Commodification and co-benefits: Neoliberalism and the growth of regenerative agriculture in Australia

IF 5.1 1区 社会学 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
Anja Bless, Federico Davila, Roel Plant
{"title":"Commodification and co-benefits: Neoliberalism and the growth of regenerative agriculture in Australia","authors":"Anja Bless,&nbsp;Federico Davila,&nbsp;Roel Plant","doi":"10.1016/j.jrurstud.2025.103692","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>‘Regenerative agriculture’ is attracting increasing attention as a farming approach which could rejuvenate agricultural landscapes and support farmer wellbeing. However, regenerative agriculture's popularity in neoliberal economies such as Australia remains under-interrogated in terms of how this political-economic context might influence the adoption of regenerative practices. Furthermore, research on regenerative agriculture has largely focussed on individual farmer motivations for adopting regenerative agriculture and has failed to capture policymaker perspectives on the movement. Our research addresses these gaps by exploring the drivers of regenerative agriculture's growth in Australia based on 38 semi-structured interviews with policymakers and farmers. We then consider how policy settings have influenced these drivers through a content analysis of 244 documents related to regenerative agriculture from Australian governments. Our results highlight that while there is minimal explicit support among policymakers and institutions for regenerative agriculture, they remain enthusiastic about the economic and environmental co-benefits regenerative agriculture practices could provide, and capitalising upon them through nature markets. Our findings also demonstrate that economic factors are the primary driver of the growth of regenerative agriculture in Australia. In contrast with studies that emphasise eco-centric motivations for regenerative agriculture, our findings highlight how Australia's neoliberal policy setting is extending the commodification of nature and embedding extractivist, as opposed to reciprocal, human-nature value relations in the movement. We conclude with a discussion on how policy support based on principles of environmental stewardship and reciprocal relationality could instead sustain regenerative agriculture's growth without a reliance on economic incentives as a driver of change.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17002,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Rural Studies","volume":"118 ","pages":"Article 103692"},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Rural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0743016725001329","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

‘Regenerative agriculture’ is attracting increasing attention as a farming approach which could rejuvenate agricultural landscapes and support farmer wellbeing. However, regenerative agriculture's popularity in neoliberal economies such as Australia remains under-interrogated in terms of how this political-economic context might influence the adoption of regenerative practices. Furthermore, research on regenerative agriculture has largely focussed on individual farmer motivations for adopting regenerative agriculture and has failed to capture policymaker perspectives on the movement. Our research addresses these gaps by exploring the drivers of regenerative agriculture's growth in Australia based on 38 semi-structured interviews with policymakers and farmers. We then consider how policy settings have influenced these drivers through a content analysis of 244 documents related to regenerative agriculture from Australian governments. Our results highlight that while there is minimal explicit support among policymakers and institutions for regenerative agriculture, they remain enthusiastic about the economic and environmental co-benefits regenerative agriculture practices could provide, and capitalising upon them through nature markets. Our findings also demonstrate that economic factors are the primary driver of the growth of regenerative agriculture in Australia. In contrast with studies that emphasise eco-centric motivations for regenerative agriculture, our findings highlight how Australia's neoliberal policy setting is extending the commodification of nature and embedding extractivist, as opposed to reciprocal, human-nature value relations in the movement. We conclude with a discussion on how policy support based on principles of environmental stewardship and reciprocal relationality could instead sustain regenerative agriculture's growth without a reliance on economic incentives as a driver of change.
商品化和共同利益:澳大利亚新自由主义和再生农业的增长
“再生农业”作为一种可以恢复农业景观和支持农民福祉的农业方法,正吸引着越来越多的关注。然而,再生农业在新自由主义经济体(如澳大利亚)的普及,在这种政治经济背景如何影响再生实践的采用方面,仍未得到充分的质疑。此外,对再生农业的研究主要集中在个体农民采用再生农业的动机上,未能捕捉到政策制定者对这一运动的看法。我们的研究基于对政策制定者和农民的38次半结构化访谈,通过探索澳大利亚可再生农业增长的驱动因素,解决了这些差距。然后,我们通过对澳大利亚政府244份与再生农业相关的文件的内容分析,考虑政策设置如何影响这些驱动因素。我们的研究结果强调,虽然政策制定者和机构对可再生农业的明确支持很少,但他们仍然对可再生农业实践可能提供的经济和环境协同效益充满热情,并通过自然市场利用这些效益。我们的研究结果还表明,经济因素是澳大利亚再生农业增长的主要驱动力。与强调以生态为中心的再生农业动机的研究相反,我们的研究结果强调了澳大利亚的新自由主义政策如何扩大自然的商品化,并在运动中嵌入采掘者,而不是互惠的人与自然的价值关系。最后,我们讨论了基于环境管理和互惠关系原则的政策支持如何能够在不依赖经济激励作为变革驱动力的情况下维持可再生农业的增长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
286
期刊介绍: The Journal of Rural Studies publishes research articles relating to such rural issues as society, demography, housing, employment, transport, services, land-use, recreation, agriculture and conservation. The focus is on those areas encompassing extensive land-use, with small-scale and diffuse settlement patterns and communities linked into the surrounding landscape and milieux. Particular emphasis will be given to aspects of planning policy and management. The journal is international and interdisciplinary in scope and content.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信