Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:43:13.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring perspectives of environmental best management practices in Thai agriculture: an application of Q-methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2010

WIMOLPAT BUMBUDSANPHAROKE ,
DOMINIC MORAN  and
CLARE HALL
WIMOLPAT BUMBUDSANPHAROKE*
Affiliation:
School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK
DOMINIC MORAN
Affiliation:
Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK
CLARE HALL
Affiliation:
Land Economy and Environment Research Group, Scottish Agricultural College, Edinburgh, UK
*
*Correspondence: Wimolpat Bumbudsanpharoke e-mail: wimolpat.bumbudsanpharoke@sac.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In Thailand, horticultural practices are a significant source of non-point source (NPS) pollution, and the government is considering best management practices (BMPs) as control measures for reducing agricultural NPS pollution to water. A prevailing assumption that farmers’ reactions to regulations will be homogenous is not based on underlying insights into attitudinal positions that may explain alternative behavioural responses. This paper uses Q-methodology to identify attitudinal discourses relating to BMP uptake. The approach combines the strengths of qualitative and quantitative research in order to explore subjectivity. The study is conducted with citrus growers in the Ping river basin, where farmers are facing increasing competition from alternative water uses. Four ‘discourses’ or viewpoints are identified, namely conservationist, traditionalist, disinterested and risk-averse. The different attitudes of these four groups are likely to be associated with distinctive behavioural reactions to the adoption of alternative policy instruments for pollution control. These discourses could usefully inform targeted policies for the control of NPS pollution from agriculture.

Keywords

agricultural non-point source pollutionbest management practicesQ-methodologywater quality
Type
Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 36 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 225 - 234
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, A., Toma, L., Hall, C. & Willock, J. (2007) Implementing the Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland: Farming Practices and Awareness. Edinburgh, UK: The Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Barry, J. & Proops, J. (2000) Citizenship, Sustainability and Environmental Research. Cheltenham, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., Tourte, L., Duncan, R., Hendricks, L., Ohmart, C. & Verdegaal, P. (2004) Influence of farm management style on adoption of biologically integrated farming practices in California. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 19: 237–247.Google Scholar
Brookfield, H. & Gyasi, E.A. (2009) Academics among farmers: linking intervention to research. Geoforum 40: 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S.R. (1980) Political Subjectivity: Applications of Q Methodology in Political Science. New Haven, Connecticut, USA: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, S.R. (1991) A Q methodological tutorial [www document]. URL http://facstaff.uww.edu/cottlec/QArchive/Primer1.htmlGoogle Scholar
Brown, S.R. (1996) Q Methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6: 561–567.Google Scholar
Brown, S.R. & Wattanakul, S. (2008) Professional and policy perspectives on avian influenza within an epistemic community. In: 24th Annual Q Conference Abstracts. Ontario, Canada: International Society for the Scientific Study of Subjectivity and McMaster University [www document]. URL http://www.qmethod.org/qconference/current/conferenceabstract.php#44Google Scholar
Brown, S.R., Durning, D.W. & Selden, S.C. (2008) Q Methodology. In: Handbook of Research Methods in Public Administration/134, Second edition, ed. Miller, G.J. & Yang, K., pp. 721–764. New York, NY, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, N., D'Arcy, B.J., Frost, A., Novotny, V. & Sansom, A. (2004) Diffuse Pollution: An Introduction to the Problems and Solutions. London, UK: IWA.Google Scholar
Danielson, S. (2009) Q Method and surveys: three ways to combine Q and R. Field Methods 21: 219–237.Google Scholar
Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D. (2007) Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics 61: 323–333.Google Scholar
de Buck, A.J., van Rijn, I., Roling, N.G. & Wossink, G.A.A. (2001) Farmers’ reasons for changing or not changing to more sustainable practices: an exploratory study of arable farming in the Netherlands. The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 7: 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DOA (2004) The Future of Thai Tangerine (in Thai). Bangkok, Thailand: Department of Agriculture: 46 pp.Google Scholar
Dowd, B.M., Press, D. & Huertos, M.L. (2008) Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: the case of California's Central Coast. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 128: 151–161.Google Scholar
Durning, D.W. & Brown, S.R. (2006) Q Methodology and decision making. In: Handbook of Decision Making, ed. Morcol, G., pp. 537–564. Pennsylvania, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Deary, I. & Willock, J. (1998) Incorporating psychology variables in models of farmer behaviour: does it make for better predictions? Etudes et Recherches sur les Systèmes Agraires et Développement 31: 153–173.Google Scholar
Ellis, G., Barry, J. & Robinson, C. (2007) Many ways to say ‘no’, different ways to say ‘yes’: applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50: 517–551.Google Scholar
Fairweather, J.R., Swaffield, S.R. & Simmons, D.G. (1998) Understanding visitors’ experiences in Kaikoura using photographs of landscapes and Q method. Report no. 5, Tourism Research and Education Centre (TREC), Lincoln University, Christchurch, New Zealand: 62 pp.Google Scholar
FAO (1999) Fertilizer Strategies. Rome, Italy: FAO and IFA.Google Scholar
FAO (2007) The State of Food and Agriculture 2007: Paying Farmers for Environmental Services. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Feather, P.M. & Amacher, G.S. (1994) Role of information in the adoption of best management practices for water quality improvement. Agricultural Economics 11: 159–170.Google Scholar
Furlong, N., Lovelace, E. & Lovelace, K. (2000). Research Methods and Statistics: An Integrated Approach. London, UK: Hartcourt College.Google Scholar
Fuwa, N. & Sajise, A.J. (2006) Toward Environmental Services Incentive Policies for the Rice Sector: A Survey and a Philippine Case Study. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N. & Sinclair, D. (2005) Policy instrument choice and diffuse source pollution. Journal of Environmental Law 17: 51–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. & Anderson, R.E. (2009) Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Seventh edition. New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hall, C. (2008) Identifying farmer attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) crops in Scotland: are they pro- or anti-GM? Geoforum 39: 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashemi, S.M., Mokhtarnia, M., Erbaugh, J.M. & Asadi, A. (2008) Potential of extension workshops to change farmers’ knowledge and awareness of IPM. Science of The Total Environment 407: 84–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jungbluth, F. (2000) Economic analysis of crop protection in citrus production in central Thailand. Pesticide Policy Publication Series, Special Issue No. 4, University of Hannover, Hanover, Germany: 158 pp.Google Scholar
Kosoy, N., Corbera, E. & Brown, K. (2008) Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 39: 2073–2083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loehr, R.C. (1984) Pollution Control for Agriculture. Second edition. Florida, USA: Academic Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Marod, D., Watcharinrat, C., Duengkae, P. & Jenkitkarn, S. (2005) Implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Thailand: Management and Protection of Wetland Areas - Chiang Saen Lake (Phase II) (in Thai). Bangkok, Thailand: Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning.Google Scholar
Novotny, V. (1998) Diffuse pollution from agriculture: worldwide outlook. In: Diffuse Pollution and Agriculture II, ed. Petchey, T., D'Arcy, B.J. & Frost, C.A., pp. 23–38. Aberdeen, UK: Scottish Agricultural College.Google Scholar
Oates, C. (2005) Annex 9 – Quality and safety of fruits and vegetables in Thailand. In: Proceedings of the FAO/AFMA Workshop on Quality and Safety in the Traditional Horticultural Marketing Chains of Asia, ed. Esguerra, E.B., Cadilhon, J.J. & Shepherd, A.W., pp. 97–104. Bangkok, Thailand: FAO.Google Scholar
PCD (2007) National Agricultural Pollution Management Plan (in Thai). Draft report No. 02–193, Bangkok, Thailand: Pollution Control Department: 38pp.Google Scholar
Rabin, M. (1998) Psychology and economics. Journal of Economic Literature 36: 11–46.Google Scholar
Raje, F. (2007) Using Q Methodology to develop more perceptive insights on transport and social inclusion. Transport Policy. 14: 467–477.Google Scholar
Ramsey, J. & Hungerford, H.R. (2002) Perspectives on environmental education in the United States. In: New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information and Voluntary Measures, ed. Dietz, T. & Stern, P.C., pp. 147–160. Washington, DC, USA: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M.O., Horan, R.D. & Smith, M.E. (1999) Economics of water quality protection from nonpoint sources: theory and practice. Agricultural Economic Report No. 782, USDA, Washington DC, USA: 7 pp.Google Scholar
Sarker, A., Ross, H. & Shrestha, K.K. (2008) A common-pool resource approach for water quality management: an Australian case study. Ecological Economics 68: 461–471.Google Scholar
Schmolck, P. (2002) PQMethod download [www document]. URL http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~schmolck/qmethod/downpqx.htmGoogle Scholar
Segerson, K. & Wu, J. (2006) Nonpoint pollution control: Inducing first-best outcomes through the use of threats. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 51: 165–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shogren, J. & Taylor, L.O. (2008) On behavioural-environmental economics. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 2: 26–44.Google Scholar
Silverman, D. (2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data. Third edition. London, UK: SAGE.Google Scholar
Smith, C.M., Peterson, J.M. & Leatherman, J.C. (2007) Attitudes of Great Plains producers about best management practices, conservation programs and water quality. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 62: 97A–102A.Google Scholar
Stanley, D.L. (2000) The economics of the adoption of BMPs: the case of mariculture water management. Ecological Economics 35: 145–155.Google Scholar
Steelman, T.A. & Maguire, L.A. (1999) Understanding participant perspectives: Q methodology in national forest management. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 18: 361–388.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.E. (2006) Participatory Watershed Management for Ping River Basin: Final Project Report. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, Bangkok, Thailand: 161 pp.Google Scholar
Thomas, D.E., Preechapanya, P. & Saipothong, P. (2004) Developing science-based tools for participatory watershed management in montane mainland Southeast Asia. Rockefeller Foundation Grant No. 2000 GI 086, International Centre for Research on Agroforestry, Chiang Mai, Thailand: 103 pp.Google Scholar
Tonmanee, N. & Kanchanakool, N. (1999) Agricultural diffuse pollution in Thailand. Water Science and Technology 39: 61–66.Google Scholar
EPA, US (2003) National management measures for the control of nonpoint pollution from agriculture. EPA-841-B-03–004, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA: 299 pp.Google Scholar
Venkatachalam, L. (2008) Behavioral economics for environmental policy. Ecological Economics 67: 640–645.Google Scholar
Water Quality Management Bureau (2006) Wastewater Management Approaches (2006–2009) (in Thai). Second edition. Bangkok, Thailand: Pollution Control Department.Google Scholar
Webler, T., Danielson, S. & Tuler, S. (2007) Guidance on the use of Q method for evaluation of public involvement programs at contaminated sites. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Massachusetts, USA: 41 pp.Google Scholar
Woodhead, A., Legg, W. & Packham, R. (2004) Developing policy for communities managing diffuse source pollution: a case study from subtropical catchment of NSW, Australia. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2: 43–54.Google Scholar
Yeager, T. (2007) BMPs can help solve surface water-quality issues. American Nurseryman 205: 62–63.Google Scholar