Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Integrated farm management for sustainable agriculture: Lessons for
knowledge exchange and policy
David C. Rosea,⁎, William J. Sutherlandb, Andrew P. Barnesc, Fiona Borthwickc, Charles Ffoulkesd,
Clare Hallc,e, Jon M. Moorbyf, Phillipa Nicholas-Daviesf, Susan Twiningd,g, Lynn V. Dicksh
a School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
bDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge, CB2 3QZ, UK
c SRUC, Kings Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh, EH9 3JG, UK
d RSK ADAS Ltd., Spring Lodge, 172 Chester Road, Helsby, WA6 0AR, UK
e Forest Research, Northern Research Station, Roslin, Midlothian, EH25 9SY, UK
f Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, Aberystwyth University, Gogerddan, Aberystwyth, SY23 3EE, UK
g Country Land & Business Association Limited, 16 Belgrave Square, London, SW1X 8PQ, UK
h School of Biological Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
A R T I C L E I N F O
Keywords:
Integrated farming
Integrated farm management
Integrated farming systems
Integrated pest management
Knowledge exchange
Sustainable agriculture
A B S T R A C T
As a response to the environmentally and socially destructive practices of post-war mechanization and in-
tensification, the concept of sustainable agriculture has become prominent in research, policy, and practice.
Sustainable agriculture aims to balance the economic, environmental, and social aspects of farming, creating a
resilient farming system in the long-term. Over the last few decades, various concepts have been used in research
and policy to encourage the adoption of sustainable practices. Within such a congested space, this paper assesses
the value of ‘integrated farm management’ as a concept for the promotion of sustainable agriculture. The concept
is the subject of renewed policy interest in England and Wales and it is also being promoted in Europe. Previous
research, however, has suggested that integrated farm management may not be well understood or widely
practised. There are also criticisms that it can be impractical and poorly differentiated from similar ideas. As
such, renewed insights are required into how useful the concept might be for encouraging sustainable agri-
culture. Using a mixed methods approach, we gathered the views of farmers, farm advisors, and industry re-
presentatives about integrated farm management in England and Wales, and interpreted these through a the-
oretical framework to judge the strength of the concept. Overall, the general principles of Integrated Farm
Management were found to be coherent and familiar to most of our respondents. However, the concept per-
formed poorly in terms of its resonance, simplicity of message, differentiation from other similar terms and
theoretical utility. We reflect on our findings in the context of other ways to promote sustainable agriculture,
drawing out messages for policy and knowledge exchange in England and Wales, as well as elsewhere.
1. Introduction
Since the end of the Second World War, agriculture in the developed
world has changed dramatically. A shift towards mechanization, asso-
ciated with the development of ever-more sophisticated technologies,
led to a post-war rise in productivity (Binswanger, 1986). It became
increasingly clear from the 1960s, however, that the way in which
productivity was enhanced caused degradation to the environment and
harmed society. Carson (1962), for example, warned of the devastating
consequences of unregulated pesticides on farmland biodiversity, with
research noting a particularly severe decline in the populations of
specialist farmland birds (Fuller et al., 1995). Research has continued to
show the challenges of agricultural intensification, particularly in the
areas of biodiversity conservation and the provision of other ecosystem
services, such as healthy soils and pollination (Kleijn and Sutherland,
2003; Kremen and Miles, 2012; Pimentel, 2006).
As research and farming communities became aware of the need to
balance productivity with environmental and social outcomes, the
concept of sustainable agriculture was increasingly promoted. Garibaldi
et al. (2017) describe agricultural sustainability as a concept which
considers the economic, environmental, and social aspects of farming,
while also promoting the resilience and persistence of productive
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.001
Received 26 April 2017; Received in revised form 30 October 2018; Accepted 2 November 2018
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: david.rose@uea.ac.uk (D.C. Rose).
Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
Available online 19 December 2018
0264-8377/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/).
T
farming landscapes. Sustainable agriculture has not been carried out in
a prescriptive manner, with a variety of ideas and farming models
aimed at the objective of growing more food (for profit) while also
providing environmental and social benefits (Garibaldi et al., 2017;
Plumecocq et al., 2018; Pretty and Bharucha, 2014). Garibaldi et al.
(2017) present a partial list of concepts that have been proposed as a
way of achieving agricultural sustainability, and we add to this non-
exhaustive list by including others from the wider literature (see
Table 1; also Gold, 2007 for a longer list of related terms). Many of
these ideas, such as integrated pest management, agroforestry, and
organic agriculture are now quite familiar, whilst others, such as pre-
cision farming and sustainable intensification, are becoming more
common. All of these terms have influenced the policy landscape at a
variety of scales, as policy-makers constantly look for the best way of
encouraging the adoption of sustainable agriculture in practice.
Within the context of the different concepts of sustainable agri-
culture, this paper is focused on the potential contribution of integrated
farm management (IFM). Although the definition of IFM is contested (El
Titi, 1992; Morris and Winter, 1999; Randall and James, 2012;
Wibberley, 1995), most would agree it has been promoted as a response
to the negative impact of agricultural production on the environment
and farming communities, while retaining a focus on the economic
viability of the farm (Cook et al., 2009; EISA, 2012). Integrated farm
management is supported prominently by the farming organisation
Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF), a group that works pre-
dominately in the UK, but also increasingly in African countries such as
Ghana and Kenya. LEAF (2017) state that integrated farm management
involves the use of modern technologies and traditional methods, and
encompasses site-specific and continuous improvement across the
whole farm. It has been described as a ‘third way’ between conventional
and organic agriculture (Morris and Winter, 1999) with the guiding
principles designed to maintain productivity, whilst improving the en-
vironment.
The concept is currently supported by various initiatives across
Europe. For example, the European Initiative for Sustainable
Development in Agriculture (EISA) promotes integrated farming across
Europe, describing it as the ‘most efficient way to a productive, en-
vironmentally friendly and socially responsible agriculture in the EU’
(EISA, 2012, 1). Both organisations, LEAF and EISA, use similar dia-
grams to communicate the concept of IFM, the former including nine
components (see appendix 1) with the latter adding an additional three
(appendix 1 components plus climate change/air quality, human and
social capital, and crop nutrition).
In England, the potential of IFM for sustainable agriculture has been
explored by government for over a decade (Defra, 2004; English
Nature, 2005; Cook et al., 2009), and was the subject of renewed
interest as part of the Department for Environment, Food, and Rural
Affairs’ (Defra) Sustainable Intensification Platform, which was ad-
ditionally supported by the Welsh Government. One of the aims of this
project was ‘to develop an IFM approach by which farmers can imple-
ment management practices to improve performance sustainably within
the opportunities presented by their sectors and location’ (Defra’s
Sustainable Intensification Platform, 2017). A whole farm, balanced
approached was seen by Defra’s project to be one way of achieving
‘sustainable intensification’, defined as improving productivity while
enhancing the environment and providing social benefits. IFM is also
being promoted in the UK through training schemes offered to farm
advisors and farmers (Basis, 2018), and is a requirement for some crop
assurance schemes (e.g. LEAF marque).
In light of the strong policy interest in England and Wales, and
across other parts of Europe, this paper assesses the attitudes of farmers,
farm advisors, and industry groups towards IFM. Policies built around
concepts ultimately need to be implemented in practice. If the concept
is flawed, however, then policies based on it are likely to fail (Kirby and
Krone, 2002). As described above, IFM as a concept through which to
encourage sustainable agriculture is competing in a contested space.
Research on integrated farming in its various guises (e.g. integrated
farming systems) has been conducted since at least the late 1970s,
building on integrated pest management research dating back to the
1920s (Morris and Winter, 1999). However, it took until the late 1990s
before the concept started to be disseminated to farming practitioners
in a sustained way (Morris and Winter, 1999). Once the idea began to
be disseminated to farmers, Morris and Winter (1999) describe how
social scientists started to become interested in how it was being
communicated and whether/how practitioners were implementing it
on-farm.
Previous research has found that IFM has experienced limited up-
take in practice in the arable sector in the UK (Cook et al., 2009; Defra,
2009) and further afield, for example in the Netherlands (Proost and
Matteson, 1997). Furthermore, research conducted in the last two
decades has suggested that it may be poorly understood (Morris and
Winter, 1999; Langdon, 2013) poorly differentiated from similar ideas
(Morris and Winter, 1999), and may be mismatched to advisor skills
(Park et al., 1997). Morris and Winter (1999), for example, asked
farmers in the west of England whether they could define ‘integrated
crop management’ and ‘integrated livestock management’ in an attempt
to understand knowledge of integrated farming systems. 41% and 48%
of farmers contacted by telephone could not define each concept re-
spectively, while significant doubts were expressed about the financial
viability of an integrated system.
There is also very little published research on the understanding and
uptake of IFM in non-arable sectors (Langdon, 2013). An analysis based
on Farm Business Survey information, a dataset based on surveys
Table 1
Concepts related to sustainable agriculture (partially from Garibaldi et al., 2017).
Concept Suggested definition (may vary between sources)
Agroecology The study of ecological processes, particularly functional biodiversity and their impacts (Garibaldi et al., 2017)
Agroforestry A strategy of land management that incorporates trees or shrubs into the agricultural landscape (Leakey, 2014)
Conservation tillage A soil management approach with the aim of limited soil manipulation (Lai, 1989)
Diversified farming Farms that integrate several crops or animals into the production system (Garibaldi et al., 2017)
Ecological intensification Emphasises ecological processes that support production, such as nutrient cycling, biotic pest management, and pollination (Garibaldi et al.,
2017; Kovács-Hostyánszki et al., 2017)
Integrated Crop Management A whole farm approach to crop management, balancing profitability, productivity, and the environment (Lançon et al., 2007)
Integrated Farm Management A whole farm approach that makes use of traditional and modern methods to increase productivity, but limit environmental impact (LEAF, 2017)
Integrated Pest Management An ecosystem approach to crop protection, in which all available measures are used to hold pest abundances below a threshold of economic
damage, with an emphasis on non-chemical practices such as crop rotation, crop variety selection, hygiene, habitat management for natural
enemies, biological control and monitoring (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/ipm/en/)
Organic farming A holistic system for enhancing soil fertility, water management, and natural control of crop pests and diseases, usually associated with low-
input, small, diverse farms (Garibaldi et al., 2017)
Precision farming Farming that makes use of information technology to ensure targeted and efficient management (Blackmore, 1994)
Sustainable Intensification Improving crop yield whilst improving environmental and social conditions (Garibaldi et al., 2017)
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
835
conducted by the government1 in England, assessed the level of in-
tegrated farming uptake in the dairy sector. However, Langdon (2013)
note that very few survey respondents responded positively to questions
concerning whether IFM had been implemented, although noted that
the very few businesses that had practised IFM seemed to perform
better than other farm businesses (small sample caution).
In light of this previous research which has suggested that IFM is not
well understood, and in the context of relatively few recent social sci-
ence studies on the topic, we consider that there is a pressing need to
understand the contribution that IFM can make to the uptake of sus-
tainable farming across different agricultural sectors, including looking
at the role of advisors in this process.
We use a theoretical framework outlined by Gerring (1999), which
judges the usefulness of a concept against the following criteria – (1)
resonance, (2) familiarity, (3) parsimony or degree of simplicity, (4)
coherence, (5) depth, (6) differentiation, (7) field utility, and (8) the-
oretical utility (see ‘Methods’). Using interviews, focus groups, and in-
dustry workshops, we interpret our data alongside these criteria to
judge how good IFM might be as a concept through which to encourage
sustainable agriculture in practice. We reflect on our findings in the
context of other ways of encouraging agricultural sustainability. In
drawing out the key messages from our case study in England and
Wales, we provide recommendations for policy, focusing particularly
what makes a good policy concept for knowledge exchange with
farmers.
2. Methods
2.1. Groups of respondents
We were keen to assess attitudes towards IFM across the supply
chain. Farmers from different farming sectors across England and Wales
were included in the research design, as well as agronomists, business,
and environmental advisors. It was important to gather the views of
farm advisors because they have been shown to play an important role
in the adoption of new ideas, not least because they develop close and
trusted relationships with farmers (ADAS, 2012; AIC, 2013; Dampney
et al., 2001; Ingram, 2008; Prager and Thomson, 2014; Rose et al.,
2018a)2. The chance for successful implementation of agricultural
policy is enhanced if the advisor community is receptive to the idea.
Furthermore, we included industry representatives from the supply
chain since we noted that a requirement to practise integrated farming
was part of some produce assurance schemes (e.g. LEAF Marque, M&S
Field to Fork). Thus, the views of such representatives are also im-
portant when considering the usefulness of IFM. Focus groups and
interviews were carried out in 2015.
2.2. Focus groups
Five focus groups lasting approximately one hour were held across
England and Wales with arable farmers (two groups in Norfolk), arable
advisors (agronomists based across East Anglia), dairy farmers (based in
East Sussex), and sheep/beef farmers (lowland and upland, in Central
Wales). The locations of these focus groups were chosen based on
known contacts and also to cover a breadth of farming enterprises and
environments.
Focus groups with farmers formed part of existing knowledge ex-
change activities performed by various organisations - NIAB-TAG for
arable farmers, Farming Connect for red meat farmers, and DairyCo for
dairy farmers. Our focus groups represented one of the activities in each
outreach workshop run by the aforementioned organisations and were
always led by the same lead researcher on our project. The arable ad-
visor focus group was held with advisors based at Agrii. Focus groups
were primarily used to inform the content of semi-structured inter-
views, but primary data from the focus group discussions was also used.
They were attended by 10–15 participants, and were recorded and
transcribed. As part of a wider discussion of sustainable intensification,
respondents were asked to discuss the following two questions; ‘what
do you understand by the term integrated farm management?’ and ‘do
you practise/encourage integrated farm management?’. The discussion
between participants was allowed to flow and develop with little in-
tervention from the facilitator.
2.3. Semi-structured interviews
For a more in-depth analysis of attitudes towards IFM, 78 interviews
lasting up to an hour were conducted with farmers and advisors across
England and Wales (all conducted by same researcher). The sample was
drawn from a wider survey undertaken by the Defra and Welsh
Government funded Sustainable Intensification Research Platform (see
Rose et al., 2016), which had focused on seven study regions across
England and Wales, including farmers from six enterprise types (cer-
eals, general cropping, dairy, mixed, lowland livestock, and Less Fa-
voured Area [LFA] livestock)3. These study regions were selected to
provide a cross-section of agricultural landscapes in England and Wales.
From the 243 farmers who responded to this survey, we employed a
purposeful sample to target a range of different farming enterprises and
farm sizes. Overall, we interviewed 45 of these farmers (14 arable in
Norfolk; and 31 with LFA/lowland beef/sheep or dairy enterprises in
Devon/ Conwy).
Thirty-three advisors who offered technical, business, or environ-
mental advice within the broad study areas (Wensum in Norfolk, Taw in
Devon, and Conwy in Wales) were also interviewed. The sample, in-
corporating a mixture of both commercial and independent advisors,
was formed with assistance from ADAS (agricultural consultancy). The
list of advisors was identified through existing contacts known to ADAS
consultants, as well as web-based searches to capture other smaller
organisations or independent advisors. A shortlist of advisors covering
each of the three study areas were contacted and invited to participate
1 ‘The Farm Business Survey (FBS) provides information on the financial,
physical and environmental performance of farm businesses in England. Survey
results typically give comparisons between groups of businesses’ (see https://
www.gov.uk/government/collections/farm-business-survey). In the Langdon
(2013, 7) analysis, ‘data was taken from the Farm Business Survey of England
for 2003-2010. Farms were included in the analyses…if they were classified to
‘robust’ type4 dairy in at least three of these years. 402 farms met this condi-
tion, with 87 of these surveyed in all eight years, and 226 providing data in at
least five years. Farms were excluded from the analyses if they had less than 20
dairy cows in any year; this avoided including farms that had ceased dairying
but remained in the FBS as a different farm type.’
2 In the UK, there are various advisory groups in addition to individual
agronomists, vets, and other types of advisor. In the UK, groups include the
Farming Advice Service (England and Scotland), Farming Connect (Wales),
Rural Payments and Services (England), The Farming and Wildlife Advisory
Group, Organic Research Centre, and many more. Elsewhere in Europe there is
the Farm Advisory System, and Teagasc Advisory Services in Ireland. In the
USA, there are rural extension services such as the Agency for International
Development. It is clear that advisory structures in a particular country must be
well understood since they are a crucial component of knowledge exchange
with farmers.
3 The sample for this survey was provided by Defra/Welsh Government, and
was stratified to reflect the main farm types in each area. Any Robust Farm
Types accounting for less than 10% of the case study area population were
excluded. Farms were selected to give good geographical coverage of each area.
In addition, to be included in the sample each holding had to meet the criteria
of being a ‘commercial holding’ as well as farming a minimum of 20 ha. A range
of farm sizes were included in the sample. Registered holders were sent an opt
out letter giving five working days to opt out of being telephoned to be invited
to take part in an interview. Overall, 243 farmers responded to the survey and
we selected our interviewees from those who agreed to take part in further
work.
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
836
from each organisation identified. Where the primary contact was not
able to attend or was unreachable, others within the organisation were
approached to ensure all identified organisations had a fair opportunity
to contribute.
Participants were asked whether they had heard of IFM, whether
they understood it, and then to define the idea based on their under-
standing of the concept (appendix 1). After this, they were provided
with a diagram and standard definition of IFM from LEAF (see appendix
1) and asked to consider whether the idea was part of their manage-
ment strategy. Participants stated which aspects they prioritised, and
offered their opinions about the idea, also suggesting areas for im-
provements. These interviews were transcribed in full by a professional
transcription service and coded with Atlas.Ti software. Coding was
carried out against pre-selected criteria; relevant quotes were selected
under the following headings, ‘level of awareness’, ‘understanding of,
and reaction to, the term’, ‘suggestions to improve the concept’, and
‘which of the nine aspects of IFM were prioritised in management?’.
Results were then applied post-hoc to the classification used by Gerring
(1999) to measure the usefulness of the concept (see footnote 5). Al-
though quantitative statements are made in the subsequent results
section, it is noted that sample sizes were low. Such statements are not
used to imply representativeness of views towards IFM in any one
group, but rather to explore possible lessons for policies surrounding
knowledge exchange in the context of sustainable agriculture.
2.4. Workshops
Three workshops were held as part of the wider Defra project, un-
dertaken between October 2014 and March 2015, with separate
workshops held for the arable, dairy, and red meat sectors. Several
groups were represented at these workshops, including agronomists/
advisors, policy-makers, advisory boards, technology firms, and the
food industry. The wide spectrum of attendees allowed us to assess the
understanding of IFM across the farming food chain (see appendix 2 for
attendees and numbers). As part of a one-day programme, delegates
were split into groups of 4–5 people (4 separate groups for arable/red
meat, 3 groups for dairy) and were asked by a facilitator to discuss what
they understood by the term ‘integrated farm management’.
Intervention by the facilitator was kept to a minimum with discussion
driven by the participants. A rapporteur was elected to capture the key
elements of the discussion. All group members were encouraged to
provide their definition of IFM and these were recorded by the rap-
porteur.
2.5. Theoretical framework
The framework of Gerring (1999) provides a useful set of criteria
through which to judge how good a concept is. This framework has
been cited 423 times4 in a variety of contexts, including development,
politics, and economics.
He outlines eight key factors:
1 Resonance – the extent to which a term is memorable.
2 Familiarity – the extent to which a concept can be made sense of or
is intuitively clear.
3 Parsimony or degree of simplicity – whether there is a simple, clear
definition, or alternatively multiple possible interpretations.
4 Coherence – the extent to which principles within a concept fit to-
gether - arguably the most important factor (Gerring, 1999).
5 Depth – the ability of a concept to ‘bundle’ characteristics so that
many characteristics of an idea can be communicated in one term
(efficient communication).
6 Differentiation – the ability to set a concept apart from a different
concept, avoiding confusion.
7 Field utility – a concept must fit within a semantic field and thus
work alongside different concepts.
8 Theoretical utility – the ability to form testable theories or hy-
potheses from a concept.
Our data were applied to this theoretical framework post-hoc5 as a
way of judging whether IFM was a good concept through which to
encourage sustainable agriculture in practice.
3. Results
3.1. Resonance
Resonance related to whether farmers could recall hearing the term
before, but did not test understanding of the concept. Awareness of the
concept was lower amongst farmers than advisors, although there were
differences between farming enterprises. Upland livestock farmers in
LFA areas of Conwy and Taw were generally not aware of the concept,
with just four out of nineteen being confident to say that they had heard
of it. The main sources of awareness were the farming media and farmer
networking events. When asked about IFM in a focus group, LFA
farmers reacted to the question with silence as the term was not known.
Awareness of the concept was also low amongst lowland livestock
farmers in Conwy and Taw (including dairy). Only four out of twelve
farmers in this group were confident that they had heard of the term,
with the farming media and Defra guidance booklets being the main
source. Of these four farmers, only one could remember what the term
meant with confidence. In the dairy farmer focus group, respondents
were generally unaware of the concept.
Arable farmers were comparatively more aware of IFM than live-
stock farmers, including in the two focus groups. In total, eight out of
fourteen arable farmers had definitely heard of IFM mainly through
crop assurance schemes, Basis training, other farmers, and the farming
media. One farmer, for example, stated that they had heard of it and
‘had been doing it for several years now. Everything that is in [crop
assurance] plans has to be written down.’ (arable farmer, Wensum,
510506). Many farmers had ‘filled in several integrated farm manage-
ment questionnaires for crop assurance’ (arable farmer, Wensum,
51007). Another reason for the greater awareness of IFM may be be-
cause LEAF (who have developed the most well-known IFM framework
in the UK) were perceived by the arable focus group participants as
being more focused on arable farmers, rather than the livestock sectors.
Arable advisors were aware of the concept of IFM. All respondents
said that they had heard of the term (although two were slightly un-
sure), but there was some confusion over the precise definition (see
next section). The most dominant source of knowledge about IFM came
from professional training courses (e.g. Basis points), whilst others had
learnt about it through ADAS, LEAF, or Defra. The LEAF diagram used
in the interview was familiar to respondents because many had been
trained with the same framework on training courses (e.g. arable ad-
visor, 5). Many advisors traced the long history of IFM back to the
1980s (e.g. arable advisor, 10).
Livestock advisors were more aware of IFM than farmers, but
slightly less aware than their arable advisor counterparts. Twelve out of
eighteen livestock advisors had definitely heard of the term before,
4 Google Scholar (30/10/2018)
5 (1) Resonance was addressed with data in the ‘level of awareness’ code, (2)
familiarity and (3) simplicity were addressed by data in the ‘understanding of,
and reaction to, the term’ code, as was (4) coherence and (5) depth, although
‘suggestions to improve the concept’ and ‘which of the nine aspects of IFM were
prioritised’ helped here too. (6) Differentiation and (7) field utility were also
addressed by quotes in the ‘understanding of, and reaction to, the term’ code.
Finally, (8) theoretical utility was judged by author expertise.
6 This number is a means of identifying separate interviewees and follows the
numbering system as used in the project.
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
837
although a further three thought that they probably had, mainly from
the farming press, from LEAF, and through research at university or in
journals. One advisor thought that it was ‘a bit of a buzzword’ which
you ‘hear about in the press’ (livestock advisor, 14), whilst another
found out about it from ‘reading journals and trade documents’ (live-
stock advisor, 1). Livestock advisors generally thought it was more
‘arable focused’ (livestock advisor, 17) because organisations like LEAF
are ‘more in the arable sector’ (livestock advisor, 12) and there are
more crop assurance schemes for arable farmers where IFM is a re-
quirement.
Workshop attendees from across the farming industry (including
business, policy, and advisor communities) were asked to define IFM. In
a similar vein to the variety of definitions provided by farmers, a range
of responses was provided to this question, illustrating the widespread
ambiguity about the term. The full list of responses is illustrated in
Table 2, and the list does include the comment ‘never heard of it!’
which was recorded in all sector workshops. Although the answers in
Table 2 move beyond resonance (touching also on familiarity and
parsimony), the fact that ‘never heard of it’ was recorded widely in all
groups is interesting.
3.2. Familiarity and parsimony
3.2.1. Familiarity
The general idea that farmers should be aware of the links between
different aspects of the farm, how they link together, and the con-
sequences of these interactions for productivity and the environment
was well-known. Livestock farmers, who were generally unaware of the
term IFM, understood the general principles behind it. In fact, all
farmers interviewed across all enterprises claimed to practise some
elements of IFM, showing that they recognise the management style but
not the banner. This is a notable result given the high proportion of
livestock farmers who had never heard of the concept.
For example, a lowland livestock farmer (Taw, 10012) said that he
had ‘always been doing that’, while a LFA livestock farmer (Taw,
10027) said that ‘we wouldn’t necessarily call it that, but most probably
that idea is partly what we try to do’. Furthermore, an arable farmer
(Wensum, 51011) thought that it was ‘engrained in everything we are
doing, it just happens in a sense’. Other farmers, who had initially re-
acted negatively towards the concept, said that ‘maybe we do do in-
tegrated farm management’ (arable farmer, Wensum 52076) once they
had been presented with the principles behind it. Overall it was clear
that farmers understood the principles, but ‘wouldn’t necessarily re-
cognise it in those terms’ (arable farmer, Wensum, 51003).
All advisors were also generally familiar with the principles behind
the concept, and the need to think about how different aspects of the
farm linked together. As one livestock advisor (16) argued, their clients
would be ‘balancing these things all of the time’, and hence so would
the advisor. As can be seen from the responses of workshop attendees
(Table 2), some industry representatives also understood the joined-up
mindset of IFM.
3.2.2. Parsimony
Farmers and advisors generally felt that the term IFM made the
concept appear more complicated that it actually was. Indeed, the term
itself caused defensive reactions from many farmers. For example, a
lowland livestock farmer (Taw, 10003) reacted by saying that ‘I suspect
I do it already, but I don’t actually know what you mean by it’, whereas
a LFA livestock farmer (Conwy, 20020) thought that it sounded ‘like a
very complicated word’. Others were even less complimentary, saying
that it was a ‘load of b******s’ written down by someone who ‘isn’t a
farmer’’ (LFA livestock, Conwy, 20034). Advisors also reflected on
whether the over-complicated term actually masked understanding of
the main principles:
‘It’s another one of those things that is a buzz phrase that you know,
there’s lots of jargon, we need to talk in clear language that farmers
can relate to. Doesn’t need to be a buzz phrase because they don’t
really understand that. Someone has been paid a fortune to come up
with that. If you went to a client and said we need to have some
integrated farm management decisions here, you might not be in-
vited back for another day.’ (arable advisor, 1)
‘I don't think they'd use it in their everyday language. But if you sit
them down and talked about it, yes they do it.’ (livestock advisor, 7)
Thus, from the term itself, respondents did not feel that the prin-
ciples were communicated in a simple way. There was, however, gen-
erally a more positive reaction upon seeing the diagram in the inter-
view, which visualised nine aspects of IFM. After seeing this diagram,
for example, all farmers were happy to say that they practised some
elements of IFM.
3.3. Coherence and depth
3.3.1. Coherence
Unsurprisingly, prioritised aspects reflected the main objectives of
the farm enterprise. Livestock farmers and advisors, for example,
prioritised animal husbandry, soil management and fertility (for
grazing), and some mentioned pollution by-product management
Table 2
Definitions of IFM provided by workshop attendees (ticked box means definition was given in specific workshop).
Theme Definition of IFM Red Meat Dairy Arable
Non specific Never heard of it ✓ ✓ ✓
Difficult to define ✓ ✓ ✓
An arable thing! ✓ ✓
Not monoculture ✓
Efficiency, resource management Efficiency ✓ ✓ ✓
Making the most of your resources ✓ ✓ ✓
Linking enterprise types and joining resources ✓ ✓
Integration of supply chain ✓
Knowledge, organisation and planning Forward planning ✓ ✓ ✓
Joined-up thinking ✓ ✓ ✓
Best practice ✓
Resilient management ✓
Data management system ✓
Better use of technology ✓
Intensification of farmer/farm manager knowledge ✓
Sustainability, environmental management Farm-level sustainable intensification ✓
Linking productivity and the environment ✓ ✓ ✓
Mix of conventional and organic to maximise production ✓
Minimising negative trade-offs within farm boundary ✓
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
838
(slurry), and organisation and planning. As one farmer stated ‘animals
are top of the list. Then your soil management because if you ain’t got
the soil management and your grass right, your cattle don’t do well’
(lowland livestock, Taw, 10012). Arable farmers and advisors tended to
prioritise thinking about the links between crop health and protection,
soil management, pollution, and organisation and planning. Landscape
and nature conservation was also commonly mentioned by respondents.
Overall, water management and energy efficiency were seldom
mentioned as priorities, and lack of water was not a significant problem
in two of the study areas (Conwy and Taw). Respondents generally
considered the aspects in the diagram to be part of good farming
practice, and thus felt that they worked together. There was one major
exception, however. Amongst all respondent groups, community en-
gagement was highlighted as being superfluous to farm management,
and potentially unrelated to the other aspects. A lowland livestock
farmer (Taw, 10019) struggled to see how community engagement
‘helps the business’, and an arable advisor (3) also could not work out
‘where community engagement quite fits into all of this’. Many other
similar reactions were gained across groups; in fact, if respondents
raised a query about the usefulness of an IFM component, it was often
about community engagement.
In terms of whether the concept could be coherently encouraged in
practice, advisors raised concerns over the breadth of advice given to
their clients. Agronomists argued, for example, that they wanted to
‘grow the best crops possible’ because that is how their ‘reputation was
enhanced’ (arable advisor, 2). As a result, an agronomist’s training and
skill set was targeted towards getting the best out of crops. Since they
were mainly asked to advise on specific areas, arable advisors typically
argued that they would ‘talk about specific things’ (arable advisor, 3)
and so the ‘overall umbrella’ of IFM would not ‘figure in the thinking’
(arable advisor, 3). Some agronomists argued that giving advice on how
aspects of the farm linked together is ‘not something that we do’ (arable
advisor, 1), partially because they were hired to advise on specific
things. Similarly, environmental advisors stated that they were only
qualified to give environmental advice. Thus, although all advisors felt
that they encouraged IFM in general terms, they could rarely offer in-
tegrated advice across the nine aspects. The lack of complete IFM
knowledge from a single advisor, therefore, meant that one person
could not offer holistic advice, echoing the findings of Park et al.
(1997).
In a similar vein to arable advisors, livestock advisors argued that
they had to encourage an IFM mindset, but could not provide advice on
a whole farm approach as an individual. As one advisor stated:
‘There are some people within the advice community who wouldn’t
understand parts of it, and would only look at one area of it. And
there are some people who wouldn’t give advice on one area
without understanding the implications on the others. There is a
huge range of skills needed for that.’ (livestock advisor, 1)
Other livestock advisors agreed, making statements such as ‘I don’t
see how you can be an expert in that and an expert in that’ (livestock
advisor, 3). Again, since farmers were often paying for a particular
piece of specialist advice, advisors would have to build the skills needed
to maximise the quality of their specialism. As such, most livestock
advisors had only a ‘thinnish layer’ (livestock advisor, 18) of knowledge
of some aspects of IFM.
3.3.2. Depth
Based on our interpretation of IFM from definition and diagrams by
LEAF and EISA, the main components would seem to cover economic,
environmental, and social aspects of farm management. Yet, the LEAF
version of the diagram stresses only nine aspects of integrated farming,
as compared to EISA, which adds three further components – climate
change/air quality, human and social capital, and crop nutrition.
Across all groups (except lowland livestock farmers who suggested
no additions), several respondents suggested that the concept missed
out ‘profitability’. While IFM is designed to improve productivity,
farmers argued that this was useless if production was not profitable.
One arable farmer argued that the aspects in the diagram were ‘all great
but there is little around the financial side and the crop marketing
which is what you are in business for’ (arable farmer, Wensum, 52076).
He went on to argue that if IFM could be better linked to financial
benefits, then it would be a more attractive idea. This point was sup-
ported by an arable advisor who argued that a ‘profitable farm business
needs to be around the outside of that diagram because you can’t have
any of that if the bank pulls the plug on you’ (arable advisor, 1).
Furthermore, livestock advisors argued that ‘most people wouldn’t get
excited about the whole integrated side of things’ unless it related to the
‘fundamentals of the business’, which includes profitability (livestock
advisor, 7). Supporting this view, another livestock advisor suggested
that ‘there ought to be a big pound sign’ in the middle of the diagram so
that the monetary benefits of doing IFM are better articulated.
3.4. Differentiation and field utility
Since many farmers were unaware of the concept of IFM and did not
use similar terms to label their practice, there was little confusion with
other terms (e.g. those in Table 1). One LFA livestock farmer (Conwy,
20031), however, did think that IFM was ‘the same thing as sustainable
agriculture’.
The most significant confusion surrounding IFM was highlighted by
arable advisors, who widely struggled to differentiate it from Integrated
Pest Management (IPM). While IPM may be a part of the holistic con-
cept of IFM, they are not the same. For example, IPM has been very
clearly defined by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the
United Nations (http://www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/
theme/pests/ipm/en/) and the European Commission (Directive
2009/128/EC). In contrast to the holistic nature of IFM, IPM is entirely
focused on one part of the farming system - crop health and protection.
Integrated pest management is defined as an ‘ecosystem approach to
crop production’, in which all available measures are used to discourage
the development of pest populations, with an emphasis on non-che-
mical practices such as crop rotation, crop variety selection, hygiene,
habitat management for natural enemies and biological control.
Chemical pesticides should only be used as a last resort, in response to
threshold pest densities identified by monitoring.
When asked about IFM, many arable advisors conflated the concept
with IPM. In response to a question about IFM practice, an arable ad-
visor (4) said that ‘we have to do that now, under the new directive that
has come from Europe, we have to concentrate on integrated farm
management, or integrated pest management to be precise.’ Others (e.g.
arable advisor 7) thought that they were qualified to offer advice on
IFM because they had an ‘IPM certificate’.
3.5. Theoretical utility
This section is based on our own scientific judgment and treats IFM
as a theory (see discussion for caveat). When considering an integrated
systemic approach to farm management as a concept, the most basic
scientific question is: does the approach improve environmental, social
or economic outcomes from a farm, when compared to a farm not
following the approach? It is relatively straightforward to define spe-
cific outcomes to test, to formulate hypotheses. For example, for an
environmental outcome you might state the null hypothesis H0 : IFM
farms do not have more bird species than non-IFM farms, with the al-
ternative hypothesis H1 that IFM farms have more bird species than
non-IFM farms. One can imagine many similar hypotheses for a range of
possible measurable outcomes.
For these hypotheses to be testable, it has to be possible to imple-
ment IFM on experimental farms, and to retain control farms that are
not doing IFM. Here the IFM concept falls down, because, as explained
above, a majority of farmers would claim to be doing IFM, or at least
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
839
elements of it, already. It is very hard to imagine what a non-IFM farm
looks like. It would have to be managed in a way that did not take
account of different elements of the business at the same time, which
seems unachievable, or extremely artificial. This is in contrast to the
‘IPM’ concept that was confused with IFM in our study. In this concept,
different biological and chemical approaches to controlling pests are
combined together (Birch et al., 2011), and used in a hierarchical
manner with the least environmentally damaging first. Non-IPM farms
are easily defined as those that only employ chemical pest control
methods.
4. Discussion
When measured against Gerring’s (1999) framework for judging the
strength of a concept, IFM performs well in some areas, but poorly in
others. Although there were differences between farming types and
roles, our respondents generally found IFM to be a coherent, familiar
concept. In other words, both farmers and advisors recognised the
general principles of IFM, namely more sustainable methods of agri-
cultural production by thinking about how different aspects of the farm
business link together. Overall, respondents felt that the components
within the IFM diagram worked together, with the notable exception of
community engagement in many cases, and accounting for the irrele-
vance of some aspects for specific farm enterprises (e.g. animal hus-
bandry not relevant for an arable enterprise). If we take the claims of
farmers at face value, there does appear to be significant implementa-
tion of integrated practices across the study areas. The depth of the
concept was sometimes criticised by participants, many of whom
wondered whether profitability should be more obviously associated
with IFM. Furthermore, if we compare the commonly used IFM diagram
in the UK (the one used by LEAF) with EISA’s version, we see that
‘climate change’ is not highlighted as a key consideration in the former
case, nor is ‘human and social capital’ nor ‘crop nutrition’.
The concept of IFM performed poorly against Gerring’s (1999) fra-
mework in terms of resonance, parsimony, differentiation/field utility, and
theoretical utility. These failings have implications for research and
policy on IFM. Clearly, the label ‘integrated farm management’ was not
well-recognised by many farmers, particularly in the livestock sectors,
and workshop representatives were not widely aware of it. As illu-
strated by a number of the quotes, several farmers found the concept to
be unnecessarily complicated; in essence, some respondents felt that it
was just an overcomplicated name for something that all farmers did
without thinking in IFM terms. Advisors had generally heard of the
concept, although arable advisors struggled to differentiate it from IPM,
which is different. Furthermore, there do not appear to be standard
practices, or a set of indicators, associated with IFM, which makes it
difficult to judge whether farmers are actually doing it. In its current
form, it seems difficult to form testable hypotheses for IFM, which
presents challenges to those who seek to monitor its adoption. If IFM is
to be interpreted as a set of guiding principles only, this will have im-
plications for monitoring.
In light of these findings, it is important to consider the implications
for policy, particularly since integrated farming is the subject of policy
attention in England and Wales (through Defra/Welsh Government),
and in Europe (through EISA). We discuss four substantive areas – (1)
appropriate agricultural policy extension, (2) economic incentives, (3)
training advisors, and (4) designating practices and indicators. In our
concluding remarks, we also consider whether there are alternative
concepts through which to encourage sustainable agriculture. One po-
tentially concerning conclusion from our research is the apparent lack
of progress made on adapting the concept of IFM in light of previous
recommendations. While some progress has been made, our findings
echo many of the same themes as those identified by Park et al. (1997);
Morris and Winter (1999); Pacini et al. (2003); Cook et al. (2009), and
Langdon (2013), which we now explore in more detail.
4.1. Appropriate agricultural extension
Morris and Winter (1999) and Cook et al. (2009) found limited
awareness of integrated farming amongst UK arable farmers. One of the
key recommendations of the former paper was to invest in a system of
agricultural extension (a system where high-level advice can be com-
municated to farmers in a more personal way, for example, with farm
visits, demonstration events, or tailored information) which commu-
nicates the concept clearly and effectively to farmers. Through training
exercises, farm advisors have already widely heard of the concept,
which suggests that some progress has been made in communicating
the idea to this audience (notwithstanding the problems of differ-
entiation).
The fact that, at the time of our fieldwork, IFM is still not widely
resonant with many farmers suggests that there are some problems in
the chain of communication. This could be due to a number of reasons;
firstly, our wider research from this project suggested that many
farmers were not regularly using paid professional advice, and it is
advisors that are often influential in bringing knowledge of new ideas
(see Rose et al., 2016). This was particularly true in the upland livestock
sector where it was deemed less cost-effective to use paid professional
advice. Thus, in many cases it is immaterial if advisors know about IFM,
if those advisors are not regularly engaging with all farmers.
Good dissemination of IFM principles is further complicated if some
advisors are confusing it with IPM. Morris and Winter (1999) found
semantic confusion between similar terms two decades ago, and thus
there appears to have been little progress. This is a concern because
Rose et al. (2016), amongst many other studies (e.g. AIC, 2013; Prager
and Thomson, 2014; Ingram, 2008; Rose et al., 2018a), have identified
advisors as a key trusted source of information for farmers. In fact, they
are a key component in the adoption of practices and technologies
(Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Rahm and Huffman, 1984) if the dis-
semination is effective, accurate, and appropriate (Agbamu, 1995).
Certainly in England, farmers no longer have the same level of free
advice available to them as in the past (Murphy, 2007). This un-
doubtedly makes it harder for policy ideas to be communicated across
the farming community. Other countries who similarly do not support
agricultural extension could also reflect on the value offered by ad-
visors, while those countries who do support such activities should try
to maintain them.
It is also important to support other ways in which farmers learn
about new ideas. Usually, concepts are best communicated in a face-to-
face fashion as this builds trust (Rose et al., 2018b). In addition to the
role of trusted advisors, peer-to-peer knowledge exchange makes the
most of face-to-face discussion. Many studies have found that peer-to-
peer learning is often the best way for farmers to discover and try out
new innovations (see review by Rose et al., 2018c). Many of these
spaces already exist, either formally through farmer clusters or de-
monstration test catchments (England – similar versions elsewhere), or
informally as farmers network and socialise at markets, in the pub, and
in other social spaces. Studies have also shown that knowledge ex-
change is most effective when there is two-way dialogue, and where
there is co-design of concepts (e.g. Moschitz et al., 2015). The experi-
ence of IFM, which is not widely resonant across farming businesses,
suggests that policy concepts would be best designed in a bottom-up,
participatory fashion, instead of conducting knowledge transfer after
policy-makers have already determined what the concept looks like.
This would be antithetical to the commonly adopted approach of
developing policy concepts and then consulting users at a later stage. As
Macmillan (2018) argues, while farmers, advisors, and other agri-
cultural practitioners generally take part in policy-making at some
point, this often occurs at the implementation phase, once the policy
itself has been shaped. But, as argued by many articles in the academic
and grey literature, upstream, sustained, and equitable stakeholder
engagement in producing policy is important, sometimes known as co-
production or co-design (Barrett and Rose, 2018). Such articles suggest
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
840
a number of common factors of successful co-design, including early,
sustained engagement, the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, re-
flexivity on the part of policy-makers, the provision of suitable time and
resources to support engagement, mutual trust and the use of knowl-
edge brokers, and the encouragement of peer-to-peer knowledge ex-
change (see Barrett and Rose, 2018). In the UK and Ireland, for ex-
ample, there are research initiatives underway that seek to co-design
knowledge with farmers and advisors (see Barrett and Rose, 2018).
Thus in policy, we might re-think agricultural extension as a process
that starts with farmers or advisors, rather than with policy-makers, and
one which involves all relevant end users (Klerkx and Proctor, 2013;
Leeuwis, 2004; Parker and Sinclair, 2001; Rose et al., 2018b). This also
means including industry representatives from across the supply chain.
Bottom-up co-design of concepts, particularly of the language used,
might prevent a significant issue that our research highlighted. Several
advisors quoted here argued that they would not use IFM as a concept
when talking to farmers, since it was not part of their client’s everyday
language. This may suggest that knowledge exchange activities have
not always listened to practitioner communities in an effort to com-
municate the concept in more familiar language.
4.2. Economic incentives
One of Morris and Winter’s (1999) other key recommendations was
to provide economic incentives for practising integrated farming. In one
sense, economic incentives related to certification schemes do exist (e.g.
LEAF marque and organic certification), and these allow farmers to
charge a premium for their products. Such schemes, however, tend not
to be as widely applicable outside of the arable and horticultural sec-
tors, and the fact that workshop representatives from across the supply
chain were unsure about IFM suggests that there is not currently wider
industry support. Involving these industry representatives is important
in building the business case for IFM.
One recommendation made by our respondents was to prioritise
profitability within the concept of IFM, a suggestion made by re-
spondents to previous research (Morris and Winter, 1999; Langdon,
2013). Some farmers in our study suggested adding a large pound sign
in the middle of the IFM diagram, whilst other farmers and advisors
said that integrated farming could only be practised if the farm was
making money. The contribution of some aspects of IFM, particularly
‘community engagement’, was doubted by respondents. Such feedback
suggests that IFM would be more resonant if profitability was more
central to knowledge exchange activities. This recommendation is
equally applicable to integrated farming elsewhere, including the work
of EISA. Their version of the IFM diagram, and working definition, si-
milarly does not highlight profitability in a prominent way. It is feasible
that a better economic case could be made for IFM. To do this, however,
would require controlled experiments to isolate the impacts of making
improvements in various aspects of IFM, such as community engage-
ment, and/or in determining the impact of joining IFM-based market
schemes on a farmer’s bottom line.
4.3. Training advisors
In the UK, current agricultural advisory systems tend to be specia-
list; in other words, advisors will generally offer specialist advice tai-
lored to one particular aspect of the farm, perhaps crop health, animal
husbandry, or landscape and nature conservation. Although advisors do
consider the effects of their advice on other aspects of the farm busi-
ness, our findings suggest that there is a lack of truly integrated advice
being provided to farmers. A similar conclusion was reached by Park
et al. (1997) over twenty years ago. Since we know that farmers are
generally not able to pay for multiple advisors, it is not practical to
think that integrated advice will result from the amalgamation of in-
dividual expertise. While IFM does seem to be part of the training of
many current advisors, one recommendation is to ensure that advisors
are encouraged to gain the skills and experience needed to think and
communicate in an integrated way.
4.4. Designating practices and indicators
Monitoring the uptake and impact of policy ideas is important,
otherwise little knowledge is gained about whether practice is im-
proving. If IFM is to be used as a concept through which to encourage
sustainable agriculture, researchers, industry members, and policy-
makers need to know whether it is making a difference on the ground. A
similar point has been made by Dicks et al. (2018) about the related
concept of ‘sustainable intensification’. The authors argue that much
research on sustainable intensification has concerned itself with con-
cept definition, rather than developing practices for how to do it. In
identifying a series of practices through which to achieve sustainable
intensification, Dicks et al. (2018) take a step towards operationalising
the concept. It is now possible to investigate whether farmers are
adopting these practices, and to monitor their impacts on productivity,
the environment, and agricultural society. For IFM, however, we have
raised concerns over its theoretical utility and whether it can be oper-
ationalised in a way that means the uptake of standard practices can be
monitored. It may be possible to identify a list of such practices, and
this should be a priority for those interested in promoting IFM. If it is to
be promoted more as a set of guiding principles, then it may not be
possible to monitor implementation robustly.
5. Concluding remarks: would other concepts be better for
sustainable agriculture?
Throughout this article, we have not directly addressed the question
of whether IFM is a useful concept for sustainable agriculture, instead
choosing to provide recommendations about how to improve knowl-
edge exchange if it were to attract sustained policy support. Our results,
however, suggest that the utility of IFM as a concept for sustainable
agriculture could be questioned. In our study, the concept did not re-
sonate well in practice with farmers, while livestock farmers and ad-
visors considered it to be less relevant for them, and arable advisors
struggled to differentiate it from IPM. A number of concluding com-
ments can be made.
Firstly, if farmers and advisors generally consider integrated
farming to be a core component of good farming practice, then what is
the concept of IFM adding? As illustrated by Kirby and Krone (2002),
there is a cost associated with pursuing all policy ideas. If a policy idea
does not resonate well in practice, and furthermore if it does not ne-
cessarily add anything to existing knowledge, then it may be considered
superfluous.
This point links well with an important second point. We have il-
lustrated that the conceptual space of sustainable agriculture is con-
gested with many different ideas existing through which to achieve
sustainability (Garibaldi et al., 2017). It could be argued that a poten-
tially superfluous concept, such as IFM, adds unnecessary complexity,
and seeks to confuse matters further for farmers and advisors by making
differentiation harder (although we have no data to make a judgement
about whether other concepts are better or worse). If IFM is going to
attract sustained policy support in the England, Wales, and elsewhere,
then its value should be better articulated. Does the practice of IFM, for
example, achieve more tangible benefits than pursuing other ideas such
as agroforestry, sustainable intensification, IPM, or sustainable agri-
culture? A key step in identifying the unique selling point of IFM (if
there is one) would be to identify specific practices (if possible), the
contribution of which could be measured. Research and policy com-
munities could also consider the direction of travel for sustainable
agriculture, considering whether concepts need to be more integrated,
or rather certain ones prioritised, in order to limit the problems of lack
of differentiation.
Lastly, policy-makers or organisations keen to support IFM should
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
841
consider whether it is applicable to all sectors, or rather if it should be
targeted towards particular ones (e.g. arable). If it is to be targeted
towards multiple agricultural sectors, then the components of IFM, as
well as the definition and associated practices, will need to vary be-
tween different sectors. Above all, for any concept designed to com-
municate new management practices to farmers, it would be prudent to
consider how projects can be co-designed and led from the bottom-up,
making the most of trusted advisor and peer networks.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded as part of Defra's Sustainable
Intensification Platform (Project Code LM0201). In addition, WJS was
funded by Arcadia, LVD was funded by the UK Natural Environment
Research Council partly under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service
Sustainability (BESS) programme, grant codes NE/K015419/1 and NE/
N014472/1. We thank the editor and four anonymous reviewers for
their useful comments.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.11.
001.
References
ADAS, 2012. Integrating advice on Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation into ex-
isting advice packages to achieve multiple wins – FF0204. compiled by Sarah Wynn
report to Defra. http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&
Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=17635).
Agbamu, J.U., 1995. Analysis of farmers’ characteristics in relation to adoption of soil
management practices in the Ikorodu area of Nigeria. Japan. J. Trop. Agric. 39 (4),
213–222.
AIC, 2013. The Value of Advice Report. Accessed 28 July 2015. http://www.
agindustries.org.uk/latest-documents/value-of-advice-project-report.
Barrett, H., Rose, D.C., 2018. From Laboratory to Land: Involving Stakeholders in
Knowledge Co-production. available at. https://academicoptimism.files.wordpress.
com/2018/11/report.pdf.
Basis, 2018. https://www.basis-reg.co.uk/Portals/1/Courses/Syllabus/SYLL_IFM
%20COURSE%20BASIS%20LEAF.pdf.
Binswanger, H. 1986. Agricultural mechanization : a comparative historical perspective
(English). The World Bank research observer.Vol. 1, no. 1 (January 1986), pp. 27-56,
available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/642221468740199059/
Agricultural-mechanization-a-comparative-historical-perspective.
Birch, N.E., Begg, G.S., Squire, G.R., 2011. How agro-ecological research helps to address
food security issues under new IPM and pesticide reduction policies for global crop
production systems. J. Exp. Bot. 62, 3251–3261.
Blackmore, S., 1994. Precision farming: an introduction. Outlook Agric. 23 (4), 275–280.
Carson, R., 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA, USA.
Cook, S.K., Collier, R.H., Clarke, J.H., Lillywhite, R., 2009. Contribution of integrated
farm management (IFM) to Defra objectives. Asp. Appl. Biol. 93, 131–138.
Dampney, P., Jones, D., Winter, M., 2001. Communication Methods to Persuade
Agricultural Land Managers to Adopt Practices that will Benefit Environmental
Protection and Conservation Management (AgriComms). ADAS Report to DEFRA.
Defra, 2004. Pesticides and Integrated Farm Management. Crown Copyright, London, UK.
Defra, 2009. Farm Practices Survey 2009–England. available at at. http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130315143000/http://awww.defra.gov.uk/statistics/
files/FPS2009.pdf.
Dicks, L.V., Rose, D.C., Ang, F., Aston, S., Birch, N., et al., 2018. What agricultural
practices are most likely to deliver ‘sustainable intensification, in the UK? Food
Energy Secur. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.148.
EISA (European Initiative for Sustainable Development in Agriculture), 2012. Sustainable
Agriculture: What Is It All About? available at. http://sustainable-agriculture.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BrochureEISA_ECPA_web.pdf.
El Titi, A., 1992. Integrated farming: an ecological farming approach in European agri-
culture. Outlook Agric. 21 (1), 33–39.
English Nature, 2005. Integrated farming and biodiversity, english nature research re-
ports. Report Number 634.
Fuller, R.J., Gregory, R.D., Gibbons, D.W., Marchant, J.H., Wilson, J.D., Bailie, S.R.,
Carter, N., 1995. Population declines and range contractions among lowland farm-
land birds in Britain. Conserv. Biol. 9 (6), 1425–1441.
Garibaldi, L.A., Gemmill-Herren, B., D’Annolfo, R., Graeub, B.E., Cunningham, S.A.,
Breeze, T.D., 2017. Farming approaches for greater biodiversity, livelihoods, and
food security. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 32 (1), 68–80.
Gerring, J., 1999. What makes a concept good? A criterial framework for understanding
concept formation in the social sciences. Polity 31 (3), 357–393.
Gold, M.V., 2007. Sustainable Agriculture: Definitions and Terms. Related Terms.
available at. https://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/sustainable-agriculture-definitions-
and-terms-related-terms.
Ingram, J., 2008. Agronomist-farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge
exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agric. Human
Values 25 (3), 405–418.
Kirby, E., Krone, K., 2002. The policy exists but you can’t really use it: communication
and the structuration of work-family policies. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 30 (1), 50–77.
Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W.J., 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes
in conserving and promoting biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 40 (6), 947–969.
Klerkx, L.W.A., Proctor, A., 2013. Beyond fragmentation and disconnect: networks for
knowledge exchange in the English land management advisory system. Land use
policy 30, 13–24.
Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture:a review
and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25–48.
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen, A.J., Settele, J., Kremen, C., Dicks,
L.V., 2017. Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive
land use on pollinators and pollination. Ecol. Lett. 20 (5), 673–689.
Kremen, C., Miles, A., 2012. Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus con-
ventional farming systems: benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecol. Soc. 17
(4), 40.
Lai, R., 1989. Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture: tropics versus temperate
environments. Adv. Agron. 42, 85–197.
Lançon, J., Wery, J., Rapidel, B., Angokaye, M., Gérardeaux, E., Gaborel, C., Ballo, D.,
Fadegnon, B., 2007. An improved methodology for integrated crop management
systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 27 (2), 101–110.
Langdon, S., 2013. Dairy Farms: Economic Performance and Links With Environmental
Performance, a Report Based on the Farm Business Survey. available at:. . https://
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/183529/
defra-stats-foodfarm-environ-obs-research-cattle-dairy-130205.pdf.
LEAF, 2017. Integrated Farm Management. Available at. https://leafuk.org/farming/
integrated-farm-management.
Leakey, R.R.B., 2014. The role of trees in agroecology and sustainable agriculture in the
tropics. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 52, 113–133.
Leeuwis, C., 2004. Communication for Rural Innovation: Rethinking Agricultural
Extension. Blackwell Science Ltd., Oxford, UK.
MacMillan, T., 2018. ‘Learning From Farmer-led Research’, Pages 24-25 in Food Ethics
Council ‘For Whom? Questioning the Food and Farming Research Agenda’.
Available at. https://www.foodethicscouncil.org/uploads/For%20whom%20-%
20questioning%20the%20food%20and%20farming%20research%20agenda_FINAL_
1.pdf.
Morris, C., Winter, M., 1999. Integrated farming systems: the third way for European
agriculture? Land use policy 16, 193–205.
Moschitz, H., Roep, D., Brunori, G., Tisenkopfs, T., 2015. Learning and innovation net-
works for sustainable agriculture: processes of co-evolution, joint reflection and fa-
cilitation. J. Agric. Educ. Ext. 21 (1), 1–11.
Murphy, D., 2007. Plant Breeding and Biotechnology: Societal Context and the Future of
Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Pacini, C., Wossink, A., Giesen, G., Vazzana, C., Huirne, R., 2003. Evaluation of sus-
tainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-
scale analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95, 273–288.
Park, J., Farmer, D.P., Bailey, A.P., Keatinge, J.D.H., Rehman, T., Tranter, R.B., 1997.
Integrated arable farming systems and their potential uptake in the UK. J. Manaj. Dan
Pelayanan Farm. 9 (10), 483–494.
Parker, C.G., Sinclair, M.A., 2001. User-centred design does make a difference. The case of
decision support sys- tems in crop production. Behav. Inf. Technol. 20, 449–460.
Pimentel, D., 2006. Soil Erosion: a food and environmental threat, environment. Dev.
Sustain. 8 (1), 119–137.
Plumecocq, G., Debril, T., Duru, M., Magrini, M.-B., Sarthou, J., Therond, O., 2018. The
plurality of values in sustainable agriculture models: diverse lock-in and coevolution
patterns. Ecol. Soc. 23 (1), 21.
Prager, K., Thomson, K., 2014. AKIS and advisory services in the United Kingdom. Report
for the AKIS Inventory (WP3) of Tshe PRO AKIS Project. avaialble at. www.proakis.
eu/publicationsandevents/pubs.
Pretty, J., Bharucha, Z.P., 2014. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann.
Bot. 114 (8), 1571–1596.
Proost, J., Matteson, P., 1997. Integrated farming in the Netherlands: flirtation or solid
change? Outlook Agric. 26 (2), 87–94.
Rahm, M.R., Huffman, W.E., 1984. The adoption of reduced tillage: the role of human
capital and other variables. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 66 (4), 405–413.
Randall, N., James, K., 2012. The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic
farming and agri-environment schemes for conserving biodiversity in temperate
Europe - A systematic map. Environ. Evid. 1, 1–21.
Rose, D.C., Sutherland, W.J., Parker, C.G., Morris, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Ffoulkes, C.,
Twining, S., Amano, T., Dicks, L.V., 2016. Decision support tools in agriculture: to-
wards effective design and delivery. Agric. Syst. 149, 165–174.
Rose, D.C., Sutherland, W.J., Morris, C., Lobley, M., Winter, M., Dicks, L.V., 2018a.
Exploring the spatialities of technological and user re-scripting: the case of decision
support tools in UK agriculture. Geoforum 89, 11–17.
Rose, D.C., Parker, C., Fodey, J., Park, C., Sutherland, W.J., Dicks, L.V., 2018b. Involving
stakeholders in agricultural decision support systems: improving user-centred design.
Int. J. Agric. Manag. 6 (3-4), 80–89.
Rose, D.C., Keating, C., Morris, C., 2018c. Understanding How to Influence Farmers’
Decision-making Behaviour: a Social Science Literature Review, Report for the
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. available at. . https://ahdb.org.
uk/knowledge-library/understand-how-to-influence-farmers-decision-making-
behaviour.
Wibberley, J., 1995. Cropping intensity and farming systems: integrity and intensity in
international perspective. J. R. Agric. Soc. Engl. 156, 43–55.
D.C. Rose et al. Land Use Policy 81 (2019) 834–842
842