Farmers` agonistic conflict frames regarding river restoration disputes

IF 3.5 2区 社会学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agriculture and Human Values Pub Date : 2023-05-06 DOI:10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5
Thomas Fickel
{"title":"Farmers` agonistic conflict frames regarding river restoration disputes","authors":"Thomas Fickel","doi":"10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Missing cooperation between farmers and nature conservationists is an obstacle to conflictive social-ecological transformation processes of agro-systems in Germany. Conflict psychology research shows that agonistic conflict frames play a crucial role in the parties’ response to and perception of conflicts. However, the role of conflict frames regarding farmers’ response to conservation conflicts in Germany, which are a recurrent expression of social-ecological transformation, is yet unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we investigate whether farmers have different agonistic conflict frames and whether these are related to their perceptions of specific conflicts. To answer these questions, we developed a cluster analysis of farmers’ attitudes towards conflicts over river restoration in order to find indications for different conflict frames. We used data from a telephone survey from 2021 that was conducted with 300 farmers on the topic of river restoration conflicts. We captured conflict frames using four categories: rejection of others’ attitudes, perceived threat, perceived integrated potential, and delegitimization. In the second and third steps, we looked for differences between the groups with regard to the perception of concrete conflict and economic factors. The results of this explorative study show that it is possible to distinguish six agonistic conflict frames within the four categories. Moreover, the six groups show differences in how they perceive a concrete river restoration conflict. In five out of six groups, the perceived threat is indicated as high. The findings show that farmers have different perspectives on the conflict, indicating possible differences in needs and differences regarding the openness to communicative strategies. The groups differ in their concrete conflict perception, and only weak characterization with regard to the economic situation could be found. This knowledge can help policymakers and practitioners find practical and communicative strategies that constructively address farmers' different conflict frames.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7683,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture and Human Values","volume":"40 4","pages":"1653 - 1673"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture and Human Values","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10460-023-10443-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Missing cooperation between farmers and nature conservationists is an obstacle to conflictive social-ecological transformation processes of agro-systems in Germany. Conflict psychology research shows that agonistic conflict frames play a crucial role in the parties’ response to and perception of conflicts. However, the role of conflict frames regarding farmers’ response to conservation conflicts in Germany, which are a recurrent expression of social-ecological transformation, is yet unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we investigate whether farmers have different agonistic conflict frames and whether these are related to their perceptions of specific conflicts. To answer these questions, we developed a cluster analysis of farmers’ attitudes towards conflicts over river restoration in order to find indications for different conflict frames. We used data from a telephone survey from 2021 that was conducted with 300 farmers on the topic of river restoration conflicts. We captured conflict frames using four categories: rejection of others’ attitudes, perceived threat, perceived integrated potential, and delegitimization. In the second and third steps, we looked for differences between the groups with regard to the perception of concrete conflict and economic factors. The results of this explorative study show that it is possible to distinguish six agonistic conflict frames within the four categories. Moreover, the six groups show differences in how they perceive a concrete river restoration conflict. In five out of six groups, the perceived threat is indicated as high. The findings show that farmers have different perspectives on the conflict, indicating possible differences in needs and differences regarding the openness to communicative strategies. The groups differ in their concrete conflict perception, and only weak characterization with regard to the economic situation could be found. This knowledge can help policymakers and practitioners find practical and communicative strategies that constructively address farmers' different conflict frames.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
农民关于河流修复争端的痛苦冲突框架
农民与自然保护主义者之间缺乏合作是阻碍德国农业系统冲突的社会生态转型进程的一个障碍。冲突心理学研究表明,敌对冲突框架在当事人对冲突的反应和感知中起着至关重要的作用。然而,冲突框架在德国农民对保护冲突的反应中所起的作用尚不清楚,这是社会-生态转型的一种反复表达。为了解决这一知识差距,我们调查了农民是否有不同的对抗冲突框架,以及这些框架是否与他们对特定冲突的看法有关。为了回答这些问题,我们对农民对河流修复冲突的态度进行了聚类分析,以找到不同冲突框架的迹象。我们使用了2021年对300名农民进行的关于河流修复冲突的电话调查的数据。我们用四个类别来捕捉冲突框架:对他人态度的拒绝、感知到的威胁、感知到的整合潜力和非合法性。在第二步和第三步中,我们在具体冲突和经济因素的感知方面寻找不同群体之间的差异。探索性研究的结果表明,在这四种类型中可以区分出六种对抗冲突框架。此外,这六组人在如何看待具体的河流修复冲突方面表现出差异。在六组中的五组中,感知到的威胁被标记为高。研究结果表明,农民对冲突有不同的看法,表明可能存在需求差异和对沟通策略开放程度的差异。这些群体对具体冲突的看法不同,对经济情况的描述也很薄弱。这些知识可以帮助决策者和实践者找到切实可行的沟通策略,建设性地解决农民的不同冲突框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture and Human Values
Agriculture and Human Values 农林科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
97
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Agriculture and Human Values is the journal of the Agriculture, Food, and Human Values Society. The Journal, like the Society, is dedicated to an open and free discussion of the values that shape and the structures that underlie current and alternative visions of food and agricultural systems. To this end the Journal publishes interdisciplinary research that critically examines the values, relationships, conflicts and contradictions within contemporary agricultural and food systems and that addresses the impact of agricultural and food related institutions, policies, and practices on human populations, the environment, democratic governance, and social equity.
期刊最新文献
Books received Books received Correction: Exploring diverse food system actor perspectives on gene editing: a systematic review of socio-cultural factors influencing acceptability Transforming the food system in ‘unprotected space’: the case of diverse grain networks in England Equity and resilience in local urban food systems: a case study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1