Agri-environmental policies and ‘good farming’ in cultivation practices at Finnish farms

Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud

Agri-environmental policies and ‘good farming’ in cultivation practices at Finnish farms Suvi Huttunen*, Juha Peltomaa Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140, 00251 Helsinki, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 24 August 2015 Received in revised form 5 February 2016 Accepted 12 February 2016 Available online 26 February 2016

Twenty years has passed since Finland joined the European Union in 1995. Agriculture was one of the key areas in which significant changes were both anticipated and realised. Besides the European-wide structural change towards larger production units and the steeply decreasing number of farms, the EU's agricultural policy has brought about significant changes in farming as a livelihood and the ways in which it is practiced in Finland. These changes involve environmental considerations related to fertilisation or tillage practices, for example, but they are also reflected in wider meaning-making related to what farming fundamentally is about. Using the concept of good farming as the key, we explore how the introduced agri-environmental policies have changed farming practices and how this is reflected in the ways that good farming ideals are understood and constituted among different farmers. The analysis is based on interviews in which farmers describe their farming practices, purposes and the influence of policies. Our results suggest that the ideals related to good farming are diversifying and changing as the ways of gaining a livelihood through farming changes. This change occurs as the ideals are renegotiated when performing new voluntary or forced practices. Good farming ideals do not only function as a cultural barrier to the adoption of new practices, but they can actively contribute to the accommodation and development of the practices. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Good farming Cultivation practices Agri-environmental schemes Finland

1. Introduction The concept of ‘good farming’ has recently regained attention in rural sociology (Riley, 2016). It is a notion used for analysing the cultural norms related to agricultural production and their influence on farming practices, particularly to the change towards more environmentally friendly agriculture (Silvasti, 2003; Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011; Sutherland, 2013). What are often identified as good farming ideals center on high productivity and manifest via symbols such as high yield, farming skills and managed landscape (Burton, 2004). These ideals have been formed in times when farming primarily meant food production for the farming household and secondarily a sellable produce for the surrounding community. Thus farming as a means for a livelihood meant food production, and the more food that could be produced the better the livelihood. The symbols are related to ensuring efficient food production and have acted to reinforce the intensive production system. Eventually, over-production and environmental and health

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: suvi.huttunen@ymparisto.fi (S. Huttunen). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.02.004 0743-0167/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

concerns related to intensive farming have caused the ways in which food is produced to be questioned, which resulted in new policy goals related to multifunctional agriculture. However, farming ideals do not seem to change at the same pace as the policy changes, which causes difficulties for the success of the policies. As changes in good farming are slow to appear, the ideals are suggested to form a central barrier to the adoption of agrienvironmental measures (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011); the policies do not fit farming culture. Aiming for high productivity has been identified as an especially central problem related to the functioning of agri-environmental schemes (AES) that traditionally offer compensation for costs and/or reduced yields caused by the measures. For example, a reduced level of fertilisation violates good farming ideals of doing one's best and being rewarded for the results. A solution proposed for the mismatch between productivist good farming ideals and agri-environmental schemes is to make the latter more appealing to production-inclined farmers (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). This means compensation by environmental goods produced, in other words payment by ecosystem services. This way new, appreciated symbols related to good farming could be created without the need to alter the ideal of

218

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

productivity itself. However, with the exception of Sutherland and Darnhofer (2012), relatively little attention has been paid to the change processes related to good farming ideals: how current policies have managed to change the ideals and how the changes could be promoted. Focussing on the case of Finland, our study explores how the existing pay by action policies have affected good farming ideals. Our particular research questions are: 1) What is the influence of the EU agri-environmental policies on farming practices from the farmers' perspective? and, 2) How do the induced changes in farming practices relate to the ways good farming is understood and constituted among different farmers? Finland is a particular case to study agri-environmental subsidies and practice change. Environmental measures were scarcely in use in Finland prior to EU membership in 1995 (Peltomaa, 2015) and the membership considerably increased the importance of environmental issues and policies related to agriculture (Jokinen, 2000). The agri-environmental subsidies have focused on water protection, resulting in changes in farming practices such as decreased utilisation of mineral fertilisers and increased utilisation of zero and reduced tillage methods, especially in Southern Finland (Palva et al., 2001; Salminen et al., 2014). In Finland, the share of agricultural area committed to agri-environmental schemes is among the highest in the EU (Eurostat, 2012). The agrienvironmental programme was introduced in Finland as a part of the income subsidy system, and about 85e92% of farms, as well as 88e96% of the agricultural area, have been committed to it throughout the different programme periods (MAF, 2004; Aakkula €nen, 2014). This makes the programme particularly and Leppa influential in affecting the way that farming is practiced. Finnish farmers are also very dependent on agricultural subsidies (including the environmental ones); on average the subsidies are 1.4 times the created farm net value added in the programme period 2014e2020 (the EU average is 0.4) (Niemi and Ahlsted, 2015). Finnish EU membership accelerated the changes in farming as a livelihood. Along with the general EU-wide development, the previous price subsidies were gradually removed and new subsidies were tied to agricultural land area, not the amount of products produced. This increasing decoupling of production and subsidies reduced the economic importance and incentive of actually producing agricultural products as subsidies could be obtained with minimal production activity. Partially as a result of this the average field area of Finnish farms has almost doubled since 1995, while the number of farms has nearly halved (Tike, 2005, 2014). Behind this general development, the ways that livelihood is gained from farming are diversifying (Peltomaa, 2015). Farm diversification and part-time farming increase while the share of large farms also increases. Currently, it is estimated that about 50% of Finnish farms produce 95% of agricultural products (Niemi and Ahlsted, 2015). The agri-environmental subsidies relate closely to these livelihood changes by enabling further extensification. The policy changes that have occurred and affect farmers’ livelihood are bound to influence good farming ideals and related norms. We approach good farming ideals as being constructed in relation to farming as a livelihood and understand the construction to occur in farming practices (Singleton and Law, 2013). For example, the ideal of the good farmer as one who obtains good yields is reinforced in producing the good yield and being appreciated by the farming community. A change in practice can eventually result in new ideals of good farming (e.g. Haggerty et al., 2009). However, the ideals attached to existing practices also resist practice change (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). It is this interconnection between practice and change of ideals that we focus on.

2. Practicing good farming 2.1. Changing practices, changing ideals Good farming has been analysed using Bourdieu's intertwining concepts of habitus, field and social and cultural capital (e.g. Burton et al., 2008; Hunt, 2010; Sutherland, 2013) as well as identity theory (Burton, 2004; McGuire et al., 2013). Additionally it has been connected to social and cultural scripting, which shapes the formation of norms and values towards farming (e.g. Silvasti, 2003; Vanclay and Enticott, 2011). These approaches share an idea that the understanding of good farming is something that plays an important role in determining farming practices, but good farming can also be regarded as being constituted in practices. The focus on practices shifts the attention from the farmers, their socio-cultural context and discourses towards their actual doings. Practices entail bodily and mental activities as well as materials or things involved in performing these practices (Reckwitz, 2002). Thus the focus on practices enables accounting for the interplay between understandings (such as good farming) and material entities as well as bodily activities. From the practice perspective, good farming is a normative meaning simultaneously enacted in and constituting practices. Scripts and symbols gain their meanings and identities are enacted in practices. The prevalent approaches to good farming widely agree that good farming is a dynamic concept which is constantly under change: the meaning of good farming is negotiated locally (Haggerty et al., 2009), it varies between different farming styles and farmer groups (Hunt, 2010; Sutherland, 2013; Riley, 2016) and is influenced by policies and markets (Sutherland and Darnhofer, 2012; Fleury et al., 2015). Despite these openings related to change in good farming ideals, the processes of change and in particular the role of policies in inducing change have gained relatively little attention. Looking into good farming via practices can help find ways to better understand the formation of farming ideals, and as a consequence also facilitate their change. In the following we exemplify our position in looking at livelihood and practices as the core of change in farming ideals and propose a framework for the analysis of change in good farming (Fig. 1). In our analysis, we focus on practices as mediators in the formation and change of good farming ideals (e.g. Singleton, 2012; Mol, 2013; see also Huttunen and Oosterveer, 2016). The core idea behind our framework is that the good farming ideals have been formed in relation to the need to gain a livelihood for the farm household, and this formation occurs in practices. While the context of gaining a livelihood changes and varies among different farms and their varying farming styles, farming practices are modified. The modified practices do not necessarily sustain the good farming ideals formed together with the previous practices and eventually the change in farming practices can change the ideals: as farming practices change, new practices slowly erode the norms related to good farming and create new norms. The change may include different layers that have different potential for change as the good farming ideals connected to the original practices may resist the change as well. Stabilisation of new ideals takes time and it may take one generation to change the ideals, especially if they are ‘forced’ via new practices introduced by external events such as changes in policy or market environment (Haggerty et al., 2009). The change and differentiation of good farming implies a constant struggle over the definition of the goodness of different farming practices and pursuits (Phillips and Gray, 1995). Norms and values are embedded in practices, which means that enacting the practices evokes a set of understandings or meanings related to the practice making some issues appear as good and others as bad (Singleton, 2012; Mol, 2013). For example, applying fertiliser can be

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

Fig. 1. Framework for the change of good farming ideals in terms of changing farm household livelihood.

understood as making plants grow better, but it can also be understood in terms of increasing the potential for leaching and eutrophication of water bodies. When a proper amount of fertiliser is calculated on the basis of a plant's need the fertilisation is optimised for plant growth. But when the suitable amount of fertilisers is calculated based on an agri-environmental scheme, it becomes fertilisation to prevent eutrophication. The norms related to performing these functions are different. If a farmer fertilises more than the plant needs, it only seldom affects the plant's growth adversely. But if a farmer mobilises the agri-environmental scheme knowledge and applies more fertiliser than recommended in the scheme, it increases the risk for leaching, and is considered a bad practice in this context. Thus the ways the practices are understood and the context in which they are applied enact the good or the bad in the practices (Mol, 2013). 2.2. Livelihood as a source of change From the practice perspective, both the diversity and change in good farming occur as practices mediate the livelihood needs. The connections between farming livelihood and good farming are illustrated in many studies. Changing the rules of the game, i.e. the setting in which farming is practiced is identified as a clear inducer of change in good farming ideals (Haggerty et al., 2009; Sutherland and Darnhofer, 2012). The policy and market environment related to farming has altered considerably from the times when a farmer's income could be equated to the amount and quality of the farm's produce. As good farming has essentially meant economically successful farming, symbols such as tidy and intensively managed fields demonstrating good farming erode when the significance of good yield in providing a livelihood gets smaller (Sutherland and Darnhofer, 2012). From a practice point of view the meaning of high yield in demonstrating the economic success of the farm is removed from the cultivation practice. The change in livelihood can affect good farming ideals via altering the reference group against which good farming needs to be demonstrated. For example, farmers diversifying in local food

219

production may find their customers' values to be important, hence they will want to demonstrate that their farming practices meet the customers' standards (Sutherland and Darnhofer, 2012). Alternatively, these standards can come from globalised food industry (Woods, 2014). Vice versa, changes in the farming community influence farmers’ perceptions on good farming. For example, compared to conventional farmers, organic farmers have been found to possess different ideas on the meaning of good farming (Stock, 2007; Sutherland, 2013). The increase in organic farming in the community can make it appear more acceptable as the practices, ideals and values it represents become more common, and this eases the mental barriers to shift to organic (Sutherland, 2013). Economic gain is not all there is for farmers and livelihood also involves lifestyle aspects, community and family values (e.g. Hansson et al., 2013). Good farming ideals have developed within family farming, where family is the central unit of production and farming is regarded as a way of life instead of being a ‘mere’ business (Silvasti, 2003). The importance of family has changed considerably since the times when farming was a shared activity for the entire household (Woods, 2014), with part-time farming and spouses working outside the farm having become increasingly common. The changes in the role of the family have also changed the routines at the farms with implications for good farming ideals. For part-time farmers, the farming community could become less and less important in normatively defining their practices as the importance of agriculture in providing household income decreases. Farming for them is more of a lifestyle involving living in a farm, which may evoke new logics for farming practices related to care for the environment, for example (Wilson, 2008; Gill et al., 2010; Hunt, 2010). 2.3. Policies and change in good farming Agri-environmental policies constitute an important trigger for the change in livelihood. The knowledge and normative claims carried by the practices promoted by agri-environmental schemes easily seem invalid regarding the local context and many farmers’ existing values. As the promoted practices are performed they become renegotiated, evoking new realities with new ideals and disconnecting old ideals and old practices. Some practices can be more tolerant towards different meanings while others make universal claims about good and bad (Singleton, 2012). Practices promoted by agri-environmental schemes can be argued to be powerful in their potential to induce change, because they make universal claims about what is a good practice for the environment. Agri-environmental schemes have been identified to alter farmers' perceptions related to good farming. For example, a resultoriented agri-environmental scheme called ‘flowering meadows’ managed to alter farmers' perceptions on meadows as the farmers were allowed to actively produce biodiversity (Fleury et al., 2015). Via actively producing biodiversity, the created biodiversity meadows became aesthetically beautiful to the farmers. The ethic of flowering meadows became appealing, raising interest in flowers, encouraging farmers to see them differently and forming a new biodiversity norm. In a similar manner agri-environmental schemes have managed to create new symbolic value for field margins as the locus of valuable biodiversity (Sutherland and Darnhofer, 2012) or when starting to practice organic farming for economic reasons that has eventually lead to greater emphasis and appreciation of environmental aspects (Sutherland, 2013). We suggest that the interplay between practices enacting ideals and ideals influencing practices is crucial when trying to understand the interplay between ideals and agri-environmental policies. Consequently in our analysis we examine the influence of agri-environmental policy on good farming ideals focussing on

220

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

the intertwining and complementing tenets of productivity and stewardship, which are defined in the following section.

2.4. Productivism and stewardship as elements of good farming While the formation of good farming ideals is highly contextspecific and farmers adopt and practice different farming styles (e.g. van der Ploeg, 1993; Vanclay et al., 2007), there exist two general ideals that can be argued to be shared among the majority of farmers in Western industrialised countries: productivism and stewardship (Thompson, 1995). In productivism the principal aim of a farm is to produce food as efficiently as possible in order to provide a livelihood for the farming household (Thompson, 1995; Burton, 2004). A good farmer aims to produce a good yield with good quality. Productivism relates strongly to the appreciation of hard work (Silvasti, 2003; Vanclay et al., 2007); the physical character of farming is appreciated and the results are visible as a prosperous farm equals high yields, healthy and productive animals and tidy fields (Burton, 2004). Thus the appearance of a farm and its produce contains a symbolic value manifesting in the hard working farmer in the farm (Vanclay et al., 2007) and the farmer's farming skills (Burton, 2004). This emphasis on productivity is connected to the concept of stewardship, the idea of a farmer tending God's garden, nature, to be productive (Thompson, 1995; Vanclay et al., 2007). It even makes untended land seem neglected and wasted and a reflection of an immoral farmer (Vanclay et al., 2007). In this sense stewardship means improving the viability of the farm and the ability to pass the farm to the next generation in good condition (Stock, 2007). The improvement of land is in the land-owning farmer's interest, but there is a tension between the utilisation and preservation of land (Thompson, 1995). Good farming as stewardship essentially means good care of the land and animals (Singleton, 2012), as well as using nature wisely. As a consequence, it can legitimise economically unprofitable farming practices. Hence, productivism is ultimately subordinate to care in stewardship. However, stewardship is not environmentalism. It involves the utilisation of nature for the benefit of humans, not its preservation for its own sake (Thompson, 1995).

3. Data and methods We interviewed a total of 55 farmers on three different occasions (Table 1). The interviews took place in three locations in Finland; in Uusimaa, Southwest Finland and Central Ostrobothnia (Fig. 2) between 2010 and 2014. In all farms the interviewees were the central decision-makers related to cultivation practices and agri-environmental schemes. The interviewed farmers were mainly men; on two occasions the interviewee was female and in 11 interviews a farmer couple was present. Besides the involvement in cultivation practices, the small number of women is explained by the male dominance in farming in Finland: about 87% of farmers and about 60% of all farm workers (including family members) are men (Tike, 2014). All the interviews dealt with the change of farming practices and the influence of agri-environmental measures on these changes. However, each set of interviews had a slightly different angle to the matter. The most recent interviews in autumn 2014 involved a broad discussion concerning the farming practices and their change on the farms during the past 20 years. The interviews in 2012 were narrower and focused on fertilisation and the availability of land. In 2010 the interviews concentrated on the changes in the farm's operations during the EU- era and how the agrienvironmental schemes had affected them. All the interviews took place in the form of free discussions, with a preliminary list of issues to be considered. The precise wording of questions and their order varied from interview to interview. All the interviews were recorded and transcribed. The translations for the quotes presented in the results section were made by the authors. From the interviews, we identified three central changes in farming practices related to agri-environmental policies. These were: a decreased use of fertiliser, an increased use of zero or reduced tillage, and an increase in organic farming. Using the framework presented in Fig. 1, and qualitative content analysis, we depicted the changes in practices as described by farmers and analysed their relationship to good farming and possible change processes which had occurred in relation to the understanding of good farming. First, we iteratively read through the interviews. Then, using NVivo analytical software, we coded the interviews thematically while searching for descriptions on changed practices

Table 1 General description of the interviews, interviewed farms and farmers. Year Duration (hours) Location

Interviewee

Main production line

Organic production Age groups (years)

Cultivated area (ha)

Employment

Uusimaa (A) Southwest Finland (B) Central Ostrobothnia (C) Male Female Farmer couple Cereal or ley cultivation Vegetable cultivation Dairy production Others: beef/sheep/poultry/pig (current, starting, or previous) 25e35 36e50 51e66 5e29 30e59 60e99 100e250 1 part-time 1 full-time 2 persons 3 or more

2014 (n ¼ 31)

2012 (n ¼ 9)

2010 (n ¼ 15)

Total (n ¼ 55)

1e3 h 11 11 9 21 2 8 13 3 8 7 7 6 12 13 5 6 12 8 5 12 9 5

½e1½

1e2

½e3 11 26 18 42 2 11 25 4 16 10 11 10 25 20 14 12 17 12 13 19 18 5

15 9 9

1 1 5 2 1 2 6 1 2 3 4 1 1 7

12 3 11 3 1 3 2 7 6 9 4 2 7 6 2

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

221

further reducing the level of fertilising, applying fertilisers only during the growth period and utilising injection technologies for the application of manure, among other things. The introduced requirements and the available measures have forced farmers to reflect and change their fertilisation practices and the magnitude of change is also indicated in statistics; inorganic phosphorous sold in Finland has decreased by ¾ and inorganic nitrogen by 1/3 between 1995 and 2014 (Tike, 2005, 2014). Productivity and yield were central issues when the interviewed farmers reflected on fertilisation limitations. A high proportion of the farmers were worried about the fertilisation limitations having dropped too low to enable the production of proper yields and quality to match the bread wheat or cattle feed requirements, for example, pointing out an imbalance between the desire to produce good yields and the fertilisation limitations. Farmer: With these amounts that we can use according to the limits set in the AES, it means that the level of phosphorous in the soil decreases. Even if we would use the maximum amount allowed. We are impoverishing the soil. Interviewer: Well, that has probably been the intention. F: Yes, that has been the intention, but then we are also impoverishing the income side, we cannot get enough protein in wheat, so we cannot produce bread wheat for example. After a time we won't be able to produce bread wheat in Finland. (Crop farmer, 2014, B2)

Fig. 2. Map of the study areas (A ¼ Uusimaa, B ¼ Southwest Finland, C ¼ Central Ostrobothnia).

in relation to the agri-environmental policies. Under each change we looked for good farming elements related to productivism and stewardship and further normative descriptions on how the goodness of a particular practice was constructed. Finally, from these descriptions we deducted the ways the changing practices and good farming ideals have interacted and how the ideals related to good farming have changed. In the following we describe the interplay between changes in good farming and farming practices by focussing separately on changes in each of the practices: fertilisation, tillage and organic farming. Our focus is on the changes as they are understood by the interviewed farmers. As the interviewees formed a very heterogeneous group with differences in farming styles, the depicted changes do not necessarily apply to all farms. Rather, the changes can be seen as illustrations of the interplay between policies and good farming. Analysing these practices separately allows for detailed consideration of the agri-environmental policies targeted to influence each of the practices. 4. Results 4.1. Decreasing fertilisation The agri-environmental policies have gradually decreased the allowed level of phosphorous and nitrogen fertilisation and set limitations on dates and styles of fertiliser application. This has meant an introduction of regular soil nutrient analyses and computer programs for the calculation of the allowed and suitable level of fertilisation. Besides the basic level reductions, the AES have provided additional measures with extra financial compensations available for farmers willing to do more. These have included

The imbalance between the desire to produce high yields and the fertilisation requirements was tackled in different ways depending on the purposes and styles of farming at the farm. First, practicing the reduced levels of fertilisation, measuring the nutrient level of the soil and calculating the proper level of fertilisation application have clearly resulted in a changed understanding of the necessary fertilisation and increased the value of reduced leaching. The reduced fertilisation could then be seen as a cost-efficient and sensible thing to do, making cost-efficiency the key ideal against which the productivity and fertilisation level is assessed. Farmer: The utilisation of chemical fertilisers has become more and more accurate. Interviewer: Do you think it is because of the regulations? F: Yes I think it is the regulations and it is also a matter of costs, utilising chemical fertilisers, so that has also influenced, and the regulations and partly also that one can and one wants to calculate and think about it, that one does not just use them, but that there is some thought behind the utilisation. (Dairy farmer, 2014, A9) Second, for some farmers the mobilised ideal of cost-efficiency could include a strong component related to market and weather risk perception, resulting in farmers fertilising less than allowed or the plants would need. If the costs of cultivating are perceived as too high in comparison to the potential gain in terms of selling the crops, fertilisation is lowered. Interviewer: Do you mean that you get smaller bills (by reduced fertilisation)? Farmer: Yes, smaller bills and not as much to harvest and dry, and trouble if you think how much you can get from cereals, 100 euros for a ton, or a little more. It is a mockery, it doesn't matter if you get any yield or not, it does not matter with these prices. I: So, there is no point in trying to optimise the yield?

222

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

F: Well, no, it is, well certainly you must do your work well in order to get any, but the price should be high enough to compensate the costs. (Crop farmer, 2014, A6) Third, due to the reduced fertilisation levels and following the productivist logic, some farmers have shifted their practices further than required by the policies and begun to optimise fertilisation even more precisely. Here also costs play an important role, but productivism is approached in terms of developing new skills. The increased knowledge on fertilisation required by plants has inspired the development of fertilisation in order to produce more efficiently. This means interest in micronutrients, more precise spreading equipment and allocating fertilisers several times during the growth period, for example. Despite the clear shift from the understanding of previous generations in terms of how fertiliser should be applied, the ideal of good farming as efficient and skilful production is maintained. Farmer: Somehow it feels that it is for the older generation, when there were no limitations, they say that they don't grow at all (nowadays). But I don't think that way. I'm more frustrated because my current spreader for manure is not accurate enough, so I need to buy a new one. These kinds of issues did not matter for the older generation, they just spread the manure. (Dairy farmer, 2014, C4) The importance of stewardship in fertilisation practices was clear with regards to maintaining and improving the productivity of the land. Paradoxically, the regular measurements of the fertility levels of soil introduced by the AES have reinforced the stewardship ideal of the goodness of increasing the fertilisation level. While the regulations have explicitly aimed at especially reducing the phosphorous content in the soil, farmers can interpret this reduction as a deliberate impoverishment of the soil quality. Farmer: And I just compared the results of the three latest soil nutrient analyses. I did not have one parcel, where the level of phosphorous would have increased. All had worsened. The phosphorous levels will soon be red (indicating a low level of phosphorous in the soil) and more phosphorous cannot be utilised … But phosphorous is very important for the plants. (Dairy farmer, 2012, C1) On the other hand, many farmers reflected fertilisation in relation to the environment and the potential leaching of nutrients demonstrating a clear shift in the stewardship ideal to include environmental ideas. The changes in the policy have affected the fertilisation practices in ways that have helped in internalising the objectives behind the reductions. The environmental benefits were easy to acknowledge when the new practices were found to be useful from the perspective of crop production as well, and this helped reinforce the change in thinking. The environmental considerations had become more important and explicit especially among the younger generation farmers.

subsequent payments have varied moderately between the program periods, but the policies have acted as a clear inducer for the utilisation of both reduced and zero tillage (no-till) methods. In Southern Finland the policies resulted in zero or reduced tillage boom, which has facilitated their relatively rapid acceptance as a normal cultivation method. Only those farmers who were among the very first pioneers in using these techniques remember other farmers questioning their appropriateness. The choice of tillage methods was usually reflected in productivist terms related to how to obtain the best yield. Corresponding to the change observed with fertilisation, zero and reduced tillage was essentially reflected in terms of cost-efficiency and risks for the whole production activity. Farmers who had converted to zero or reduced tillage emphasised the importance of cost and labour savings resulting in the best economic outcome. Farmer: I think no-till has brought a lot of savings, it reduces the need to drive on the field, and it all would cost so much. And then, it is not bad for the soil either, that I must admit. (Crop farmer, 2010, B12) On the other hand, some farmers had rejected zero or reduced tillage after several years, because they considered it to be a riskier way of cultivating. According to their experience, ploughing was a better guarantee for a decent yield, while when applying zero tillage the yield could be very high or very low, depending on the weather conditions in the particular year. Farmer: No-till, there are some who practice it, but I don't think it can be applied here, as one field can have seven different soil types. And especially with this kind of ley rotation which I have, I find it quite impossible to renew ley using no-till … And while I have watched farmers applying no-till, I've noticed that it can succeed, but unfortunately, there is quite a big chance for the yield to be completely ruined as well. (Dairy farmer, 2010, B4) For farmers thinking this way, practicing zero tillage did not alter the general ideal of good yields, but rather the ideal reduced the enthusiasm to continue practicing it. However, reflections between different tillage options raised a further issue related to productivism: an erosion of the value of hard work and its replacement by cost-efficiency. It was regarded as sensible to do things easier if one could, and one could even be lazy. Time-saving was especially important for part-time farmers, who valued their time higher than potential gains in the level of yield. Farmer: I think it is sensible that if one gets approximately the same result easier, then one should try to do it easier (laughter). If you compare that you start with ploughing, then in the spring you harrow, in the worst case you also roll, there are so many work phases and consumption of time. So you start to think what the point in that is, if by using modern technology you can get the same result much easier. So, costefficient cultivation, that is good in my opinion. It saves time and money and guess it also saves the environment too. (Crop farmer, 2014, A3)

4.2. Diversifying tillage methods Increasing the level of plant cover during winter has been a special focus in the agri-environmental measures since the beginning of Finland's EU membership. During the first programme period (1995e1999) it was compulsory for farms located in Southern Finland (AB-areas) to have wintertime plant cover at 30% of their field area. During subsequent programme periods it has been an additional voluntary measure available in the entire country. The degree of plant cover, related conditions and

Similar to fertilisation, a general inclusion of broader care for the environment, such as reducing leaching, appeared in some interviews when discussing tillage practices. This provides some indication of the change of stewardship towards environmentalist thinking. Stewardship was further reflected while considering the effects of tillage on soil structure, soil quality and water balance, as can also be seen in the quotes above. These issues were generally regarded as important for a farmer to look after. However, the

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

perceptions on the effects of zero tillage methods on soil quality were mixed as some believed that such methods helped improve it while others thought that there were no effects. Thus practicing zero or reduced tillage methods could mobilise stewardship to back up different practices and decisions taken by the farmer, depending on his/her interpretation.

4.3. Increasing organic farming In Finland, organic production has received financial support since 1990, but as it became part of the agri-environmental programme, the number of organic farms tripled within five years of joining the EU. Currently about 8% of farms are organic (Tike, 2014). Similar to zero and reduced tillage, organic farming has become a normal option and the interviewed farmers generally acknowledged that there are both good and bad organic farmers. However, compared to fertilisation and tillage practices, organic farming implies a more holistic choice regarding farming as a livelihood and it influences multiple farming practices. Both organic and conventional farmers evaluated organic farming foremost in productivist terms. Good organic farming involved the aim to obtain good yield and earn income via working hard for the yield. The interviewed organic farmers specifically stressed the large role of economic considerations in their decision to become organic farmers. These included the higher level of subsidies, higher price for products and decrease in purchased inputs, echoing similar cost-efficiency thinking identified in fertilisation and tillage practices. Farmer: I think good farming includes, also in organic farming, I think too many organic farmers do it with no special aims (for yield). The subsidies are better and maybe they just settle for that, so that they just sloppily do it and receive the subsidies and this is something I don't approve. It makes it difficult for me to explain why I am an organic farmer to a friend, when the common attitude is that organic farmers just pretend to do something and weeds keep on growing. (Other production line, 2014, B11) The organic farmers’ emphasis on the goodness of organic included a further nuance on the appreciation of hard work and skilled farming mobilising the old ideals in a new way. They emphasised different skills and a level of precision needed to produce well organically when compared to conventional farming. The skills required in conventional farming were labelled as an ability to follow the instructions of fertiliser and herbicide producers whereas organic farmers actually needed to know their fields and thus organic farming required more skills than the conventional one. These skills are obtained via learning and practicing organic farming and their appreciation is created reflecting the old ideals with the new farming style. Farmer: Organic farming, contrary to what is generally believed, it does not mean more work, but it requires a bit, or at least it requires a different kind of professional skill. Conventional farming is easy, as the suppliers give you good information packages: during this and this time you apply this herbicide, for example. But in organic you have to know the soil and how it works. And I know only my own fields. It always depends on the particular location and the production line, or what you want to produce, what you grow, what kind of rotation you have. It requires that, but it does not require much more work. (Other production line, 2014, B9)

223

Practicing organic farming involved a further shift in balancing the good farming ideals. While the importance of yield was stressed, some also maintained that it had to be accepted that no large yield was available and the production of environmental issues replaced the loss of yield. In a similar vein, the increasing amount of weeds, which caused a lot of criticism from the viewpoint of conventional farmers, was something to be accepted while fields became more diverse. Farmer: It is the plant protection, you just need to accept the so called weeds, in organic farming they are by-products, you just need to accept that they exist. (Crop farmer, 2014, A11) Exemplifying the changing scope of stewardship, many organic farmers emphasised a change regarding the understanding of the importance of the quality of the soil. Via practicing organic farming the farmers became more interested in soil quality and this was reflected in their understanding of good farming. Along with the understanding of soil properties the importance of biodiversity was also emphasised. Interviewer: What about the conversion to organic, did it affect your previous ideas related to soil condition? Farmer: Yes, it has changed so that the field needs to be such that it has a functioning soil structure. That has changed, that is an idea I have adopted. You cultivate in a way that you don't harm or destroy anything. And you apply reduced tillage a bit too … You aim for worms and maggots and those sorts of things, so that the soil functions, that it is alive, that you don't destroy it.” (Crop farmer, 2014, A11) As converting to organic farming was a big decision affecting the entire farm and its future, the continuity of the farm was connected to being a steward of the land. Farming organically was seen as the means to best secure the farm's future, both in economic terms and also environmentally.

5. Discussion 5.1. Variation in good farming The identified changes in farming practices demonstrate the variation in good farming under the influence of agrienvironmental policies. The variation is visible in both productivism and stewardship, and these ideals complement one another. Table 2 summarises the observed variation in the ideals for each of the changing practices: fertilisation, tillage and organic farming. The identified variation within the practices is similar, demonstrating that the farming practices are essentially interlinked and influence one another, and are simultaneously intertwined also with the ideals. Environmental measures, such as fertilisation reductions were opposed, which appealed to reduced productivity or the disapproval of income based on subsidies compared to working hard to produce food, for example. This is well in line with the observed lack of success of AESs to change farmer attitudes and values in other countries as reviewed by Burton and Paragahawewa (2011). The misfit between the schemes and farmers’ good farming ideals can severely hamper their success in protecting the environment. However, our results also point out complexities related to the influence of good farming ideals and how the good and the bad are

224

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

enacted in the farming practices. The new practices are also reflected against the ideals of productivity and stewardship when farmers have voluntarily changed their practices according to the measures. For example, after converting to organic farming, the goodness of it is manifested through productivist ideals such as yield and skilled farming. Thus while the ideals are persistent, they are renegotiated and reinforced in the emerging new practices to demonstrate that the new practices actually can lead to similar ideals and even fulfil these ideals in an improved manner, as was the case with organic farming and new skills. Partially this reinforcing of the ideals can be caused by the need to play with the same rules along with the rest of the farming community (c.f. Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). But the development of new fertilisation skills to produce better yields under the changed fertilisation rules demonstrate that the old ideals can also be beneficially mobilised to develop the new system, instead of merely making it appear as unacceptable. Along with the practices, the ideals related to good farming also vary. The shift of productivism towards cost-efficiency, emphasis of risk and erosion of hard work are manifested via changing fertilisation and tillage practices. The increasing role of environmental aims in production activities appear in the practicing of fertilisation, reduced tillage and organic farming. As has been indicated also in previous research, these changes can be attached to changing peer groups (Woods, 2014), new orientations for farming caused, for example, by part-time farming (Gill et al., 2010), or generational succession (Haggerty et al., 2009). However, the dominant inducer of the changes was the intertwinement of good farming ideals to gaining a livelihood. The strong role of economic values in relation to the change of good farming ideals echoes the findings of Sutherland and Darnhofer (2012) and Sutherland (2013) on the rising importance of costefficiency. The rules of the game in gaining one's livelihood have changed, partially due to AES and the wider Common Agricultural Policy in the EU, and partially due to changes in markets related to the costs of mineral fertilisers, oil and food products. In the changing situation, the old good farming ideals fail to provide a better livelihood. This is the principal reason for change according to our results. The subsidies provided by AES function as a part of the wider changes offering a financial incentive to try new practices. Another source for change comes from the dynamic between

the good farming elements. The good farming ideals can become partially contradictory. For example, continuity of farming and caring for the land can override the productivist ideals of high yields if one's livelihood is increasingly based on working outside the farm. Similarly, increasing environmental consciousness in farming practices can result in stewardship becoming more important than the productivist aims of striving after a high yield. Thus fulfilling one ideal of farming can open up a possibility to downplay and change another. This kind of interplay was also observed by McGuire et al. (2013) who reported how an environmental management scheme managed to reinforce the farmers' conservationist identity at the expense of productivist identity via shifting good farming standards to include low watershed pollution levels. 5.2. Performing change The practice approach we utilised demonstrated how the variation in ideals can come about. The renegotiation of the new ideals comes about in performing the new practices, but the identified new practices produce partially different outcomes. This is related to embedding norms in practices (Singleton, 2012). For example, the fertility measurements have increased farmers' information on the soil quality and enabled farmers to concretely observe the impoverishment of their soil. This has mobilised the stewardship ideal to back up the productivist desire. The fertilisation limitations imposed on all farmers make universal claims about proper fertilisation levels. Thus they are also more prone to raising moral opposition as farmers question the appropriateness of these levels in terms of enabling quality food production or even their environmental benefits. The opposition is done by appealing to traditional good farming values: productivism and stewardship. The modified practices demonstrate farmers’ ability to negotiate the levels into new good farming ideals, but this can take time and does not involve all farmers. Tillage or organic farming practices do not make universal claims about their goodness as such, but they remain as options to be chosen. Thus they get less into direct conflict with good farming ideals. Those who find the practices as fitting to their cost-efficiency tuned productivism or soil stewardship utilise them and those who find them inappropriate do not. However, as more and more farmers find them useful in terms of gaining their livelihood, the practices as well as the associated good farming ideals become

Table 2 Summary of the main results in variation in productivity and stewardship. Productivity

Stewardship

Decreasing fertilisation

 The ideal of high yields was mobilised in opposing the fertilisation reductions.  New skills were developed to be able to produce better yields.  New calculations provided a way to understand proper fertilisation level and mobilised cost-efficiency thinking.  Risk management and cost efficiency eroded hard work if the outlook for an increase in livelihood was uncertain.

 The fertility of the soil was made visible via the calculation methods and used in opposing the fertilisation reductions.  Care for the land in fertilisation practices was broadened to include the prevention of leaching.

Diversifying tillage methods

 The ideal of high yields was mobilised when considering tillage options.  Cost-efficiency was mobilised in relation to reduced driving and fuel consumption.  The ideal of hard work eroded as similar economic results could be gained with less effort.

 The importance of looking after the condition of soil to ensure good plant growth.  Care for nature was broadened to include environmental considerations, such as the prevention of leaching.

Increasing organic farming

 The ideals of high yield and the need to work for your income were mobilised.  New and more demanding skills were developed.  Cost-efficiency was mobilised in the form of higher subsidies and lower input costs.  Lower yield levels and variability in the appearance of fields were accepted.

 The increasing appearance of weeds was mobilised to oppose organic farming.  Farm continuity was reinforced  Care for the environment was broadened to include biodiversity.  The importance of the condition of the soil was strengthened.

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

normalised. The degree and variance of good farming is a result of both individual and collective action. Especially the normalisation of various tillage practices demonstrate that they have become part of farming culture and are perceived as good practice, which will be continued regardless of the subsidies. This also suggests that policies which make universal claims are partially problematic, as they easily face resistance as opposed to policy measures with either a narrower focus or wider freedom of choice that can be either internalised without much conflict with existing ideals or disregarded if they do not fit the ideals in that particular context. However, policies with universal claims are also partially the way to promote and expedite the changes, as they force farmers to reflect their existing values and practices relying on those values. Approaching good farming via different practices reveals how this differentiation of farms is tied to material issues which further influence what is perceived as good farming. For example, the availability of manure and experience in its utilisation forms a perspective that manure utilisation is good for the fields, but in a situation where manure is not available, it is easily seen as containing problems for good field management. Similarly, zero and reduced tillage practices are considered from the perspective of one's own fields and how it suits to cultivating them. The perspective of the materials and focus on practicalities can reinforce the resistance of trying something which does not fit the flow of materials at the farm. This way they act as mobilising ideals, either old ones to back up the need to not to change, or reform ideals if new practices suit better, making ideals appear as quite fluid. Thus, multiplying practices imply multiplying ideals. 5.3. Legitimising multiple good farming ideals The changes and variation in good farming ideals we observed, do not suggest the total replacement of the old ideals, but rather their widening and diversification (see also Gill et al., 2010; Sutherland, 2013). The diversification is related to the emergence of different kinds of farms; entrepreneurial production oriented, small part-time holdings, diversifying farms etc., which all demonstrate varying ways of gaining a livelihood at a farm. The diversification has also resulted in the understanding of varying contexts: what is good at my farm is not necessarily good at other farms. Other farmers can choose to convert to organic, practice zero tillage or start applying micro-nutrients; it may be good from their perspective. This erosion of universal goodness related to certain ways of farming or certain symbols can be linked to the acknowledgement of the different ways of gaining a livelihood and understanding that different farms function under different rules. The changing farming livelihoods can also be reflected against the concept of farming styles (van der Ploeg, 1993; Vanclay et al., 2006, 2007). Different ways of gaining a livelihood can represent distinctive farming styles, including variation in the ideals related to farming. These styles are acknowledged and accepted by other farmers in the region (Vanclay et al., 2007). While our approach points out how good farming ideals in the farming styles are constituted in differing practices, the farming styles represented were also partially discursive constructions as has also been noted by Vanclay et al. (2007). An emerging disapproved farming style was discussed by many interviewees. This ‘quasi-farming’ displayed the role of bad farming and it was occurring at someone else's farm. Quasi-farming meant farming practices where no yield is pursued and farming is done with minimal cost and effort in order to maximise the benefits from the subsidies. All the three practice changes described - decreasing level of fertilisation, reduced tillage and organic farming - could reach a point where they were perceived as representing quasi-

225

farming. This ‘quasi farming’ and also the accounts of organic farming given by other farmers demonstrate that partially these styles can also be merely shared constructions rather than actually existing practices. However, related to fertilisation, tillage and also organic farmers themselves, the farmers discussed their own, actually occurring practices. The constructions have a function in carrying and stabilising good farming ideals in discursive practices and they are used to legitimise one's own actually performed practices, but they also imply that the acceptance of diverse farming styles is only partial. 5.4. Implications of the varying ideals The increasing multiplicity of good farming ideals partially caused by the AESs implies also that contrary to what has been criticised (Wynne-Jones, 2014), the payments do not necessarily reduce farmers to merely operate via economic motivations. Under the precondition of gaining a livelihood, other ideals can also flourish and even become dominant. However, the AES in Finland function by offering financial compensation for predetermined actions and do not compensate for the amount of ecosystem services provided. In this way they also do not reinforce the productivist ideals by motivating farmers to maximise the production of environmental goods. Thus sustainable farming practices might be well reached by reinforcing the other ideals related to good farming such as long term continuity of the farm, or by reinforcing environmental stewardship. Therefore the display of success in environmental management does not necessarily require monetary compensation for results (Moxey and White, 2014). The balancing between legitimising one's own farming style and ideals and approving the style of others can bear implications for social cohesion in rural areas, for farmers' social capital and for ecological sustainability. Organic farmers were socially isolated in the early days of organic farming, for example (Padel, 2001). There can be divisions between radically different ways of farming, such as organic and conventional or lifestyle farming and productionoriented farming. However, the observed diversification of ideals does not imply disapproval of the multiplicity in the variation of practices. While organic farming itself has become more mainstream it has affected the practices of conventional farmers, thereby demonstrating the increasing acceptance of organic farming (Sutherland, 2013). Different farms with different styles can also fulfil different functions in the community and in this manner complement one another with the recognition and acceptance of the differences (Peltomaa, 2015). From an ecological viewpoint, if the different practices and ideals are dispersed at a landscape level, they might help produce diversity and facilitate in creating ecological sustainability (van Zanten et al., 2014). However, this would require that the different ideals had space to flourish in diverse farming settings, towards which the agri-environmental policies offers some incentives, but not comprehensive ones. Further studies are needed to capture the potential implications of the diversification of ideals. 6. Conclusions The core ideals of productivism and stewardship play a strong role in the understanding of good farming among Finnish farmers. However, the ideals of good farming have diversified as the ways of gaining a livelihood at a farm have diversified. The AES have introduced new practices, which have contributed to the diversification of good farming ideals. In particular this has occurred with universally applied practices, such as fertilisation limitations, because they have forced the new practices on farmers. Practices under choice have less influence, as they can be chosen based on

226

S. Huttunen, J. Peltomaa / Journal of Rural Studies 44 (2016) 217e226

their fit to the ideals and the choice needs to be reflected against the existing purposes of farming thus making their internalisation better but overall penetration lower. However, as the new practices become more common and new norms are developed while practicing them, these norms can spread to the wider farming community. The good farming ideals have also affected the introduced practices and resulted in innovation. Thus good farming ideals do not only function as a cultural barrier to the adoption of new practices, but they can actively contribute to the accommodation and development of the practices. Acknowledgements The research was funded by the Academy of Finland, grant number 277896. References €nen, J. (Eds.), 2014. Follow-up Study on the Impacts of AgriAakkula, J., Leppa environment Measures (MYTVAS 3) e Final Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 3/2014, Helsinki. Available at: http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/ maaseutu/tutkimus/CxFzHox2r/MMM_mytvas_loppuraportti_WEB.pdf (in Finnish). Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer's’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol. Rural. 44, 195e215. Burton, R.J.F., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G., 2008. Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol. Rural. 48, 16e37. Burton, R.J.F., Paragahawewa, U.H., 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agrienvironmental schemes. J. Rural Stud. 27, 95e104. Eurostat, 2012. Agri-environmental Indicator e Commitments. Eurostat Statistics Explained, Eurostat. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/ index.php/Agri-environmental_indicator_-_commitments (accessed 04.02.16.). Fleury, P., Seres, C., Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., Pauthenet, Y., 2015. “Flowering Meadows”, a result-oriented agri-environmental measure: technical and value changes if favour of biodiversity. Land Use Policy 46, 103e114. Gill, N., Klepeis, P., Chisholm, L., 2010. Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 53, 317e334. Haggerty, J., Campbell, H., Morris, C., 2009. Keeping the stress off the sheep? Agricultural intensification, neoliberalism, and ‘good' farming in New Zealand. Geoforum 40, 767e777. Hansson, H., Ferguson, R., Olofsson, C., Rantam€ aki-Lahtinen, L., 2013. Farmers' motives for diversifying their farm business e the influence of family. J. Rural Stud. 32, 240e250. Hunt, L., 2010. Interpreting orchardists’ talk about their orchards: the good orchardists. Agric. Hum. Values 27, 415e426. Huttunen, S., Oosterveer, P., 2016. Transition to sustainable fertilisation in agriculture, a practices approach. Sociol. Rural. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12118 (in press). Jokinen, P., 2000. Europeanisation and ecological modernization: agrienvironmental policy and practices in Finland. In: Mol, A.P.J., Sonnenfeld, D. (Eds.), Ecological Modernization around the World. Perspectives and Critical Debates. Frank Cass, London, pp. 138e167. MAF, 2004. Mid-term Evaluation of the Horizontal Rural Development Program. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Publications 1/2004. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki. Available at: http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/ mmm/julkaisut/julkaisusarja/2004/5g4pFCcxz/MMMjulkaisu2004_1.pdf (in Finnish, with an English summary). McGuire, J., Wright Morton, L., Cast, A.D., 2013. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 57e68. Mol, A., 2013. Mind your plate. The ontonorms of Dutch dieting. Soc. Stud. Sci. 43,

379e396. Moxey, A., White, B., 2014. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe: a comment. Land Use Policy 39, 397e399. Niemi, J., Ahlsted, J., 2015. Finnish Agriculture and Rural Industries. Natural Resources and Bioeconomy Studies 26/2015. Natural Resources Institute Finland, Vantaa. Padel, S., 2001. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociol. Rural. 41, 40e61. €nroos, J., Nikander, A., Rekolainen, S., 2001. Palva, R., Rankinen, K., Granlund, K., Gro Final report of the MYTVAS-project. Environmental impacts of agri-environmental support scheme in 1995e1999. The Finnish Environment; No 478; Edita, Helsinki (in Finnish). Peltomaa, J., 2015. Farm-level Change and the Development Potential for Agrienvironmental Policy in Finland. Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 2014. Tampere University Press, Tampere (in Finnish). Phillips, E., Gray, I., 1995. Farming ‘practice’ as temporally and spatially situated intersections of biography, culture and social structure. Aust. Geogr. 26, 127e132. Reckwitz, A., 2002. Toward a theory of social practices. A development in culturalist theorizing. Eur. J. Soc. Theory 5, 243e263. Riley, M., 2016. Still being the ‘good farmer’: (non-)retirement and the preservation of farming identities in older age. Sociol. Rural. 56, 96e115. €nroos, J., 2014. Changes in Salminen, A., Vesikko, L., Rankinen, K., Cano Bernal, J.E., Gro farm level cultivation practices and their impact on potential nutrient loading. In: Aakkula, J., Lepp€ anen, J. (Eds.), Follow-up Study on the Impacts of Agrienvironment Measures (MYTVAS 3) e Final Report. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 3/2014, Helsinki. Available at: http://www.mmm.fi/attachments/maase utu/tutkimus/CxFzHox2r/MMM_mytvas_loppuraportti_WEB.pdf (in Finnish). Silvasti, T., 2003. The cultural model of ‘good farmer’ and the environmental question in Finland. Agric. Hum. Values 20, 143e150. Singleton, V., 2012. When context meet: feminism and accountability in UK cattle farming. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 37, 404e433. Singleton, V., Law, J., 2013. Devices as rituals: notes on enacting resistance. J. Cult. Econ. 6, 259e277. Stock, P.V., 2007. ‘Good farmers’ as reflexive producers: an examination of family organic farmers in the US Midwest. Sociol. Rural. 47, 83e102. Sutherland, L.-A., 2013. Can organic farmers be ‘good farmers’? Adding the ‘taste of necessity’ to the conventionalization debate. Agric. Hum. Values 30, 429e441. Sutherland, L.-A., Darnhofer, I., 2012. Of organic farmers and ‘good farmers’: changing habitus in rural England. J. Rural Stud. 28, 232e240. Thompson, P.B., 1995. The Spirit of the Soil. Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. Routledge, London. Tike, 2005. Yearbook of Farm Statistics 2005. Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki. Tike, 2014. Yearbook of Farm Statistics 2014. Information Centre of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Helsinki. Vanclay, F., Enticott, G., 2011. The role and functioning of cultural scripts in farming and agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 51, 256e271. Vanclay, F., Howden, P., Mesiti, L., Glyde, S., 2006. The social and intellectual construction of farming styles: testing Dutch ideas in Australian agriculture. Sociol. Rural. 46, 61e82. Vanclay, F., Silvasti, T., Howden, P., 2007. Styles, parables and scripts: diversity and conformity in Australian and Finnish agriculture. Rural. Soc. 17, 3e8. van der Ploeg, J.D., 1993. Rural sociology and the new agrarian question: A perspective from The Netherlands. Sociol. Rural. 33, 240e260. van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., Kapfer, M., Lefebre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Targetti, S., Zasada, I., Viaggi, D., 2014. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 43, 309e325. Wilson, G.A., 2008. From ‘weak’ to ‘strong’ multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J. Rural Stud. 24, 367e383. Woods, M., 2014. Family farming in the global countryside. Anthropol. Noteb. 20, 31e48. Wynne-Jones, S., 2014. ‘Reading for difference’ with payments for ecosystem services in Wales. Crit. Policy Stud. 8, 148e164.