Abstract
ABSTRACTGaps exist between aspirations of ‘green agriculture’, which protects biodiversity and ecosystem services, and the reality on the ground. Using Q-methodology, we explored expert opinion in Indonesia on the contributing factors to the gaps. Q-methodology indicated three dominant discourses on ‘green agriculture’ and groups of experts who prioritize them: (1) endorsers of regulations and innovations; (2) providers of resources for access to capital, technology and knowledge; and (3) proponents of green economy (GE) and land-use planning (LUP). Group 1 pointed out the importance of endorsing incentives to reduce the gap, while Group 2 reckoned that building smallholders’ capacity and providing them with access to capital, technology, and knowledge are needed to green agricultural practices. Group 3 described the importance of integrating environmental value into the gross domestic product and earmarking sources derived from environmental levies for greening the agricultural sector. All discourses recognized the importance of scientific policy formulation. Groups 1 and 3 agreed that non-synchronization of LUP between national and local governments highly contributes to the gap. Groups 2 and 3 perceived that ecosystem services from the agricultural sector have not been sufficiently understood to promote green agricultural development. By simultaneously addressing the gaps on each level and understanding how each factor contributes to the gap, we propose a set of recommendations to improve the implementation of green agriculture in Indonesia by creating a platform that all three groups can recognize and support.EDITED BY Dagmar Mithöfer
Highlights
Policy emerges in a complex process where opinions and concepts matter at least as much as objective evidence, if the latter exists at all (Laranja et al 2008; Clark et al 2011)
Each group of opinions iterated from the analysis represents a different discourse or way of seeing the factors that contribute to the green agriculture gap in Indonesia
Based on the pattern of significant statements across all groups, we distinguished three main discourses on the gaps in green agriculture, with the following titles: (1) endorsers of regulations and innovations; (2) providers of resources, such as access to capital, technology, knowledge, and capacity building; and (3) Proponents of ‘green economy’ (GE) and ‘land-use planning (LUP). Figure 2 summarizes the distribution of the most significant statements3 in each discourse based on Q-sort values
Summary
Policy emerges in a complex process where opinions and concepts matter at least as much as objective evidence, if the latter exists at all (Laranja et al 2008; Clark et al 2011). We comprehend discourse as a way of viewing and talking about a topic or issues (Barry & Proops 1999; Curry et al 2013). Getting to know the diversity of opinions and discourses among key informants of a policy process is important to design communication strategies for stakeholders and helps to improve policy formulation (Leimona, Amaruzaman, et al 2015) based on credible and legitimate research (Clark et al 2011; Leimona, Lusiana et al 2015). The ongoing discussion on greening Indonesia’s agricultural sector is an example of examining different points of view or discourses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
