Landscapes - People - Global change

Tag: adoption

New Brunswick Living Lab meeting

Brooke doing her thing at the NB-LL meeting in Jan, 2024

Today’s blog post comes from PDF Brooke McWherter based on her recent trip to NB

The annual New Brunswick Living Lab (NB-LL) meeting and workshop brought together government, industry, NGO, and producer stakeholders to discuss the year’s progress in the development and running of the NB-LL. Before the start of the event, Atlantic representatives from other living labs in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and PEI, came together to discuss their progress in measuring the socio-economic impacts of the program. The different representatives highlighted the strong bond among the Atlantic provinces and their commitment to collaborating and continuing to support each other as the living labs continue to evolve and grow. At the event talks included discussions on current trials measuring the impact of various BMPs on soil health, and carbon sequestration.

Our MREM intern Patrick James presented his work, funded by the SSHRC Engage Program, examining co-production and engagement of LL producers and federal scientists. Patrick’s talk highlighted how challenging co-production can be for all sides, but also the steps members are taking to be flexible including working with farmers to collect data that doesn’t deter from their harvesting schedules. I then ran a workshop defining co-production and providing some tips for enhancing engagement moving forward which then led to developing logic models (an objective-oriented planning tool) around the five BMP foci of the program. Producers, government staff, site contractors from various watershed and conservation organizations, and industry reps discussed the outcome form the program they wanted and identified activities and capacities they may need to develop to achieve those objectives.

Patrick James (centre) with the NB Living Labs team, including FaRM Program collaborator and CFGA ED Cedric MacLeod

New research note on farmer ‘fenceline behaviour’

Table 1 in our Agriculture and Human Values research note, showing the statements used in our novel ‘fenceline behaviour’ question set.

At long last, a research note is out today in Agriculture and Human Values that had its genesis at many different farmer kitchen tables during past qualitative field work, going as far back as my Australian postdoc in 2008. I repeatedly heard things that suggested that direct neighbours had an impact on farm management and adoption behaviour, and not necessarily in the generally positive way suggested by diffusion of innovation theory.  In 2020 when I was hiring Kynetec to do a survey of beef producers in Canada, I turned those comments into a novel question set about ‘fenceline behaviour’, to see how those ideas looked at a population level and if there seemed to be any associations with adoption behaviour. In our new research note, Are fencelines sites of engagement or avoidance in farmer adoption of alternative practices? we identified two different clusters of farmers based on answers to those 8 statements–fenceline engagers and fenceline avoiders–and also found that farmers using adaptive multi-paddock grazing were three times more likely to be engagers. This suggests that feelings of vulnerability at the fenceline can discourage farmers who are avoiders from experimentation with new farm management approaches.  Some statements were more useful than others at differentiating between these two types. Most farmers agreed mildly, on average, that fencelines provide a good site for diagnosis: comparing the impacts of their practices relative to their neighbours. But there was a wide range of responses to, “It is ‘live and let live’ with my farming neighbours: they don’t comment on my practices and I don’t comment on theirs”, which is a rural expression of the ‘civil inattention’ concept first described by Erving Goffman in cities. We hope that others will build on this work, for instance to explore trust and norms in more detail with farm neighbours, micro-scale adoption communication and causality.

© 2025 Kate Sherren

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑