Guiding carbon farming using interdisciplinary mixed methods mapping

Abstract

1. In recognition of the need to address complex environmental problems, some ecological studies have adopted social research methods to better understand the complexity of social-ecological systems management. The overwhelming majority of these studies stop short of fully embracing qualitative methodologies.2. The lack of integrative social and natural science data for a topic such as soil carbon farming is problematic as theoretical carbon sequestration opportunities identified through soil mapping and process-based models can fail to deliver the sequestration levels promised when introduced on-the-ground. Such mapping needs to account for the human factors involved in delivering increased soil carbon on-farm.3. Here, we develop a mixed methods mapping approach to explore the potential for increasing soil carbon stocks on upland farms in the UK. Our approach considers ecological and social complexity through application of soil science, ecology, participant observation, interviews and a focus group. 4. Our maps revealed landscapes that are full of carbon farming opportunity, but contain previously hidden barriers to the delivery of increased soil carbon. For example, they revealed that carbon farming can be considered by farmers to work in opposition to perceived 'good farming' practices and be correlated with increased incidents of livestock disease. We also discovered that the use of maps in research can be problematic as they can close down discussion and exclude local representation of an area. 5.Trialling an interdisciplinary mixed methods approach produced new, deeper and more richly-textured understandings about how soil carbon management is produced socially as well as ecologically on upland livestock farms. Our findings have potential to improve the success of future carbon farming initiatives by incorporating farmer knowledge and social drivers of implementation.

Talking methods, talking about methods: Invoking the transformative potential of social methods through animals, objects and how‐to instructions

“…While there is increased recognition of social science research and methods within new, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary knowledge collectives committed to creating transformative change (cf., Holmes et al, 2018;Waterton & Tsouvalis, 2015;Watson et al, 2020), qualitative methods are much less often utilised within these spaces (cf. Brockett et al, 2019).…”

“…If the transformative potential of social science is to be realised within non‐academic policy, third sector and business spaces, it is important to recognise that change takes place at a variety of scales, temporalities and intensities. Moreover, researchers need to know how to talk about how concepts, empirical findings and methods each play a role in achieving such impacts, and to communicate why methods themselves matter for understanding, analysing and creating change on important societal issues (Brockett et al, 2019; Crang, 2003; Phoenix et al, 2019). Interview methods are one such space for potential adoption and innovation.…”

Soil carbon sequestration as a climate strategy: what do farmers think?

“…Indeed, a third set of recommendations centered on using a wider variety of research methods. Ethnographic methods can help with accessing tacit knowledge which can be missed in less in-depth methods; walking interviews can examine farmer knowledge as embodied in the farm landscape (Brockett et al 2019). Participatory research with farmers can generate management options from beyond current research and extension recommendations (Mattila et al 2022).…”

“…Participatory research with farmers can generate management options from beyond current research and extension recommendations (Mattila et al 2022). Furthermore, farmer attitudes and motivations are not fixed and can change over time; identifying how this happens depends on the methods used (Brockett et al 2019).…”

Improving landholder engagement in biodiversity conservation: What can be learned from literary theory and design

“…The language is colourless, impersonal and bureaucratic. Many of the graphic and textual elements used throughout the report suggest authority, technicality and apparent finality, which Brockett et al (2019) suggest can preclude engagement from landholders in the processes of information gathering done on their land. Information for distinguishing, comparing and evaluating plant and animal species is tabulated throughout the SVR.…”