Three-Fold Embedding: Farm Development in Relation to Its Socio-Material Context
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Theoretical Background
1.2. Three-Fold Embedding
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. The Case Study Context
2.2. Data Collection and Processing
2.3. The Scale Used to Measure Embedding in the Set of Relations
3. Results
3.1. Ideal-Typical Characteristics of the Clusters
- Milk Max (29 of 79 farms): farms aiming for maximisation of total farm milk production within economic parameters using high levels of input to create a high output. Their view on dairy farming is primarily technical and financial.
- Milk Balance (21 farms): farms aiming for optimisation of total farm milk production within the limits of feed produced on their own land, where limited additional inputs are used to optimise milk production. Production costs are kept relatively low.
- Milk Plus (21 farms): farmers who are open to other sources of income from on-farm activities (e.g., care, recreation, and nature) alongside a Milk Balance strategy. The farm is based on a relatively extensive production that reduces pressure on operational management and in turn allows for time and energy to be spent on other activities.
- End Milk (8 farms): farms aiming to end milk production in the coming years, either due to retirement without a successor or due to the economic situation of the farm. Farmers often aim to continue to live in the farmhouse while the land is used by other farmers, and farm facilities are taken out of (dairy) production. The pattern End Milk is not used for further analysis of embedding due to the low number of farms in the pattern in combination with the diversity of motivations to end production.
3.2. Three-Fold Embedding of Milk Max
3.2.1. Value Chain Relations
3.2.2. Socio-Cultural Relations
3.2.3. Natural Resources Relations
3.3. Three-Fold Embedding of Milk Balance
3.3.1. Value Chain Relations
3.3.2. Socio-Cultural Relations
3.3.3. Natural Resources Relations
3.4. Three-Fold Embedding of Milk Plus
3.4.1. Value Chain Relations
3.4.2. Socio-Cultural Relations
3.4.3. Natural Resources Relations
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. The Methodology
4.2. The Findings
4.3. Three-Fold Embedding as Analytical Tool
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Van der Ploeg, J.D. Styles of farming: An introductory note on concepts and methodology. In Born from within—Practice and Perspectives of Endogenous Rural Development; van der Ploeg, J.D., Long, A., Eds.; Van Gorcum: Assen, The Netherlands, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Pender, J.; Jagger, P.; Nkonya, E.; Sserunkuuma, D. Development pathways and land management in uganda. World Dev. 2004, 32, 767–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beyene, A.; Gibbon, D.; Haile, M. Heterogeneity in land resources and diversity in farming practices in tigray, ethiopia. Agric. Syst. 2006, 88, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oostindie, H. Family Farming Futures: Agrarian Pathways to Multifunctionality: Flows of Resistance, Redesign and Resilience. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Ploeg, J.D.; Ventura, F. Heterogeneity reconsidered. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 8, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Ploeg, J.D. The Virtual Farmer Past, Present, and Future of the Dutch Peasantry; Royal van Gorcum: Assen, The Netherlands, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bieleman, J. Boeren op Het Drentse Zand 1600–1910. Een Nieuwe Visie op de ‘Oude’ Landbouw. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Darnhofer, I.; Bellon, S.; Dedieu, B.; Milestad, R. Adaptiveness to enhance the sustainability of farming systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feola, G.; Lerner, A.M.; Jain, M.; Montefrio, M.J.F.; Nicholas, K.A. Researching farmer behaviour in climate change adaptation and sustainable agriculture: Lessons learned from five case studies. J. Rural Stud. 2015, 39, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roep, D. Vernieuwend Werken, Sporen van Vermogen en Onvermogen. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen Universiteit, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Sutcliffe, K.M.; Zaheer, A. Uncertainty in the transaction environment: An empirical test. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yanes-Estévez, V.; Oreja-Rodríguez, J.R.; García-Pérez, A.M. Perceived environmental uncertainty in the agrifood supply chain. Br. Food J. 2010, 112, 688–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parnell, J.A.; Lester, D.L.; Menefee, M.L. Strategy as a response to organizational uncertainty: An alternative perspective on the strategy-performance relationship. Manag. Decis. 2000, 38, 520–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Pérez, M.; Yanes-Estévez, A.; Oreja-Rodríguez, V.R.; González-Dávila, E.J. Strategic positioning and strategic types of small firms. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2014, 21, 431–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Portes, A.; Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. Am. J. Soc. 1993, 98, 1320–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKeever, E.; Jack, S.; Anderson, A. Embedded entrepreneurship in the creative re-construction of place. J. Bus. Ventur. 2015, 30, 50–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hess, M. Spatial relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2004, 28, 165–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Welter, F. Contextualizing entrepreneurship—Conceptual challenges and ways forward. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011, 35, 165–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, T.J. Entrepreneurship in action: Bringing together the individual, organizational and institutional dimensions of entrepreneurial action. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2013, 25, 404–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devereaux Jennings, P.; Greenwood, R.; Lounsbury, M.D.; Suddaby, R. Institutions, entrepreneurs, and communities: A special issue on entrepreneurship. J. Bus. Ventur. 2013, 28, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alsos, G.A.; Carter, S.; Ljunggren, E. The Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in Agriculture and Rural Development; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Wiskerke, J.S.C. On places lost and places regained: Reflections on the alternative food geography and sustainable regional development. Int. Plan. Stud. 2009, 14, 369–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Potter, C.; Tilzey, M. Agricultural policy discourses in the european post-fordist transition: Neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2005, 29, 581–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, C.; Mundler, P.; Demarle, O.; Ingrand, S. Long-term strategies and flexibility of organic farmers in southeastern france. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2010, 8, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansson, H.; Ferguson, R. Factors influencing the strategic decision to further develop dairy production—A study of farmers in central sweden. Livest. Sci. 2011, 135, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91, 481–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dequech, D. Cognitive and cultural embeddedness: Combining institutional economics and economic sociology. J. Econ. Issues 2003, 37, 461–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jack, S.L.; Anderson, A.R. The effects of embeddedness on the entrepreneurial process. J. Bus. Ventur. 2002, 17, 467–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, K.; Marsden, T.; Murdoch, J. Worlds of Food: Place, Power and Provenance in the Food Chain; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Akgún, A.A.; Nijkamp, P.; Baycan, T.; Brons, M. Embeddedness of entrepreneurs in rural areas: A comparative rough set data analysis. Tijdschr. Econ. Soc. Geogr. 2010, 101, 538–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roep, D.; Wiskerke, J.S. On governance, embedding and marketing: Reflections on the construction of alternative sustainable food networks. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 205–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sonnino, R. Embeddedness in action: Saffron and the making of the local in southern tuscany. Agric. Hum. Values 2007, 24, 61–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goodman, D.; Goodman, M.K. Alternative food networks. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Thrift, N., Kitchin, R., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 208–220. [Google Scholar]
- Hinrichs, C.C. Embeddedness and local food systems: Notes on two types of direct agricultural market. J. Rural Stud. 2000, 16, 295–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moragues-Faus, A.M.; Sonnino, R. Embedding quality in the agro-food system: The dynamics and implications of place-making strategies in the olive oil sector of alto palancia, spain. Sociol. Ruralis 2012, 52, 215–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van der Meulen, H.A.B.; van Everdingen, W.H.; Smit, A.B. Actuele Ontwikkeling van Resultaten en Inkomens in de Land- en Tuinbouw in 2012; LEI Wageningen UR: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2012; p. 204. [Google Scholar]
- Duitman, L. Analyse Melkveebedrijven op Kampereiland; Alfa-Berk-Countus: Kampen, The Netherlands, 2005; p. 57. [Google Scholar]
- Methorst, R. Monitoring Economische Ontwikkeling Melkveehouderij Kampereiland; CAH Vilentum Department of Applied Science: Dronten, The Netherlands, 2013; p. 29. [Google Scholar]
- Methorst, R. Economie Melkveehouderij Kampereiland e.o. 2013; CAH Vilentum: Dronten, The Netherlands, 2015; p. 25. [Google Scholar]
- Methorst, R.G. Farmers’ Perception of Opportunities for Farm Development. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Methorst, R.G.; Roep, D.; Verhees, F.J.H.M.; Verstegen, J.A.A.M. Differences in farmers’ perception of opportunities for farm development. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2017, 81, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Methorst, R.G.; Roep, D.; Verhees, F.J.H.M.; Verstegen, J.A.A.M. Drivers for differences in dairy farmers’ perceptions of farm development strategies in an area with nature and landscape as protected public goods. Local Econ. 2016, 31, 554–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McMullen, J.S.; Shepherd, D.A. Entrepreneurial action and the role of uncertainty in the theory of the entrepreneur. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 132–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliva, R. Landscape stories: Using ideal type narratives as a heuristic device in rural studies. J. Rural Stud. 2007, 23, 62–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doty, D.H.; Glick, W.H. Typologies as a unique form of theory building: Toward improved understanding and modeling. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1994, 19, 230–251. [Google Scholar]
- Casini, L.; Contini, C.; Romano, C. Paths to developing multifunctional agriculture: Insights for rural development policies. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2012, 9, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Villareal Herrera, G. Sustaining Dairy; Wageningen University and Research: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Long, N.; Van der Ploeg, J.D. Heterogeneity, actor and structure: Towards a reconstitution of the concept of structure. In Rethinking Social development: Theory, Research & Practice; Booth, D., Ed.; Longman: Essex, UK, 1994; pp. 62–89. [Google Scholar]
- Darnhofer, I. Strategies of family farms to strengthen their resilience. Environ. Policy Gov. 2010, 20, 212–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stock, P.V.; Forney, J. Farmer autonomy and the farming self. J. Rural Stud. 2014, 36, 160–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Lamine, C.; Strauss, A.; Navarrete, M. The resilience of family farms: Towards a relational approach. J. Rural Stud. 2016, 44, 111–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thornton, P.H.; Ribeiro-Soriano, D.; Urbano, D. Socio-cultural factors and entrepreneurial activity: An overview. Int. Small Bus. J. 2011, 29, 105–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansson, H.; Ferguson, R.; Olofsson, C.; Rantamäki-Lahtinen, L. Farmers’ motives for diversifying their farm business—The influence of family. J. Rural Stud. 2013, 32, 240–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McElwee, G.; Bosworth, G. Exploring the strategic skills of farmers across a typology of farm diversification approaches. J. Farm. Manag. 2010, 13, 819–838. [Google Scholar]
Pattern 1 | Milk/Cow | Milk/ha | Milk/Farm |
---|---|---|---|
Milk Max | 9.0 | 17.9 | 893 |
Milk Balance | 8.3 | 14.1 | 543 |
Milk Plus | 7.5 | 11.9 | 622 |
End Milk | 7.2 | 10.7 | 410 |
Milk Max: Value Chain Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We want to focus fully on production and to minimize side activities (f13) |
Other Farmers | They see it as a challenge, going to the max. When you give them the choice for less or more cows with the same financial profit, they opt for the higher number of cows. It is also a competition in their network to be on top of the lists (f34) |
Their decisions are based on economy, their aim for the farm is to earn money and they love to continuously develop their farm (f41) | |
The larger the farm, the more easy it is to deal with investments, you need numbers (f26) | |
When foreign capital is to the max, you need to maximise production, it has to be repaid (f26) | |
Stakeholders | They are well connected to advisory services, but they do follow their own plan and goals (s13) |
The farmers actively look for new techniques to lower the costs (s4) | |
When a farmer has maximised external capital, the production needs to be maximum as well (s7) |
Milk Max: Socio-Cultural Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We need to separate the farm and the family, the time that the whole family needed to support the farm needs to be over (f12) |
We should be going away more, when you look at this wharf here nearby, they fly all over the world (f12) | |
Other Farmers | These farmers are really good managers, they need to be good in quick decision-making (f26) |
There is also an element of showing off what real farming is like (f31) | |
The larger farmers are no longer interested in local organisations, they can still be found on boards, but then as a paid board member (f24) | |
Stakeholders | When I am called to calve a cow, I can find the cow in the stable and I can call the farmer when needed; in Milk Balance farms the family would come to watch (s11) |
They are not easy-going farmers who like to chat, they do have time, but only in the evenings (s2) |
Milk Max: Natural Resources Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We have always milked to the max, we scrape together the feed we can get to have enough, a more extensive approach just would not fit (f13) |
As much milk as possible using concentrates and by-products (f11) | |
Farmland birds programs? We only participate when it is economically feasible (f14) |
Milk Balance: Value Chain Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We could become part of a separate dairy value chain, but we would not be the ones to initiate a new value chain (f21) |
The media wants to convince us that big farmers are the entrepreneurs with beautiful new farms; I believe that it is more of a feat to get yourself an income from 60 cows (f23) | |
Diversification like regional products is not what I like, it takes away the attention that I need for my cows. Society may ask for it, but as long as we can farm the way we want we will do so (f21) | |
Like green care or energy production, well, you need to invest first and wait and see if it will give a profit (f25) | |
Other Farmers | Milk Balance farmers are first of all farmers. They like to do a good job in producing milk by focusing on internal feed production and low production costs (s12) |
Milk Balance farmers are less focused on the financial results, much less than Milk Max farmers. These farmers do not strive for a bigger farm, it is not their preference (s11) | |
These farmers invest less capital, they try to keep costs low (s13) |
Milk Balance: Socio-Cultural Relations | |
---|---|
Self | Farmers may very well be too much farmyard-oriented, there are too many of those still around (f25) |
I was born and raised on this farm, my great-grandfather started here, my grandfather was born here, we have been here since 1890 (f22) | |
I farm the way I want to farm, no matter what other people say, my family is very involved, they enjoy it and love to help, that is very rewarding (f24) | |
Working with people from nature organisations was not a success, I cannot get along with them, even though I still try to protect farmland birds (f23) | |
Other Farmers | These people are working based on an ideology, the connection with family, looking more at sustainability, their way of farming is more value-based (s10) |
Stakeholders | I do believe that farmers who are more oriented to craftsmanship in farming enjoy farming more (s4) |
Milk Balance: Natural Resources Relations | |
---|---|
Self | I have as many cows as my land can handle, I would even prefer to have less cows per ha but some legal limitations mean that I need to have more cows than I would prefer to have (f34) |
Patience, patience, give the land its time, farmers give too much priority to working fast (f31) | |
To turn some agricultural land into water retention areas is fine in itself, but then you will see that those nature people will turn it into a nature preserve over time (f33) | |
Other Farmers | Farming skills are very important, some farmers can harvest twice as much from one ha as other farmers (f41) |
Milk Plus: Value Chain Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We are surprised how farmers cannot see the chances and opportunities in the society around them (f33) |
Milk Max and Milk Plus in some ways resemble each other, they both have entrepreneurial competencies, the one sees opportunities in the surroundings and the other sees the production potential of his farm (f33) | |
Other Farmers | Those farmers really dare to take entrepreneurial risks, they are not just continuing their farm activity (f14) |
Stakeholders | In the nineties I talked with farmers about choosing to opt for an off-farm job or to start a bed-and-breakfast (B&B) on the farm; they decided to do the B&B as it increased the activity on the farm. Now it is an adequate income. The diversification, you see the effect of more activity on the farm (s12) |
This is the real entrepreneurship as you need to react to societal developments (s12) |
Milk Plus: Socio-Cultural Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We do not need to get the last drop of every cow, we cherish the social contacts. As a farmer it is easy to be isolated on the farm; it is good to see other things (f31) |
I indeed prefer a farm that enables me to give room to my idealism than a farm that delivers a high income. Contact with people, all the stories you hear. That gives insights as well (f34) | |
We have both worked in other occupations and we have seen that there are other worlds. The contact with other people made us aware of the value of farm life (f33) | |
A network outside agriculture helps you to stay creative, they say things that make you think (f31) | |
Other Farmers | On these farms you often see that family is actively involved in running and developing the farm (f14) |
The family is really part of the farm and they work on and talk about the farm (f15) | |
Stakeholders | These farmers find other things in the world more important than just farming (s2) |
Sometimes you see farmers that are maybe too social, they give too much of themselves (s10) | |
You often see that the partner of the farmer worked in, for example, health care, and then develops ‘green health care’ on the farm (s12) | |
You need inspiration as well—are you open to it—is it part of the farmer’s character? (s4) |
Milk Plus: Natural Resources Relations | |
---|---|
Self | We think this part of the polder has potential for nature and farmland birds (f31) |
We had plans to rent out small boats as well, but we were not allowed to organise a location on the water side for the boats (f31) | |
Stakeholders | This farmer uses his farmyard for other purposes other than milk production, such as green health care. They make use of the buildings and farmyard and the competencies of the farmer and his partner (s12) |
Regional production is of course a business, but for the farmers it has value that cannot be expressed in money; it is a sense of belonging to the location (s3) |
Milk Max | Milk Balance | Milk Plus | |
---|---|---|---|
Value Chain Relations |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Close (1) Stretched | Close Stretched | Close Stretched | |
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - > | <- - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - - -- > | < - - - - XXXXXX - - - - - - - - - - > | |
Socio-Cultural Relations |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Close Stretched | Close Stretched | Close Stretched | |
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - > | <- - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - - -- > | < - - - - XXXXXX - - - - - - - - - - > | |
Resource Relations |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Close Stretched | Close Stretched | Close Stretched | |
< - - - - - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - > | <- - - - - - - - - - - XXXXXX - - - -- > | < - - - - XXXXXX - - - - - - - - - - > |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Methorst, R.; Roep, D.; Verstegen, J.; Wiskerke, J.S.C. Three-Fold Embedding: Farm Development in Relation to Its Socio-Material Context. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1677. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101677
Methorst R, Roep D, Verstegen J, Wiskerke JSC. Three-Fold Embedding: Farm Development in Relation to Its Socio-Material Context. Sustainability. 2017; 9(10):1677. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101677
Chicago/Turabian StyleMethorst, Ron, Dirk Roep, Jos Verstegen, and Johannes S. C. Wiskerke. 2017. "Three-Fold Embedding: Farm Development in Relation to Its Socio-Material Context" Sustainability 9, no. 10: 1677. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101677