The ‘inner’ dimension of Dutch farmers’ trajectories of change: drivers, triggers and turning points for sustained agroecological practices

Figures & data

Figure 1. The three spheres of transformation, adopted from Gosnell, Gill, and Voyer’s (2019). Zones of friction are disabling and move the farmer away from transformation to agroecology, whereas zones of traction are enabling and bring the farmer closer to transformation. The three spheres are not separated by clearly distinct borders but are interrelated and embedded.

Table 1. Overview of farmers, type of farm and different activities, farm size, background and starting year. The starting year relates to start with agroecological practices, which in case of taking over the.

Farmer	Farm type	Size	Background	Starting year
F1	Mixed farm: arable crops, cattle, horses, care, bakery, grazing nature reserves	50 ha	Farmers’ son	1982
F2	Dairy farm, with agroforestry, other livestock	22 ha	Farmers’ son	1996: first farm 2017: second farm
F3	Dairy farm, with vegetable field, other livestock, education, care farm	50 ha	Farmers’ son	1996
F4	CSA* vegetable farm, tea/lunch garden, care farm, education	1 ha	First generation farmer	1999
F5	Arable farm, with few cattle, education	85 ha	First generation farmer	2000: first farm 2019: second farm
F6	Arable farm, education	84 ha	Farmers’ son	2002
F7	CSA* vegetable farm	1 ha	First generation farmer	2005
F8	CSA* vegetable farm, education, organization agroecological movement	1.2 ha	First generation farmer	2014
F9	CSA* vegetable farm, education	0.6 ha	First generation farmer	2016

Table 2. Overview of zones of friction and traction as described in results. This table is complemented with additional zones of friction and traction mentioned in the interviews.

	Friction		Traction
Personal sphere	‘Old’ mentality Resistance/fear to change Unawareness of other possibilities Lacking confidence Pride Cultural identity and norms Limited mental energy Pressure of expectations from relatives and colleagues		Biophilic values Emotions such as joy and interest about farming and nature Worry about conventional practices and future Environmental awareness Trigger-events Finding autonomy and integrity in agroecology Fulfillment of contributing to a better world Alignment of values and practice
↑ ↓
Practical sphere	Eco-logical	Labor intensity of agroecological practices Soil has to get used Accepting weeds and lower yields Ecological boundaries pose challenges	Increased biodiversity Diversity leads to stability Good yields Improved soil Good quality of products Enjoyments of created values Esthetic value
	Eco-nomic	Low income Expensive land Financial risk of conversion No compensation for added ecosystem services High production costs (or too low conventional prices) Insufficient sales No access to subsidies	Some subsidies were available in the past Good income eventually Independence from banks Availability of local sales points Sufficient members/costumers Higher (true) prices can be asked because of connection to members/costumers Financial buffer available
	Social	Issues within the family Limited access to alternative practices in conventional farming community Change towards agroecology costs time, energy and mental space Agroecology is knowledge intensive: steep learning curve	Inspiring examples Optimism within alternative/organic farming community Network: peer-to-peer knowledge exchange and self-organization Collaboration with nature organizations Support of relatives Appreciation by others Feeling of momentum for change Discontent with current state and quality of ‘organic’ Relating to food and people
↓ ↑
Political sphere	Political inertia Lack of integral policies that are workable Lobby of industry Society capital-focused Lack of political recognition Minimal support and education		Progressive scientific insights Societal environmental awareness Agroecological movement in NL Political vision encourages agroecology Availability studies etc.

Figure 2. Overview of transition trajectory of each farmer over time. Trigger-events are indicated when explicitly mentioned by the farmer. The two publications shown at the top timeline indicate the start of an environmental movement; the financial crisis is indicated because it had major implications for the transition trajectory of at least three of the interviewees.

Gosnell, H., N. Gill, and M. Voyer. 2019. Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Global Environmental Change 59:101965. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101965.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar