The questionnaire

In line with the aim of studying a socio-ecological system in context, a semi-structured questionnaire method was chosen. This is a less formal approach than question and answer questionnaires and allowed farmers and key informants the opportunity to explain their experience in their own words as well as to choose which contextual factors to include. Semi-structured questionnaire surveys are a method commonly employed in landscape research when landowner characteristics and motives need to be understood (for example see Kristensen, Busck, van der Sluis & Gaube, 2016). An unstructured questionnaire may have also achieved this end but the emphasis in this study is on landscape transitions so it was important that all farmers reported on their experiences of the same transition periods, so some structuring of the questionnaire was required.

A copy of the questionnaires, one for farmers and a separate one for key informants (both approved by the Lincoln University Human Ethics Committee) can be found in Appendix A.

The farmer questionnaire was centred on the transition from pre- to post-regulations. Thus the first section of the questionnaire was concerned with the story of the farm and the relationship the interviewee had with the land. The second part dealt with the ten-year period when the regulations

were being developed and was followed by a question concerning the farmer’s aims for the farm.

Last, the expected future for pastoral farming in the Catchment was addressed. There was no specific section on post implementation of the regulations because they were finalised in 2011 (but backdated to 2005) and interviews were conducted shortly afterwards in 2013.

Within each section of the questionnaire was a series of prompts. These were largely drawn from the literature, as described below:

1. Geist & Lambin (2004) in a meta-study of case studies of desertification found that a

combination of driving forces was involved. Similarly, Keys & McConnell (2005) found in a meta-study of cases that a combination of forces led to agricultural intensification in the tropics. Combinations of forces, therefore, were likely to be at play in this study. Specific mention of the regulations, therefore, was made to prompt interviewees to distinguish the effects of the regulations from other driving forces, if possible. This was done in two ways. First, the four sections of the questionnaire mark transitions that revolve around the

regulations and second, attention was specifically drawn to the regulations and interviewees were asked to distinguish the effects of them from other effects (such as weather).

2. Dairy farm socio-ecological systems are essentially very similar to sheep and beef systems,

(Fairweather, Hunt, Rosin, & Campbell, 2008), although dairy farmers place more importance on external factors such as marketing and customers. Fairweather & Hunt (2011) concluded that at the core of sheep and beef farming are production (quality and quantity), the farmer as decision maker, and farmer satisfaction, and so these were primary prompts in this study. Important secondary influences for both farm types included weather, family needs, financial factors, farm environmental health and soil fertility/health and these also influenced the choice of prompts.

3. The aims of the farmer are an important component of their decision making. Fairweather &

Keating (1994) concluded that farmers can be categorised by their management styles – that

is a combination of their business goals and their chosen way of life - which led to the

insertion of a question regarding the farmer’s plans for their farm. Prompts were also included about farmer aims and the longer term future of the farm.

Van Vliet, de Groot, Rietveld, & Verburg (2015) in a meta-study of case studies of landscape change found farmer characteristics were an important mediating factor in the relationship

between driving forces and landscape change. Prime amongst the descriptors of farmer characteristics were farmer motivation, attitude to farm production and the environment, and farm succession. Thus, the authors concluded, different motivations explained why farmers made different land management decisions, despite facing similar conditions. Characteristics such as age and education were found to be of less importance in explaining such differences. While this study was published after the interviews were completed, it confirms the stance taken in the questionnaire of understanding the business goals and way of life of the farmer rather than assessing age, education and similar, commonly-used indicators.

In addition, it was originally intended that a request be made for a copy of the farm Nutrient Management Plan, but because interviews were held in farmer homes, no copying facilities were available and so this question was discontinued. Apart from this no other changes were made to the questionnaire itself, although changes occurred in understanding and emphasis.

The questionnaire for the key informants mirrored that of the farmer questionnaire but took a more

strategic view. Thus key informants were asked about the story of the Catchment as a whole rather than of a specific piece of land.

About half of the key informant interviews took place before the farmer interviews. Consequently, a deeper understanding of the regulations was gained before talking to the farmers. While the

knowledge gained from these experts was not formally used to shape the farmer interviews it will have influenced those that followed. For example, it was key informants that pointed out that the collapse of land prices in the Catchment was, in part, the result of oversupply of lifestyle blocks and the flow on effects of the global financial crisis. The fact that farmers were unable to continue to subdivide their properties as an exit strategy from farming was thus shown to be unrelated to the implementation of the regulations. The timing of the implementation of the regulations suggested a causal link but, in the event, this timing was coincidental. As a result of this information more careful attention was paid to comments by farmers in subsequent interviews about effects on land prices, subdivision ability, and on planned land sales.