Data analysis

Three landscape biographies were developed, one for each of the sub-Catchment cases, by

combining information from the transcripts of farmer and key informant interviews, and data from other sources. Meinig (1979) points out that the same landscape can be viewed by different people in different ways and he gives ten such examples. In the same way, the stories told by the farmers and the key informants can be combined in numerous ways to give different landscape stories

depending on the themes that the researcher chooses to emphasise or ignore. Each alternative story is potentially valid, depending on the aim of the researcher, as van Londen (2006:9) points out:

In the choice of representation lies the message or analysis the author wishes to express. Others may want to portray a different aspect of the same landscape and thereby producing, of course, different views of that landscape.

Landscape biographies, therefore, “…portray” a chosen reality rather than describing it (van Londen,

2006:9) and reflect mediating influences such as cultural context and the researcher’s own story

(Trahar, 2008). A researcher using this method, therefore, must be explicit about their perspective and the means by which they filtered the stories of the interviewees. The landscape-based, conceptual frame (described in Chapter Three) formed the backbone of this study and, along with the research questions (see Chapter One), was used to guide the development of the biographies. In this study the farmer interviews were first analysed for categories of response to the regulations using a thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006). This was a broad brush analysis, using a spreadsheet, which was not directly utilised in the final biographies but which served to alert the researcher to the range and types of farmer responses. Several iterations of the analysis were undertaken before it was deemed that the significance of farmer choices had been fully understood.

The question at the heart of this analysis was “What has this farmer done to ensure they have a

viable farming operation by the end of this transition period?” Each iteration took a slightly more

strategic (higher spatial level) view and moved response types from categories of farm-level transition response to categories of Catchment-level (regional) responses. The question here was

“How can this response be interpreted if it was applied at the Catchment level?” For example, what appeared in the first iteration (at the farm level) to be a case of change in stock type, at the second iteration (at the local level) was found to be part of a de-intensification pattern, and at the

Catchment level this farm practice change was reframed into a partial exit from the pastoral farming industry, since the ownership entity had sold down the productivity of the farm and invested the capital raised outside of the farming sector. Farmer responses were, therefore, not limited to land- use or land-cover changes but rather the researcher sought to understand all types of change including ownership, farm practices, farm amalgamations and subdivisions, structural changes and other factors that were considered relevant to the question of enabling farmers to operate a viable farm. Some of these changes may be a direct result of the regulations but others may the result of external market forces and the like.

Once this initial analysis was completed, the task of building landscape biographies was begun. Each farmer interview was assigned to a sub-Catchment case by virtue of their location (west, south or north of the Catchment). The key informant interviews and other data contributed to all of the

biographies. These interviews were read (and reread many times over) as well as being loaded into QSR NVivo 10 where they were queried using keyword searches.

The biography method assumes path dependence (Roymans, Gerritsen, Van der Heijden, Bosma, & Kolen, 2009; Lambin, Geist & Lepers, 2003) so each of the landscape biographies begins by tracing the history of pasture development in the sub-Catchment area up until the time that the regulations were first mooted. The second transition covers the ten-year period of the development and implementation of the regulations. The last part of each biography looks at the consequence of the regulations that is best exemplified by the history and character of that area, and the spatial level of the case. Thus the first biography describes changes at the Catchment level, using the metrics of land-use and land-cover for each rural production category. The second biography is at the local level and describes changes that are apparent at that level i.e. land-use system patterns such as de- intensification. The last biography is at the farm level and focuses on farm practices and specific land-uses. This is not intended to imply that the changes described in each case are happening in

only the featured area – simply that this area is an exemplar for the factor that is highlighted.

Cutting across the landscape biographies are the landscape paths that describe the transitions for each case and at the Catchment-level. These describe the consequences of the regulations i.e. the paths that farmers have taken in order to achieve their needs in an exemplary cap and trade regime. Given the complexities of socio-ecological systems, there are many potential paths. Stafford-Smith & Reynolds (2002), however, suggest that, in reality, there are a limited number of possible paths because many are functionally equivalent. This was found to be the case in this study where only five significant landscape paths were discerned (see Chapter Nine).