ii) expertise in different aspects of the livelihood system; (iii) hypothesized position within the farmers’ agent network.

By covering different ranges of these criteria we also aimed at considering different influence options concerning existing and planned policy interventions.

Ten experts already had participated in the preceding study and were familiar with the system elements definitions. Three experts had just started as technical advisors in the region in winter 2006/2007 and were expected to have an influence on farmers’ future within the selected time frame.

3.3. Analysis

The results of the Future-SMMA were analyzed and structured according to the three steps of the method mentioned above. In each of the interview parts answers from the farmers’ interviews were analyzed and summarized to provide an overview. This overview was used as a basis for the experts’ interviews, to optimally target their expert perspectives with respect to farmers’ views. Originating from the MMA [38] agreement among the expert statements should be reached, yielding one comprehensive statement, and the farmers’ diverging statements then compared to that single expert MM.

3.3.1. Analysis part I

The farmers’ future expectations were analyzed with respect to the four futures prepared beforehand, each representing a different perspective of farmers’ possible future (Table 3). In a similar way experts’ comments were summarized and compared to farmers’ statements for each of the four futures.

3.3.2. Analysis part II

The second part of the analysis concentrated on comparing farmers’ and experts’ statements in the livelihood frame. Hence we compared the system dynamic of the cause-and-effect thinking of the farmers, with the expectations of the experts.

The answers to the 10 open-ended questions posed to the farmers were summarized regarding the system elements (Table 4) and subsequently grouped according to the corresponding livelihood capitals: human, health, natural and financial capital (Table 2). Additionally all farmers’ statements were put in a system dynamic graph (Fig. 2) demonstrating the development from present to future of each capital of the system.

Full-size image (34K)

Fig. 2. Example of system dynamic graph: (a) demonstrates how the future state of the health capital is placed if the capital is expected to deteriorate in quality and at the expense of no other capital; example (b) demonstrates that the financial capital is expected to become more dependent on natural capital (graphically the distance between the two capital states decreases).

Concerning the answers gained in the experts’ interview, an overview of the experts’ development statements for each of the key system elements was constructed and listed (Table 8). Subsequently the statements were summarized in their corresponding capital groups (Table 2). Finally, experts’ statements were also represented in a system dynamic graph (Fig. 2) demonstrating the development from present to future of each capital of the system.

Farmers’ answers were analyzed in relation to experts’ development expectations. This allowed the derivation of an opportunity-space showing what farmers wanted and what experts considered feasible or likely to happen by comparing both system dynamic graphs of farmers and experts.

Finally, the answers of the additional question concerning farmers’ expectations for future education interventions were summarized separately as well as experts’ plans for future education interventions.

3.3.3. Analysis part III

In part III of the interview the future agent networks of experts and farmers were analyzed. The farmers’ future agent networks were analyzed according to the agents’ distance from the farmer as shown in Fig. 3. Furthermore the experts’ future agent network compared to the farmers’ networks. The analysis was driven by the comparison of the agents’ position in the agent networks of farmers and experts. The value of the agents’ position was calculated as shown in Fig. 3 [36].

Full-size image (28K)

Fig. 3. Agent network analysis [36].

4. Results

In this section the main differences between farmers’ and experts’ future visions are presented. The results are again structured according to the three parts of the Future-SMMA interviews (Table 1). Part I shows the futures envisioned by farmers and the comments of experts. Parts II and III represent the future visions in the context of the livelihood capitals, of which part II encompasses the human, health, natural and financial capitals and part III the social capital.

4.1. Part I: definition and ranking of possible futures

4.1.1. Envisioned and desired future developments

Most of the farmers’ future visions were related to four future scenarios prepared beforehand: cooperative, technical training, IPM and status quo (Table 7). Therefore the results of this part are presented directly in the frame of these four scenarios. Only two farmers envisioned a completely different future. One farmer dreamed of living outside the Vereda as a bus or truck driver in the nearby capitals, Tunja and Bogotá. Another farmer wanted to stay in the Vereda as the owner of a small shop or bakery.

Table 7.

Ranking of farmers’ and experts’ future scenarios.

Ranking	Farmers (by preference)	Experts (by feasibility)
1	Cooperative	Technical training
2	Technical training	Cooperative
3	IPM	Status quo
4	Status quo	IPM

4.1.1.1. Cooperative

4.1.1.1.1. Farmers’ comments

For five farmers joining a cooperative is the most desirable future. Of these, only one farmer was actually a member of a cooperative, one was planning to join a cooperative and all the others had just heard about the possibility. Seven of the farmers were skeptical about the realization of a cooperative in the Vereda because they feared a lack of cooperation among themselves and a lack of mutual trust needed for engaging in such a (from their perspective) risky and dependence-increasing relationship. One farmer considered joining a cooperative the least desirable option for his future. For five farmers the gains of joining a cooperative were purely economic ones. Within a cooperative they could bypass intermediaries when selling potatoes or other crops and when buying pesticides and fertilizers. Two farmers hoped that by joining a cooperative they would obtain access to more sophisticated agricultural equipment.

4.1.1.1.2. Experts’ comments

Even though experts agreed that creating a cooperative was the most desirable future, they were convinced that farmers were not sufficiently informed and that they could not conceive of all potential consequences of creating a cooperative.

4.1.1.2. Technical training

4.1.1.2.1. Farmers’ comments

Two farmers acknowledged that training and education in general was important to them. They furthermore stressed the importance of proper education as an investment for the future also via investing in their children's education. Still, only one farmer perceived the ongoing interventions and programs of governmental and nongovernmental entities in the region as beneficial. All other farmers (9/10)¹² were somehow aware of training programs but complained of not learning enough from those programs in order to experience take-home, new and applicable, improving techniques for their day to day agricultural life.

4.1.1.2.2. Experts’ comments

Experts commented that they had experienced farmers as being insufficiently engaged in the training programs offered to them. In particular, it seemed difficult and tiresome to reach farmers by organizing workshops and information campaigns. Still, according to the experts, education was the most important and most feasible element that should be improved in the near future.

4.1.1.3. IPM leading to less use/optimized use of pesticides or even to organic farming

4.1.1.3.1. Farmers’ comments

The issue of present and future pesticide use was the most controversially discussed and reflected the differences in mental models among the farmers. Four farmers explained that they could implement the principles of IPM; one of the four even stressed that completely refraining from using pesticides was the only way to a desirable future. In contrast, four farmers did not see a decreased use of pesticides in the region as feasible, two of the four stated that it was impossible to survive in their region and apply less pesticides. Those farmers explained that the environmental conditions in their region had already degenerated beyond the point of no return. Other farmers stressed lack of knowledge as the main obstacle for adopting new and more integrated techniques of agricultural cultivation. However, all farmers hoped that using pesticides less would help to improve their environmental conditions.

4.1.1.3.2. Experts’ comments

Experts statements considered that a future applying less pesticide was not feasible from the farmers’ point of view. They had experienced farmers as reluctant concerning IPM training and therefore had given up all hope for a change in that direction.

4.1.1.4. Status quo

4.1.1.4.1. Farmers’ comments

Nine farmers shared the opinion that maintaining the status quo would represent the least desired future. Five farmers stated that it was impossible to maintain the status quo as the region was in constant change and that this change would anyway lead to a better situation than the current one even if they did not make any additional efforts. Only one farmer ranked the status quo future in third position before the creation of a cooperative, which he placed in fourth position.

4.1.1.4.2. Experts’ comments

Experts considered the status quo as a possible future. Considering the external changes that farmers will confront in the near future, they stated that the maintenance of the status quo would lead to a decline in farmers’ living standard.

4.1.2. Ranking of four predefined optional futures

As presented in Binder and Schöell [35], the ranking of the previously defined future scenarios (Table 3) provide first insights into the differences in future visions between experts and farmers. For the Future-SMMA the ranking was adjusted such that farmers ranked the scenarios in order of preference while experts ranked them in order of feasibility.

As documented in Table 7, farmers preferred the cooperative scenario the most, and placed technical training second in their order of preference. In contrast, experts perceived the technical training scenario as the most feasible one (having their own training programs in mind, independent of other programs) and ranked the cooperative second in order of feasibility.

The ranking difference can be explained by the fact that experts ignored for the technical training scenario the point concerning coordination of trainings which farmers stressed by placing it in second position. On the other hand, farmers preferred to have a cooperative because of the financial reward promised for the establishment of a cooperative while ignoring all that would be needed to build up such a cooperative.

Furthermore farmers placed the IPM scenario third and the status quo scenario last in their order of preference. In contrast, experts perceived the status quo scenario as more feasible than the IPM scenario.

The difference in ranking can be explained by the differences in implications of the various scenarios. While farmers focused on the constant change perceived in their region, experts based their predictions on their experience that farmers were resistant to change. Concerning the IPM scenario, experts were pessimistic with respect to the farmers’ ability to take up new farming technologies, while farmers stressed the urgent need for new solutions to reverse the observed deterioration of their environment.

4.2. Part II: system dynamic

4.2.1. Farmers’ system dynamic statements

4.2.1.1. Future of human capital (expressed in: education, tradition)

Farmers think that education will improve (see Fig. 4) in their desired future but they consider that to do so, the educational campaigns have to be better organized; that is, experts have to improve their training sessions. In addition, traditions concerning potato cultivation and pesticide application will and must change, but farmers could not state how.

Full-size image (31K)

Fig. 4. Farmers’ visions of the future capital states.

4.2.1.2. Future of health capital (expressed in: house, alimentation, pesticide management)

Farmers related their future health capital neither to an increasing or decreasing use of pesticides nor to the use of protective equipment. Instead, they were all convinced that in general they would have a better life. Especially with regard to alimentation and housing they believe they will be better off in the future.

4.2.1.3. Future of natural capital (expressed in: soil, water, forest, agricultural technology)

In their desired future, farmers wish for better water and soil quality and less deforestation. In order to attain this future, farmers consider that better mechanization and better pesticides are necessary.

4.2.1.4. Future of financial capital (expressed in: livestock, market, harvest)

Farmers envision that their future financial capital will be dominated by diversification of their production and further investments in animal husbandry. Furthermore, they fear effects related to the Trato del Libre Comercio (TLC)¹³ and have contradictory expectations concerning the advantages and disadvantages of forming or entering a cooperative.

4.2.2. Future intervention plans

Farmers stressed that they were extremely interested in an increase in improved training sessions from CORPOCHIVOR and CORPOBOYACA, such as workshops or Farm Field Schools (FFS). Some (5/10) expressed their hope for increased educational support from the Servicio Nacional de Aprendizaje (SENA; Colombian National Learning Service) for starting and running a small business and/or a cooperative. Regarding the question of whom they would turn to in order to attain their future, two farmers named concrete options for government help, namely the mayor's office and the ministry of agriculture. In contrast, for one farmer governmental entities would be the last agent he would turn to.

4.2.3. Experts’ system dynamic statements

4.2.3.1. Future of human capital (expressed in: education, tradition (Table 8))

The experts were convinced that farmers are increasingly investing in their education, especially in the education of their children, by keeping the children in the regional school up to the 8th grade or even financing their further education in the nearby cities of Tunjá or Bogota. The interviewed experts and their corresponding organizations invest in farmers’ education by adapting approaches like FFS to the topic of pest management, and sponsoring educational campaigns to foster the formation of cooperatives (Fig. 5). Experts also observed that farming traditions are fading away in the region.

Full-size image (33K)

Fig. 5. Experts’ visions of the future capital states.

Table 8.

Experts perceived constraints on key elements of farmers’ future developments.

System elements (defined by SMMA interviews [36] and WS)	Best case	Intermediate condition	Worst case
Education	All children stay in school until end of 8th grade. Farmers attend schoolings	Status quo	Children leaving school; taking the children out of the schools

Tradition	Moderate loss of traditions	Status quo	Complete loss of traditions

Pesticide management	Improved use of pesticides	Moderate increase in pesticide use	Increase in pesticide use, increase in poisoning pesticides

House, family/Kitchen	Improvement due to SISBEN	Private investments	Status quo

Alimentation	More balanced food basket	Status quo	Deterioration because of changing markets

Soils	Moderate degradation (due to use of new conservation techniques)	Ongoing degradation of soils due to unchanged agricultural practices	High degradation of soils

Agricultural technology	Improve at a high rate (but just for major farmers)	Improve (if farmers become organized in a cooperative)	Status quo

Water	Solution of water rights, organized and controlled water use	Fight for water	No water left because of deforestation. Unfortunately highly connected to soil quality

Forest	Reforestation programs help	Moderate deforestation	Almost no forests

Livestock	Increase in livestock numbers. Better livestock genetic pool	Status quo	Need to sell livestock because of financial losses

Market	TLC helps the farmers. Demand for eco foods	No effects of TLC	TLC is bad for farmers. Small farmers vanish

Harvest	Improved quality due to “better” pesticides Change in harvest due to demand for biodiesel and ethanol	Status quo	More pests, more pesticide use

Full-size table

4.2.3.2. Future of health capital (expressed in: house, alimentation, pesticide management (Table 8))

Experts expected the housing situation to improve as the campaigns of SISBEN (a Colombian social subsidy program) aimed at supporting farmers financially in constructing and renovating bathrooms, etc., in existing buildings have been successful. In contrast, experts do not expect alimentation and alimentation customs to improve. In their view this element reflects the influence of traditions and their maintenance. In particular, they consider that the daily diet consisting of mainly potatoes will remain the same for at least the next 10 years, independently of the changing market and changing availability of different foods. Concerning pesticide management, experts expect more toxic pesticides to appear on the local markets because they also expect more infestations to appear in this region. Experts were skeptical that farmers would improve their use of protection measures for applying pesticides.

4.2.3.3. Future of natural capital (expressed in: soil, water, forest, agricultural technology (Table 8))

Experts expect that natural resources will deteriorate further until 2017 and beyond. In their view the soil and water situation is not “bad enough” to change farmers’ behavior concerning natural resource depletion. Experts had observed the failure of different reforestation campaigns (for example, those initiated by CORPOCHIVOR) and commented on them critically. They expressed the urgent need for further improvements in reforestation and reforestation regulations for the sake of water conservation, to avoid water scarcity in the region. Concerning agricultural technologies, experts stated that the technical assistance available was insufficient, and saw an increasing gap between small and big farmers in terms of mechanization. The only way for small farmers to increase their degree of mechanization would be to become organized in larger groups in order to buy equipment and share it among the group members.

4.2.3.4. Future of financial capital (expressed in: livestock, market, harvest (Table 8))

Concerning future markets and harvest it was impossible to derive a consensus statement from the experts’ interviews. Some of the experts expect the TLC to bring improvements in the farmers’ local markets by increasing the prices of the products or by making it possible to export special local potato varieties. Other experts feared that the farmers would not be appropriately prepared to confront new competitors on the local markets and that small farmers in particular had neither the means, the technical knowledge nor the financial support to become prepared. Some of the experts named the increasing demand for bio-diesel and ethanol a point of concern which is likely to influence farmers by forcing them to change their main crops. In their opinion, livestock could improve as there are new and better breeds available on the market.

4.2.4. Future intervention plans

The interviewed experts named various planned future projects to improve the agricultural mechanization of farmers. All projects were planned for a time frame of maximum one production cycle and none of the projects was coordinated with one of the other technical assistance entities. Governmental efforts concentrate on building up cooperatives by giving financial support to newly formed cooperatives. Furthermore, the agricultural ministry of the region was currently working on a potato washing network in order to give added value to the product directly in the region before reselling it to super-regional and countrywide markets. Pesticide selling companies were concentrating on a recollection campaign for pesticide packages.

4.3. Part III: future agent networks

As shown in Binder and Schöell [35] the comparison of the two agent networks permits the distinction between means and potentials for interventions. The final experts’ network was a straight line: Farmer-Farmers’ Union–Government–UMATA–University¹⁴–ICA¹⁵–Church–Market–Pesticide seller–Pest producer (Fig. 6).

Full-size image (30K)

Fig. 6. Comparison of farmers’ and experts’ future agent network.

Fig. 6 illustrates the differences between the experts’ and the farmers’ network and includes only the standard deviation for the farmers’ agent-networks according to the SMMA [35].

Compared to the farmers, the experts clearly overestimated the role of the farmers’ union in the future-agent network. In contrast, farmers placed this agent in sixth position. This difference in the placement of the agent “union” resulted from farmers’ negative experiences with their union in the last few years. While experts considered this agent to be the most important, for farmers “education” (educational agents), provided by the governmental agencies, the ICA the UMATA and the University, was of a higher importance and was perceived to be closer to them in the agent network. Furthermore, farmers stated that they should first be taught how to successfully manage a farmers’ union and then how to form a cooperative.

Considering the agent church, again experts significantly overestimated its rank in the future agent network when compared to the farmers’ statements. The experts placed the church in the same ranking-band with educational agents, since for them the church represented another source of information. For farmers the church was an element that did not directly influence their future as a partner, but rather spiritually, and thus they placed it last in the agent network.

The agents government,¹⁶ ICA, UMATA and the university were consistently defined by farmers and experts as educational agents. Educational agents provide information on (i) how to build up a cooperative, (ii) how to improve agricultural techniques (ICA and UMATA) and (iii) how to deal with possible crop losses. Again the first position of the government in farmers’ future agent network was strongly influenced by recent events in the study area, where the farmers had just lost part of their harvest due to frosts and hoped for financial compensation from the government. Similarly to the farmers’ perception, experts placed these “educational-agents” close to the farmers, stating that they were of high importance in achieving the farmers’ desired future.

Concerning pesticide producers and sellers, experts placed pesticide sellers closer to the farmer in the network, whereas farmers placed pesticide producers closer. Farmers argued that when they had agreed on a farmers’ cooperative, it would be easier to receive discounts on pesticides by negotiating directly with producers.

In line with the previous findings [36], the market, representing customers and intermediaries, was seen by the experts as an element on which farmers will depend in the future, whereas farmers seem to perceive that they will be able to influence local prices once they have formed a cooperative.

Additional agents named by the farmers were the bank (very important for obtaining credit in the future) and CORPOCHIVOR (a new agent in the network that provides training in the conservation of the water ponds).

5. Discussion and conclusion

In the following, we first summarize our research findings and discuss two important aspects of the findings and their consequences for farmers’ future; subsequently we present strengths and weaknesses of the Future-SMMA and, finally, propose ideas for further research.

5.1. Research findings

We applied the method of Future-SMMA to investigate farmers’ futures with reference to the pesticide management of potato growing farmers in Vereda la Hoya (Boyacá, Colombia). In so doing we investigated farmers’ future visions and found that farmers consider social and environmental threats and that their visions are optimistic. We compared farmers’ and experts’ perceptions of external constraints on farmers’ future and discovered that the investigated future visions of farmers and experts were inconsistent (Fig. 7). In addition, experts are worried that farmers do not sufficiently consider external constraints. Finally, we determined how farmers’ livelihood assets and self-perception influence the formulation of farmers’ future visions and found that the more a farmer was able to differentiate his livelihood assets, the more differentiated were his future visions.

Full-size image (36K)

Fig. 7. Comparison of farmers’ and experts’ visions of the future capital states.

In the following we discuss how the inconsistency of future visions found is due to diverging attitudes¹⁷ towards future scenarios and differing opinions about who should take responsibility for the knowledge management of farmers. These two aspects have to be considered in the successful design of agricultural development plans [52].

5.1.1. Diverging attitudes

The farmers demonstrated in their statements that they had a more optimistic attitude towards the future than did the experts. Similar findings concerning levels of optimism toward the future were found in other future studies presenting several explanatory factors [28], [29] and [53].

First, interviewed experts were older than farmers, which could explain part of the found deviation in attitude. Concerning optimism and pessimism Hicks [53] found that in relation to personal future, optimism decreases with age. Likewise Chenoweth et al. [29] found in his study that older students were less optimistic than younger ones.

Second the fact that experts were asked to talk about the future of farmers and not their own could also explain why experts attitude was more pessimistic. For example Hicks [54] found that the pupils participating in his study were generally more optimistic about their own future then about the local or global future.

Third farmers’ positive attitude towards the future could be explained by farmers having a less realistic attitude towards the future. That is experts visions were found to be more pessimistic because they were more realistic and farmers’ visions were found to be more optimistic because they were more idealistic. Similar to that are Rubin's findings comparing the Future Image Index Map of teachers and adolescents [28].

Moreover other findings demonstrate that professionals tend to show more cautious and reserved expectations towards the future than laymen [26] and [55]. Furthermore, even within the farmers’ group we found that the more a farmer was able to relate causes and effects within the livelihood-system, the more differentiated was his attitude towards the future and the less optimistic were his future visions. Hence, these results provide further evidence for a relation between the extent of rational reasoning and attitude towards the future.

The following example illustrates more clearly the critical implications of these diverging attitudes for the development of agriculture techniques. Farmers were interested in reducing the use of pesticides and therefore showed their readiness to implement ideas of IPM. In contrast, experts were more negative towards the feasibility of farmers adopting IPM. This attitude divergence leads to the unwillingness of experts to listen to farmers’ demands and hinders a constructive development process. These findings are comparable to those of Wheeler [17] and a survey of organic farmers in the US [56], which reported that the greatest constraints on the conversion to organic farming are uncooperative or uninformed extension officers.

In a similar vein our findings showed that farmers and experts have a different understanding of what the scenario cooperative would imply for the farmers’ future. Farmers perceived the advantages of being a member of a cooperative while focusing on financial benefits especially in unfavorable market conditions. However, they were dismissive of any dependence and commitment within a cooperative, given the bad experiences they had had with the farmers’ union. In contrast, experts ranked the union (as a predecessor to a cooperative) as the most important agent in the farmers’ future agent network, thereby ignoring farmers’ negative experiences with their union. Hence farmers’ and experts’ differing attitudes toward commitment in a cooperative exemplify a critical hindrance to progress in agricultural development.

5.1.2. Ambiguities in responsibility assignments

Our results also demonstrate different opinions about who should take responsibility for the knowledge management of farmers. This disagreement is also likely to hinder the development of agriculture in the region and is illustrated by the following examples.

Technical advisers in the region contracted by governmental or nongovernmental entities were not coordinating their educational interventions. In addition, farmers were increasingly unmotivated to attend several extension programs because they had received contradictory information from different programs. Nevertheless, farmers were convinced that improved and coordinated agricultural support (providing more information concerning agricultural techniques in general and pesticide application in particular) would be crucial for them in attaining their desired future. Hence, farmers place the responsibility for their knowledge in experts’ hands. This “perspective” is in line with other research findings concerning farmers’ knowledge sources [57] and [58]. In contrast, experts were convinced that farmers should first be more receptive to new information provided by educational staff before educational efforts could be adjusted to farmers’ demands. Therefore experts see farmers themselves as being responsible for their knowledge management. Similar observations were made by studies focusing on the adoption of organic farming [59].

The experts who first take responsibility for coordinating farmers’ training will be the ones farmers will then depend on. This statement reveals the danger of the increasing dependency of farmers on external experts and offers the opportunity to change farmers’ future. As shown in the agent network and previous findings in the study region [36], pesticide selling companies currently seem the most willing to fill this responsibility gap. Another point of concern is that if farmers have to pay for their technical advisors, taking responsibility for their knowledge themselves, richer farmers, who can afford to pay for professional technical advice, will be favored over poorer farmers, thus increasing the gap between the two.

5.2. Strengths and limitations of the Future-SMMA

When analyzing the interpretive horizon concerning future perspectives, it should be kept in mind that investigating the future opens up a much broader view of a system than investigating the present. First because (as in perceptions of the present) the perceptions of the future are as different as the people perceiving it, and second, each of these different perceptions again contains a variety of different future expectations [26]. However, the tools and structure of the Future-SMMA have been shown to cope with these challenges of future research by focusing on key system elements and thereby enabling us to compare them and to deduce useful and traceable conclusions for the farmers’ future.

During the farmers’ interview a drop-off of new concepts was observed after 4–5 farmer interviews. When the characteristic drop off of new concepts is encountered after 5 interviews, the sample size of 10 persons is sufficient, according to Maharik et al. [51], to get a first impression of the existing mental models. Still, the relatively small number of interviews conducted constitutes a shortcoming in the validity of the Future-SMMA and the conclusions drawn from its results. The results should therefore be validated with a survey as suggested by Morgan et al. [38] which would show the proportion of the future visions and influences of livelihood assets on future visions present in the population. Furthermore statistical analyses of the survey results could be conducted to investigate possible reasons of diverging attitudes like age, level of optimism of own and local futures, and level of realism.

5.3. Further research

The Future-SMMA applied here is a first step in identifying farmers’ future visions and how they are influenced. Departing from our findings, the next step would be to develop a common understanding of the future among farmers and experts and to assign responsibilities by performing a commonly agreed backward planning, for example by arranging a future scenario workshop.

In addition, to confirm the influence of livelihood assets on future visions an analysis of the cause-and-effect thinking of farmers, as suggested by Mackay and McKiernan [26], would be important and could be performed by comparing results of the Future-SMMA with the results of the SMMA applied previously in the study region.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Jaime Diaz, Patricia Quevedo and Elver Vargas for valuable feedback during the field phase, Giuseppe Feola, Glenda Garcia Santos, Dominik Widmer, Christof Knöri and Michael Stauffacher for their comments and feedback on earlier versions of this manuscript, and Heather Murray for editing. The project was funded by Syngenta and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

References

[1] FAO, Reduction Background Document Special event “Impact of Climate Change, Pest and Diseases on Food Security and Poverty”, FAO 31st session of the committee on world food security 2005.

[2] M.W. Rosengrant and S.A. Cline, Global food security: challenges and policies, Science 302 (2003), pp. 1917–1919.

[3] M. Richardson, Pesticides Friend or Foe, Water Science and Technology 37 (8) (1998), pp. 19–25. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (16)

[4] C. Wilson and C. Tisdell, Why farmers continue to use pesticides despite environmental, health and sustainability costs, Ecological Economics 39 (2001), pp. 449–462. Article |

PDF (158 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (38)

[5] F.M.W. De Jong and G.R. De Soon, A comparison of the environmental impact of pesticide use in integrated and conventional potato cultivation in The Netherlands, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 91 (2002), pp. 5–13. Article |

PDF (179 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

[6] Kovach, J., C. Petzoldt, A Method to measure the Environmental impact of Pesticides, C.U. IPM Program, Editor. 2004, Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, New York 14456: New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, New York 14456.

[7] K.A. Lewis and M.J. Newbold, Eco-rating system for optimizing pesticide use at farm level. Part 2. Evaluation, examples and piloting, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 68 (3) (1997), pp. 281–289. Abstract |

PDF (219 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

[8] P.J. Van den Brink and S.J.H. Crum, The effects of a pesticide mixture on aquatic ecosystems differing in trophic status: responses of the macrophyte Myriophyllum spicatum and the periphytic algal community, Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 57 (3) (2004), pp. 383–398.

[9] M.M. Amr, Pesticide monitoring and its health problems in Egypt, a Third World country, Toxicology Letters 107 (1999), pp. 1–13. Article |

PDF (99 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (29)

[10] IPCS, IPCS (International Program on Chemical Safety) the WHO Recommended Classification of pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification, 2001.

[11] C. Wessling, M. Corriols and V. Bravo, Acute pesticide poisoning and pesticide registration in Central America, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 207 (2005), pp. 697–705.

[12] WRI, World Resource Institute: World Resources 1998/1999, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK (1998).

[13] S.M. Swinton and G. Escobar, Poverty environment in Latin America: concepts, evidence and policy implications, World Development 31 (11) (2003), pp. 1865–1875.

[14] S. Rahman, Farm-level pesticide use in Bangladesh: determinants and awareness, Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 95 (2003), pp. 241–252. Article |

PDF (105 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

[15] IPCC, Climate Change 2007 - Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, 2007, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

[16] K. Borch, Emerging technologies in favour of sustainable agriculture, Futures 39 (2007), pp. 1045–1066. Article |

PDF (217 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

[17] S.A. Wheeler, What influences agricultural professionals’ view towards organic agriculture?, Ecological Economics 65 (2008), pp. 134–154.

[18] C. Pahl-Wostl, The implications of complexity for integrated resource management, Environmental Modelling and Software 22 (2007), pp. 561–569. Article |

PDF (240 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (23)

[19] N. Ross, Culture and Cognition: Implications for Theory and Method, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA (2000).

[20] R. Ryder, Local soil knowledge and site suitability evaluation in the Dominican Republic, Geoderma 111 (3–4) (2003), pp. 289–305. Article |

PDF (317 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (5)

[21] W.D. Newmark and J.L. Hough, Conserving wildlife in Africa: integratined conservation and development projects and beyond, Bioscience 50 (7) (2000), pp. 585–592. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (47)

[22] G. Oba, N.C. Stenseth and W.J. Lusigi, New perspectives on sustainable grazing management in arid zones of sub-Saharan Africa, Bioscience 50 (1) (2000), pp. 35–51. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (45)

[23] T. Lynam et al., A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences and values into decision making in natural resource management, Ecology and Society 12 (1) (2007), p. 5. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (6)

[24] R. Ramirez, Participatory learning and communication approaches for managing pluralism: implications for sustainable forestry, agriculture and rural development, FAO International Workshop on Pluralism and Sustainable Forestry and Rural Development Rome: FAO, Rome, Italy (1997).

[25] S. Inayatullah, From Who am I?” to “When am I?” Framing the shape and time of the future, Futures 25 (3) (1993), pp. 235–253. Abstract |

PDF (1648 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14)

[26] B.R. MacKay and P. McKiernan, The role of hindsight in foresight: refining strategic reasoning, Futures 36 (2004), pp. 161–179.

[27] P.D. Aligica and Prediction, explanation and the epistemology of future studies, Futures 35 (2003), pp. 1027–1040. Article |

PDF (94 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (8)

[28] A. Rubin and H. Linturin, Transition in the making, the images of the future in education and decision-making, Futures 33 (2001), pp. 267–305. Article |

PDF (355 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (2)

[29] J. Chenoweth et al., A comparison of environmental visions of university students in Israel and Palestine, Futures 39 (6) (2007), pp. 685–703. Article |

PDF (856 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (0)

[30] C.H. Quinn et al., Local perceptions of risk to livelihood in semi-arid Tanzania, Journal of Environmental Management 87 (2003), pp. 159–177.

[31] B. Chaves and J. Riley, Determination of factors influencing integrated pest management adoption in coffee berry borer in Colombian farms, Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 87 (2001), pp. 159–177. Article |

PDF (422 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (9)

[32] T. Sharama, J. Carmichael and B. Klinkenberg, Integrated modeling for exploring sustainable agricultural futures, Futures 38 (2006), pp. 93–113.

[33] UKForesightProgramme, Foresight making the future work for you, UK foresight programme website, 2007 [cited 5th December 2007].

[34] A. Janoff and M. Weisbord, Future search as “real-time” action research, Futures 38 (2006), pp. 716–722.

[35] Binder, C.R., R. Schoell, Structured Mental Model Approach for Analyzing Risks in Agricultural Systems: Theoretical Background and Operationalization, Working Paper SIE-Group, 2007, Geography Department University of Zurich, Zuerich.

[36] R. Schoell and C.R. Binder, System perspectives of experts and farmers regarding the role of livelihood assets in risk perception: results from the structured mental model approach, Risk Analysis 29 (2) (2009), pp. 205–222. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (1)

[37] A. Bostrom, B. Fischhoff and G.M. Morgan, Characterizing mental models of hazardous processes: a methodology and an application to radon, Journal of Social Issues 48 (1992), pp. 85–100. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (77)

[38] G.M. Morgan et al., Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (2002).

[39] DFID, DFID (Department for International Development) Sustainable Livelihood Sheets, 2001.

[40] H. Buitrago and H. Alvarado, Development of a geographical information system to evaluate the environmental impact of agricultural activities, Case Study: Vereda La Hoya, Uniboyaca, Tunja, Boyaca, Colombia (2000).

[41] In: P. Municipal, Editor, POT, Plan de ordenamiento territorial del Municipio de Tunja, Planeación Municipal, Tunja, Boyaca, Colombia (2000).

[42] S. Portela, Informe Ministerio de agricultura, M.D. Agricultura, Santa Fe de Bogota, Colombia (1992).

[43] M. Ramond, Colombia a leading Latin America economy, Forbes 11 (1997), p. 10.

[44] J.M. Antle and D.C. Cole, Further evidence on pesticides, productivity and farmer health: potato production in Ecuador, Agricultural Economics 18 (1998), pp. 199–207. Abstract | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (14)

[45] I.R. Edwards, D.G. Ferry and W.A. Temple In: W.J. Hayes and E.R. Laws, Editors, Fungicides & related compounds, Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Academic Press, New York, NY (1991).

[46] R.L. Baron In: W.J. Hayes and E.R. Laws, Editors, Carbamate Insecticides, Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, Academic Press, New York, NY (1991).

[47] N. Senanayake and L. Karalliedde, Neurotoxic effects of organophosphorus insecticides, New England Journal of Medicine 316 (1987), pp. 761–763. View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (201)

[48] Extoxnet, Pesticide Information Profile: Metalaxyl, Extension Toxicology Network, 2005 [cited 2005].

[49] PAN, PAN Pesticides Database - Chemicals: Mancozeb, Carbofuran, Metalaxyl, Methamidophos - Identification, toxicity, use, water pollution potential, ecological toxicity and regulatory information, 2004.

[50] ICA, Los Plaguicidas agricolas en Colombia, Producción comercializacion y uso, ICA, Santafe de Bogota, Colombia (1992).

[51] M. Maharik, B. Fischhoff and G.M. Morgan, Risk knowledge and risk attitudes regarding nuclear energy sources in space, Risk Analysis 13 (1993), pp. 345–353. Full Text via CrossRef

[52] A.H. Wiek, C.R. Binder and R.W. Scholz, Functions of scenarios in transition processes, Futures 38 (7) (2006), pp. 740–766. Article |

PDF (261 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (19)

[53] D. Hicks, A lesson for the future: young people's hopes and fears for tomorrow, Futures 28 (1) (1996), pp. 1–13. Article |

PDF (973 K) | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (20)

[54] D. Hicks, Retrieving the dream: how students envision their preferable futures, Futures 28 (1996), pp. 741–746.

[55] Cullen, A., Decision Making and Preferences: What experiments in Vietnam Tell Us About variability Between Populations, in Presentation in Public lectures Autumn tern 2007, Environmental Decisions: Individual and Societal Issues”, 27 November 2007 Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zürich, Zurich, 2007.

[56] OFRF, Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers’ Survey, OFRF, Santa Cruz, CA (1999).

[57] K. Fuglie and C. Kascak, Adoption and diffusion of natural resource-conserving agricultural technology, Review of Agricultural Economics 23 (2) (2001), pp. 386–403.

[58] G. Feder and R. Slade, The acquisition of information and the adoption of new technology, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66 (3) (1984), pp. 1073–1082.

[59] A. Fischer and A. Arnold, Information and the speed of innovation adoption, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78 (4) (1996), pp. 1073–1082. Full Text via CrossRef

[60] N. Baumberger, Exposition, Überzeugungen udn Risikoverhalten im Umgang mit Pestiziden: Eine Fallstudie bei Kartoffelnbauern in Vereda la Hoya, Lizenziatsarbeit der Philosophischen Fakultät der Universität Zürich, Kolumbien (2008).

[61] OECD, The Well-being of Nations The Role of Human and Social Capital Education and Skills, OECD Publications, 2, Paris, ISBN 92-64-18589-5-No.51647, 2001.

[62] L. De Haan and A. Zoomers, Exploring the frontier of livelihood research, Development and Change 36 (1) (2005), pp. 27–47. Full Text via CrossRef | View Record in Scopus | Cited By in Scopus (27)

[63] The World Bank, www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/theme_c/mod13/www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/glossary.htm (2005).

[64] National pest Management Association, What is IPM, http://www.whatisipm.org/ (12th December 2007).

[65] Pest Control Canada, http://www.pestcontrolcanada.com/integrated_pest_management.htm (13th December 2007).

Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 1 635 52 32; fax: +41 44 635 68 48.

¹ Pests: Plant pests, which include insects, pathogens and weeds (“pest” is used as defined in the International plant Protection Convention: “pest - any species, strain, or biotype of plant, animal or pathogenic agent injurious to plants or plant products”), continue to be major constraints on food and agricultural production in many regions of developing countries [1].
² Soft system analysis focuses on the importance of subjective perceptions and socially constructed reality. It combines two concepts: “mental models (referring to a specific mental representation of information about reality)” and “frames (referring to the context in which such a mental model is embedded and which gives sense and meaning to it)” [18].
³ Hard system analysis focuses on the importance of the factual knowledge basis [18].
⁴ How the farmer perceives his surroundings, himself and his abilities.
⁵ This definition of behavior includes attitudes and decision-making [58].
⁶ CORPOBOYACA = Corporación Autonoma Regional de Boyaca (Independent regional cooperation of Boyaca).
⁷ CORPOCHIVOR = Corporación Autonoma Regional de Chivor (Independent regional cooperation of Chivor).
⁸ UMATA = Unidad Municipal de Asistencia Técnica Agropecuaria (Municipal entity of agricultural technical assistance).
⁹ For instance, the question “Do you think that the soil quality is damaged by the use of pesticides?” was reformulated as “If you changed the application technique of pesticides (like reducing the amount), what do you think would happen to the quality of your soils?”.
¹⁰ Derived from informal meetings with the farmers and from considering recent governmental efforts in the study region as well as from ideas developed in cooperation with an ethnological study conducted in the study area (October 07–March 08) [60].
¹¹ The corresponding question in the experts’ interview was: “If the farmer was here, place the agents depicted in the photographs around him by considering how important you think they are for the farmer in reaching his desired future. Can any agents of the former network be omitted and why? Are there any agents missing in order to attain the desired future? Which ones and why?”.
¹² Nine of the ten interviewed farmers.
¹³ Free trade agreement with the United States of America.
¹⁴ The element “university” was just added to allow the farmers to place the interviewers somewhere in the system. Results concerning this agent will not be discussed further.
¹⁵ ICA Instituto Colombiano Agropecuario (Colombian Agronomy Institute).
¹⁶ Even though the ICA and the UMATA are also governmental entities, farmers did not relate them to the government.
¹⁷ Farmers and experts had diverging attitudes in general towards the future and especially concerning shifting to integrated farming. In addition farmers and experts showed differing interpretations concerning the formation of cooperatives.

global science global

jueves, 4 de junio de 2009

Comparing system visions of farmers and experts

Abstract

Article Outline

1. Introduction

1.1. External factors influencing farmers’ future

1.2. Internal factors influencing farmers’ future

1.3. The Future-Structured Mental Model Approach

2. Study area

3. Methods

3.1. The future-SMMA method

3.1.1. Prerequisites

3.1.2. Part I: definition and ranking of possible futures

3.1.2.1. Farmers’ interview

3.1.2.2. Experts’ interview

3.1.3. Part II: potential effect of farmers’ future visions on farmers’ livelihood

3.1.3.1. Farmers’ interview

3.1.3.2. Experts’ interview

3.1.4. Part III: future agent network

3.1.4.1. Farmers’ interview

3.1.4.2. Experts’ interview

3.2. The subjects

3.2.1. Farmers

3.2.2. Experts

3.3. Analysis

3.3.1. Analysis part I

3.3.2. Analysis part II

3.3.3. Analysis part III

4. Results

4.1. Part I: definition and ranking of possible futures

4.1.1. Envisioned and desired future developments

4.1.1.1. Cooperative

4.1.1.1.1. Farmers’ comments

4.1.1.1.2. Experts’ comments

4.1.1.2. Technical training

4.1.1.2.1. Farmers’ comments

4.1.1.2.2. Experts’ comments

4.1.1.3. IPM leading to less use/optimized use of pesticides or even to organic farming

4.1.1.3.1. Farmers’ comments

4.1.1.3.2. Experts’ comments

4.1.1.4. Status quo

4.1.1.4.1. Farmers’ comments

4.1.1.4.2. Experts’ comments

4.1.2. Ranking of four predefined optional futures

4.2. Part II: system dynamic

4.2.1. Farmers’ system dynamic statements

4.2.1.1. Future of human capital (expressed in: education, tradition)

4.2.1.2. Future of health capital (expressed in: house, alimentation, pesticide management)

4.2.1.3. Future of natural capital (expressed in: soil, water, forest, agricultural technology)

4.2.1.4. Future of financial capital (expressed in: livestock, market, harvest)

4.2.2. Future intervention plans

4.2.3. Experts’ system dynamic statements

4.2.3.1. Future of human capital (expressed in: education, tradition (Table 8))

4.2.3.2. Future of health capital (expressed in: house, alimentation, pesticide management (Table 8))

4.2.3.3. Future of natural capital (expressed in: soil, water, forest, agricultural technology (Table 8))

4.2.3.4. Future of financial capital (expressed in: livestock, market, harvest (Table 8))

4.2.4. Future intervention plans

4.3. Part III: future agent networks

5. Discussion and conclusion

5.1. Research findings

5.1.1. Diverging attitudes

5.1.2. Ambiguities in responsibility assignments

5.2. Strengths and limitations of the Future-SMMA

5.3. Further research

Acknowledgements

References

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario

Seguidores

Archivo del blog

Contribuyentes