# Dairy farming and biodiversity: A narrative analysis in contrasting socio-ecological contexts

Vincent J Oostvogels, Raimon Ripoll-bosch, Lucie Allart, Rébecca Etienne, Hanneke J Nijland, Imke J M de Boer, Bertrand Dumont

► To cite this version:

Vincent J Oostvogels, Raimon Ripoll-bosch, Lucie Allart, Rébecca Etienne, Hanneke J Nijland, et al. Dairy farming and biodiversity: A narrative analysis in contrasting socio-ecological contexts. People and Nature, 2025, 10.1002/pan3.70124. hal-05241935

HAL Id: hal-05241935

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-05241935v1

Submitted on 5 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Dairy farming and biodiversity: A narrative analysis in contrasting socio-ecological contexts

Vincent J. Oostvogels<fnref n="1" /> ID

Raimon Ripoll-Bosch<fnref n="1" /> ID

Lucie Allart<fnref n="2" /> ID

Rébecca Etienne<fnref n="3" /> ID

Hanneke J. Nijland<fnref n="4" /> ID

Imke J. M. de Boer<fnref n="1" /> ID

Bertrand Dumont<fnref n="2" /> ID

**Correspondence**

Vincent J. Oostvogels
Email: vincent.oostvogels@wur.nl;
vincentj.oostvogels@gmail.com

**Funding information**

Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Grant/
Award Number: NWA.1331.19.201;
INRAE WUR-ASG Agreenium

**Handling Editor:** Samantha Grover

**Abstract**

1. It is crucial that biodiversity conservation initiatives in agriculture take into account how farmers understand and value their relationships with nature. However, while highly relevant for pan-European conservation work, insight into differences and commonalities in farmers' views across socio-ecologically different European regions is still lacking.

2. Therefore, we studied how farmers describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity in two contrasting regions: the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. In both regions, we included two specific study areas. We focused on dairy farming, as it is a key sector in terms of socio-economic importance and biodiversity impact in both regions.

3. In each area, we conducted 15 in-depth interviews focusing on the impacts of the farm on biodiversity and vice versa, as well as on the relational importance of biodiversity to the farmer. We allowed farmers to use the term 'biodiversity' in their own words. We analysed our data using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I-NFF), a recently proposed framework for analysing what people value positively and negatively about nature-related matters.

4. Six main narratives emerged, which we named 'farming WITH biodiversity', 'farming FROM biodiversity—valorising what is there', 'farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability', 'farming FOR biodiversity', 'farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity' and 'farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction'. These narratives vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions.

5. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences. In the Dutch areas, we frequently encountered 'FOR', which strongly depicts biodiversity as an additional service that requires payment, and 'SEPARATE—out of conviction', which argues for production-intensive systems. In the Massif Central areas, we virtually never encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered 'WITH', which

This is an open access article under the terms of the [Creative Commons Attribution License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© 2025 The Author(s). *People and Nature* published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

<footnote n="1">¹Animal Production Systems Group,
Wageningen University & Research,
Wageningen, The Netherlands</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE,
VetAgro Sup, UMR Herbivores, Saint-
Genès-Chamanelle, France</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³Université Clermont Auvergne,
AgroParisTech, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR
Territoires, Aubière, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴Institute for Science in Society, Faculty of Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands</footnote>
depicts farming as naturally integrated with biodiversity. Moreover, the narratives had strong region-specific details.

6. We close by discussing how better insight into such differences and commonalities can help foster more understanding engagement with farmers on the topic of biodiversity.

### KEYWORDS

biodiversity, disvalues, governance, human-nature relationships, Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I-NFF), narrative analysis, plural valuation, stakeholder inclusion

# 1 | INTRODUCTION

Historically and still today, biodiversity conservation initiatives have often failed to consider the diverse ways in which local stakeholders conceptualise nature and value their relationships with it, leading to conflict and human suffering (Pascual et al., 2021). Recognising this, plural valuation is increasingly acknowledged as an approach towards better inclusion of stakeholder values in biodiversity governance (Lenzi et al., 2023). Plural valuation entails making visible the diverse values (e.g. intrinsic, instrumental and relational; IPBES, 2022) that people hold for nature (Jacobs et al., 2020), both positively and negatively (Lliso et al., 2022).

When assessing stakeholder values in agricultural settings, farmers stand out as a key stakeholder group. They are usually the ones who interact most directly with nature and are most directly impacted by biodiversity initiatives (Hauck et al., 2016). Recently, plural valuation studies have explored how farmers perceive their relationships with nature in various European contexts. For instance, Moroder and Kernecker (2022) studied biodiversity perceptions among livestock farmers in the Italian Alps. They reported that these farmers associate biodiversity with 'negative instrumental' and 'positive relational' values and have mixed views on the impacts of farming on biodiversity. Schmitt et al. (2022) studied the values that citizens, including farmers, place on grassland in Bavaria, Germany. They highlighted, among other things, the importance of relational values for some farmers' management decisions. Chapman and Deplazes-Zemp (2023) studied the values that play a role in specific human-nature relationships of livestock farmers in the Swiss Alps, showing how relational values there integrate components of intrinsic as well as instrumental valuing.

However, these studies generally focused on single areas or, at most, multiple areas within rather similar socio-ecological contexts (e.g. in terms of environmental conditions, agricultural practices and wider cultural and economic characteristics). Yet across Europe there are substantial regional differences in this regard (e.g. Slee & Pinto-Correia, 2015), and this may influence farmers' perspectives regarding biodiversity (e.g. Herzon & Mikk, 2007; Rois-Díaz et al., 2018). Gaining better insight into commonalities and differences in how farmers across diverse socio-ecological contexts in Europe value their relationships with nature is of great relevance for biodiversity governance at pan-European scales, including European

Union-level policy; it can inform where context-specific strategies are needed and where more generic strategies might suffice. To contribute to this insight, we conducted a qualitative interpretative study among dairy cattle farmers in four different areas in two contrasting European contexts: the Netherlands and the Massif Central in France. Our research question was: *how do dairy farmers in these areas describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity and, specifically, what commonalities and differences exist?*

The paper is organised as follows. In Section 2 we introduce the conceptual framework we used to analyse our data and present our findings: the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I-NFF; Oostvogels et al., 2024). In Section 3 we outline our research design, in which we explain, among other things, our focus on dairy farming. In Section 4 we present our results in the form of six narratives, detailing commonalities and differences across the different areas. In Section 5 we discuss our findings and their relevance for biodiversity governance.

# 2 | THE INTEGRATED NATURE FUTURES FRAMEWORK (I-NFF)

We developed the I-NFF to address a lack of accessible frameworks to reveal what people value positively as well as negatively about nature-related matters (e.g. certain aspects of nature itself, certain interactions with nature or certain ways of governing nature) (Oostvogels et al., 2024). It builds on and further develops a recent proposal (Lliso et al., 2022) to also consider 'disvalues' in plural valuation and draws on the Nature Futures Framework (NFF; Pereira et al., 2020) to convey information in a more accessible manner, hence its name. The I-NFF incorporates three perspectives through which nature-related matters can be viewed: a 'nature', 'society' and 'culture' perspective. The 'nature' perspective starts from the principle that nature has intrinsic value and, with that in mind, focuses on how things (e.g. specific aspects of, interactions with or ways of governing nature, as described above) impact nature. The 'society' perspective centres on the instrumental value things have for humans. The 'culture' perspective centres on the relational value things have for humans. All three perspectives can be involved simultaneously. Based on each perspective, something can be valued positively ('for nature', 'for society' and 'as culture') and/or negatively ('against
nature', 'against society' and 'in conflict with culture'; Figure 1a). The whole takes the shape of two mirrored triangles with axes from the centre to the corners (Figure 1b). The top triangle illustrates the degree to which something is described as 'for nature', 'for society' and 'as culture', the bottom triangle the degree to which it is described as 'against nature', 'against society' and 'in conflict with culture'.

In this paper, we apply the I-NFF to analyse what farmers characterise as positive and negative about the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity. Fundamentally, this is about how they view and present their own way of working and, by extension, the farming-biodiversity relationship more broadly. To clarify our interpretation in this context, we see the 'nature' perspective as encompassing all discussions about the impact of agriculture on biodiversity, unless that impact is only discussed because of subsequent instrumental impacts on humans. In this paper, under the 'nature' perspective, we thus do not limit ourselves strictly—unlike in our earlier paper (Oostvogels et al., 2024)—to statements unequivocally grounded in the idea that nature has intrinsic value. We see the 'society' perspective as encompassing all discussions about the instrumental impacts of biodiversity or its conservation on farmer incomes and food production, including discussions about financing biodiversity-friendly agriculture. We see the 'culture' perspective as encompassing all discussions about more-than-instrumental relationships farmers have with biodiversity, or with other people through biodiversity (mediated relational value; Chan et al., 2016). The 'culture' perspective thus touches on themes such as culturally important species (Garibaldi & Turner, 2004), norms for 'good farming' (Burton, 2004) and the farmer-society relationship.

## 3 | RESEARCH DESIGN

We applied an interpretative methodology. Interpretative research focuses on how specific people in specific settings make sense of the world they live in, recognising that such meaning is shaped by context and social interaction (Yanow & Schwartz-Shea, 2015); in our case, the focus was on how dairy farmers in the Netherlands and the Massif Central make sense of the relationship between farming and biodiversity. In this section, we explain our focus on dairy farming in these regions and outline our approach for selecting specific case study areas, data collection and data analysis.

### 3.1 | Case study locations

#### 3.1.1 | Dairy farming in the Netherlands and the Massif Central

We chose to focus on the Netherlands and the Massif Central because, within the (Western) European realm, they represent very different contexts in terms of agriculture-biodiversity dynamics. The Netherlands exemplifies the Atlantic lowlands, where agricultural intensification began earliest and has advanced the most, putting significant pressure on biodiversity (Luick & Bignal, 2002). In contrast, the Massif Central exemplifies the mid-altitude uplands of continental Europe, where intensification is present but has generally been less pronounced, and where biodiversity is also threatened by agricultural abandonment (André, 1998; Luick & Bignal, 2002).

The Integrated Nature Futures Framework

(a)

**'for nature'**
something is considered intrinsically valuable nature, or ascribed positive value for benefitting nature deemed intrinsically valuable

**'for society'**
something is ascribed positive instrumental value (to human ends)

**'as culture'**
something is ascribed positive relational value

(b)

**'against nature'**
something is ascribed negative value for harming nature deemed intrinsically valuable

**'against society'**
something is ascribed negative instrumental value (to human ends)

**'in conflict with culture'**
something is ascribed negative relational value

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 1 The Integrated Nature Futures Framework. (a) Categories. (b) Representation, with an example on the right how it can be used to depict different ways of valuing something (e.g. the farming-biodiversity relationship). Adapted from Oostvogels et al. (2024).</figcaption></figure>
In both regions, dairy farming has a long tradition (Bieleman, 2008; Brunschwig et al., 2020), is of great sociocultural and economic importance, and, as a main land user, significantly influences local biodiversity (OECD, 2015; SIDAM, 2023). Therefore, we chose to zoom in on dairy farming.

Given this focus on dairy farming, it is useful to briefly consider how this sector relates to others. In Europe, dairy farming is often relatively land-based (Filleux, 2023), which means that, in principle, there is substantial scope for on-farm biodiversity conservation, unlike in landless systems (e.g. substrate-based horticulture). Moreover, grassland generally makes up a substantial share of the land use (Filleux, 2023). As a result, the forms of on-farm biodiversity and applicable conservation measures partly differ from those in specialised arable farming. Moreover, depending on how it is managed, permanent grassland can have higher biodiversity value than cropland (Schils et al., 2022).

Dairy farming in the Netherlands and the Massif Central differ considerably in socio-ecological terms. In the Netherlands, dairy farming, although highly diverse, is generally characterised by high production levels and an orientation towards relatively undifferentiated foreign markets (OECD, 2015). The sector is praised for its innovation and economic contributions, but also faces persistent sustainability issues, with a long history of exceeding environmental ceilings and subsequent government intervention (Klootwijk et al., 2016; Vellinga et al., 2011). Moreover, it increasingly receives societal criticism for causing landscape simplification (e.g. de Boer, 2017). In recent years, the Dutch government advocated a transition towards 'nature-inclusive' and 'circular' agriculture, but while many farmers participate in agri-environment management and various supply chain initiatives exist, a sector-wide transition has yet to gain traction (Vermunt et al., 2022). Since 2019, a heated political debate over reducing livestock nitrogen emissions has been ongoing, repeatedly triggering fierce farmers' protests (Siegmann, 2024). As of publication, policy directions remain highly uncertain.

In contrast, dairy farming in the Massif Central is strongly centred on Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) cheeses (INOSYS, 2016), emphasising value addition more than in the Netherlands. PDO production is tied to sometimes strict standards that vary from one PDO to another. Several PDOs place strong emphasis on the influence of grassland botanical composition on cheese quality (Martin et al., 2005); the Massif Central, known as 'the largest grassland in Western Europe', holds a wealth of semi-natural grassland types (Galliot et al., 2020). Although also a source of certain disservices, Massif Central's highly diverse livestock farming—including not only dairy cattle, but also significant beef, sheep, goat and horse sectors—is celebrated by many for preserving cultural heritage and delivering environmental benefits (Vollet et al., 2017). At the same time, it is under pressure from low profitability, an aging farmer population with a lack of successors and climate change (SIDAM, 2023). As elsewhere in France, farmer protests reached a peak in 2024, demanding better incomes and reduced regulatory pressure (Legris & Lhonneur, 2024).

## 3.1.2 | The four case study areas

Because our place-based approach required a focus on specific areas, we zoomed in on the Westerkwartier (Wk) and the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden (AV) in the Netherlands, and the PDO area of the Fourme de Montbrison cheese (FM) and an area we call the 'wider Massif Central' (wMC) in the Massif Central (Figure 2). (Throughout this paper, we use 'region' to refer to the Netherlands and the Massif Central and 'area' for the specific areas within them.)

The Westerkwartier consists of an open marine clay landscape in the north and a bocage landscape on sandy and loam soils in the south (Raap et al., 2022). The Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden is a peatland area in a peri-urban setting (Raap et al., 2022), known for its particularly long tradition of farmer-led conservation and high participation in agri-environment schemes (e.g. Horlings, 1996; van Dijk, 2019). Reformed Protestantism plays a relatively large role in social life in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden (Schmeets, 2016). Both areas lie in parts of the Netherlands where dairy farming is relatively low-intensity by Dutch standards; the Westerkwartier in a part with relatively large farms, the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden in one with relatively small ones (Silvis & Voskuilen, 2020). The north of the Netherlands, where the Westerkwartier is located, is regarded by some as an area where there is still 'space to farm'; this attracts dairy farmers from other parts of the country (e.g. Beekman, 2023).

The Fourme de Montbrison area lies in the Monts du Forez, a granite mountain range rising from about 600 to 1634 m. The area largely consists of extensive forests interspersed with farmland (DREAL Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2015). The wider Massif Central is an area we delineated ourselves. For another study (Allart et al., 2024), we selected farms across a broad range of latitudes and elevations; this is the area we refer to as the 'wider Massif Central'. The parts of the wider Massif Central where we interviewed farmers range between 600 and 1200 m and mainly consist of, compared to the Fourme de Montbrison area, more open landscapes, with considerable variation in composition and character (DREAL Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2015). The Fourme de Montbrison area lies in a part of the Massif Central where dairy farming is somewhat more extensive by Massif Central standards; the wider Massif Central includes both more intensive and more extensive zones (Brunschwig et al., 2004; INOSYS, 2016). In the Fourme de Montbrison area, maintaining agricultural activity—and, more broadly, population and public services—continues to require significant effort (DREAL Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes, 2015; Hilal et al., 2011). The same holds for parts of the wider Massif Central, though other parts show notable socio-economic dynamism (Brunschwig et al., 2020; Hilal et al., 2011). See Data S1 for a more detailed description of the four areas.

## 3.2 | Data collection

To recruit farmers, we collaborated with organisations and projects with established local networks. In the Dutch areas, we worked with local agri-environment collectives (Alblas & van Zeben, 2023);
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 2 Case study areas and farm locations. The Westerkwartier (Wk) and the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden (AV) in the Netherlands, the Fourme de Montbrison area (FM) and the 'wider Massif Central' (wMC) in the Massif Central, France. Farm locations (black markers) are approximate to ensure confidentiality. Excerpts created from Copernicus Land Monitoring Service information; https://doi.org/10.2909/960998c1-1870-4e82-8051-6485205ebbac.</figcaption></figure>

in the Fourme de Montbrison area with a research action programme aimed at developing a common vision for the PDO (Dernat et al., 2022; Etienne et al., 2024) and in the wider Massif Central with a grassland sampling project (Galliot et al., 2019). To ensure diverse perspectives, we selected farmers as different from one another as possible while still representing broader groups of farmers in the area (Silverman, 2019). To this end, we took into account farm type (e.g. size, intensity, practices) and engagement in

biodiversity initiatives, as literature indicates these aspects may influence views on biodiversity (e.g. Schmitzberger et al., 2005). This approach yielded reasonably diverse groups by these criteria (see Data S2 for farm and farmer characteristics). However, since gender was not one of our selection criteria and most farm managers in European agriculture are men (Eurostat, 2022), only one woman made it into the sample. We conducted the interviews from spring 2021 to summer 2022. Three of us were involved in the
process to ensure that, in each area, the interviewer was a native speaker with knowledge of the area; we continuously coordinated to ensure consistency in procedure. The interviews, which we conducted face-to-face on the farmers' farms, were semi-structured. They started with technical questions about the farm, then moved on to questions about both positive and negative interactions with biodiversity and concluded with questions about the future of biodiversity and dairy farming. Throughout, we allowed farmers to use the term 'biodiversity' in their own words. In both Dutch areas, the interviews lasted between 1.5 and 2h; in both French areas, about 3h, as the interviews also included questions about PDO collective dynamics (Fourme de Montbrison area) or climate change adaptation (wider Massif Central). We audio-recorded the interviews and transcribed the biodiversity-related parts. At that time, our institution used a checklist for researchers to determine whether an ethics review was necessary, which indicated this was not the case for our study. We followed standard ethical guidelines, including informing farmers in advance about the research objectives, interview details, confidentiality measures and securing their written informed consent.

## 3.3 | Data analysis

We conducted multiple coding rounds, structured around the I-NFF categories while allowing subcategories to emerge from the data itself, using Atlas.ti 23 (ATLAS.ti, 2023). See Data S3 for further details on how we coded statements under the different I-NFF categories. As we coded, we developed increasingly refined interview-by-code tables for overview and comparison, which we consistently reviewed with the core authors. Gradually, within and between interviews, patterns emerged of arguments that farmers had typically used together. From this, we started to discern coherent stories or narratives. To improve accuracy, we continuously cross-checked these narratives against the raw data. Through this process, we ultimately distinguished six narratives that vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, how they perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and how they define problems and solutions in relation to biodiversity. We present these in Section 4. Note that these six narratives are ideal types (Weber, 1978); we deliberately simplified and accentuated certain elements and drew somewhat artificial boundaries for heuristic purposes. In reality, farmers' argumentation lines are more complex and can combine elements from multiple narratives—as was also the case in some of our interviews. In the course of this analysis, we also determined for each narrative the extent to which farmers had characterised the farming-biodiversity relationship as 'for nature', 'for society', etc., and depicted this in the I-NFF triangles. We based this on our shared judgement of which 'scores' best reflected the data, not on any quantitative assessment. Although we conducted the interviews in the national language, the working language during the analysis was English (we switched languages from coding onwards).

Next, to better understand to what extent we had encountered the different narratives in each area, we revisited each interview to determine which narrative(s) it aligned with most. We determined this collectively, by reading and discussing interviews together. We allocated interviews that aligned with multiple narratives to the two most fitting ones, either equally or with a two-thirds to one-third split, to reflect whether they aligned with both to a similar degree or more strongly with one. Given that in qualitative research, counting is sometimes viewed sceptically (Hannah & Lautsch, 2011), it is important to clarify that this step was not aimed at statistical inference (our approach does not allow for that), but rather at providing a more explicit account of what emerged from the interviews. For this purpose, we believe that counting was appropriate here.

# 4 | RESULTS

## 4.1 | The narratives

In this section, we present the six ideal-typical narratives, describing them along the 'nature', 'society' and 'culture' axes (Figure 3). We detail how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions in relation to biodiversity.

Before doing so, however, it is important to note that several viewpoints recur across all six narratives. For example, farmers across narratives indicate that harming biodiversity can sometimes be unavoidable; for example, wildlife may accidentally be killed during mowing ('against nature'). Furthermore, farmers consistently report challenges with certain flora and fauna ('against society'), although the narratives differ on whether such 'weeds' and 'pests' are considered part of 'biodiversity'. Similarly, farmers commonly mention regulatory constraints from working in or near protected areas ('against society'). Farm economic arguments are central to all narratives; in addition, several also elaborate on broader societal issues. In every narrative, farmers talk about connection to place; care for soil, nature and landscape; and the responsibility to pass the farm on in good condition. These are central elements of what it means to be a farmer, they contend ('as culture'). However, what is understood by 'taking good care' varies. Moreover, across all narratives, farmers talk about certain species having special meaning to them. For example, how seeing the first barn swallows (*Hirundo rustica*) each year is a cherished sign of spring ('as culture'). Finally, in all narratives, 'biodiversity' is explicitly also a political issue, with increasing polarisation, and farmers indicate they struggle with this situation ('in conflict with culture').

### 4.1.1 | Narrative 1: 'Farming WITH biodiversity'

In this narrative, farmers portray their way of working as harmlessly integrated with biodiversity. They state that biodiversity is the functional foundation of their production system, that their
<table><thead><tr><th>Narrative</th><th>Biodiversity focus</th><th>Graphical representation</th><th>Summary</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>'farming WITH biodiversity'</td><td>very broad: farmland nature, functional agro(bio)diversity, nature outside farmland, plus a rich variety of more cultural aspects</td><td>'f.n.'</td><td>Farmers portray their way of working as harmoniously integrated with biodiversity. They state that biodiversity is the functional foundation of their production system, that their approach naturally preserves biodiversity, and that biodiversity is of profound personal importance to them.</td></tr><tr><td>'farming FROM biodiversity - valorising what is there'</td><td>mainly more established forms of functional agro(bio)diversity</td><td>'a.c.'</td><td rowspan="2">Farmers present themselves as independent producers who skilfully utilise the biodiversity in their environment to secure a good income. They claim that their way of working 'automatically' leaves room for biodiversity, but frame this a nice bonus rather than a main goal.</td></tr><tr><td>'farming FROM biodiversity - innovating for sustainability'</td><td>mainly 'novel' forms of functional agro(bio)diversity</td><td>'i.c.w.c.'</td></tr><tr><td>'farming FOR biodiversity'</td><td>mainly farmland nature</td><td>'f.s.'</td><td rowspan="2">Farmers portray themselves as pioneers engaging in highly innovative ways of employing biodiversity. They frame biodiversity as a means to 'produce more with less', thereby enhancing farm profitability and contributing to sustainable food provision.</td></tr><tr><td>'farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of necessity'</td><td>mainly farmland nature, occasionally other predominantly culturally valued aspects (e.g. local breeds)</td><td>'a.s.'</td></tr><tr><td>'farming SEPARATE from biodiversity - out of conviction'</td><td>varied: farmland nature, functional agrobiodiversity, nature outside farmland</td><td>'a.n.'</td><td>Farmers portray themselves as actively working for biodiversity, and explicitly frame that as providing a public service. They strongly emphasise that biodiversity conservation is costly for farmers and argue that the rest of society should financially support farmers in this.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Farmers describe themselves as being trapped in a system that, much to their regret, makes it impossible to take biodiversity into account. According to them, farmers are in a severe financial squeeze, incurring both ecological and human costs.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>Farmers indicate that they deliberately choose not to promote biodiversity on their land. They argue that promoting biodiversity would compromise agricultural production too much, which would be undesirable for farm economic, societal, and environmental reasons.</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

FIGURE 3 The six narratives. The graphical representation and summary reflect how farmers describe their own farm. a.c., as culture; a.n., against nature; a.s., against society; f.n., for nature; f.s., for society; i.c.w.c., in conflict with culture. For further explanation and illustrative quotes, see the main text of Section 4.1.
approach naturally preserves biodiversity and that biodiversity is of profound personal importance to them.

Looking at agriculture as a whole, they express serious concern about its contribution to biodiversity loss. They see this as part of a larger failure of the food system and point to 'industrialisation' of agriculture as a key culprit. They argue that solutions lie in bottom-up initiatives where farmers and others from the local community join forces, for example, in setting up biodiversity-friendly business models. This seems more viable to them than expanding top-down sustainability payments.

In all this, they interpret 'biodiversity' rather broadly. For them, it encompasses wild as well as domesticated or cultivated nature (e.g. crops and livestock), and biological diversity as well as diversity more broadly (e.g. diversity in farm activities, food traditions and forms of knowledge). The boundary between conventional understandings of 'biodiversity' and 'cultural heritage' is blurred:

> My brother-in-law has a farmhouse that's still in its original state. It still has Monk and Nun tiles. It's something beautiful. It's part of biodiversity ....

(FM11)

In this narrative, farmers assert that biodiversity in the form of soil life, permanent grassland with autochthonous plant varieties, local livestock breeds, landscape elements, grazing, etc. helps them to maintain a low dependence on external inputs (e.g. material resources and capital) and to ensure resilience (to e.g. weather extremes, pests and price fluctuations) ('for society'). They indicate that their way of working may result in lower yields compared to other farms, but they do not see this as a problem. According to them, it can still provide a good income—perhaps even more so. The low dependence on external inputs means cost savings, and the approach aligns well with creating added value (organic, sustainability or quality labels, direct sales, etc.), they argue. They consider criticism that the lower production is problematic from a land-use efficiency perspective unjustified. They claim that when more factors are considered (e.g. indirect land use, nutritional quality of the food produced and long-term impacts on soil fertility), their approach outperforms farms with higher yields.

In terms of instrumental benefits related to biodiversity, farmers also talk about paid conservation schemes. They indicate that where the prescribed practices align with their production system, they participate. However, they assert that they do not want their business model to rely on such schemes, as they consider them too unreliable.

Regarding impacts on biodiversity, farmers claim that their production system is beneficial ('for nature') in the sense that it preserves farmland species and cultural heritage and has limited negative impact elsewhere due to the low use of external resources. These benefits, they emphasise, are inherent to their way of farming, not an additional effort. At the same time, they also seriously reflect on potential negative impacts of their activities ('against nature').

In general, farmers describe their approach as a 'partnership' with nature; allowing the land to flourish rather than seeking control

(as culture'). For them, working with biodiversity means integrating the production system locally, considering not only pedoclimatic but also cultural conditions. One farmer explained:

> In our profession, biodiversity is strongly related to soil. ... We follow a philosophy of respecting the soil, not exploiting it, but cultivating it. ... It's a heritage entrusted to us, one that we must pass on to the next generation in the best condition possible. After all, the added value we bring to the territory (by producing a local cheese) starts there.

(wMC12)

Additionally, farmers indicate that they find it important to share what they do and derive satisfaction from welcoming visitors to the farm. Resisting intensification and scale enlargement is a source of pride for them.

However, in this narrative, farmers do not see 'biodiversity' as purely positive. This is largely due to biodiversity-related policies, both public and private. Farmers contend that many of these policies, ironically, prove particularly detrimental to more ecologically conscious farms ('against society'). For example, environmental legislation demanding large investments would disadvantage farms that rely on a low-cost model; 'overly strict' protection of large carnivores would strain farms practising grazing; and sustainability programmes assessing environmental impact per unit product (rather than per hectare) would penalise farms with extensive production systems.

### 4.1.2 | Narrative 2: 'Farming FROM biodiversity— valorising what is there'

In this narrative, farmers present themselves as independent producers who skilfully utilise the biodiversity in their environment to secure a good income. In doing so, they interpret 'biodiversity' broadly, including domesticated nature and broader forms of diversity, but with a strong focus on aspects they consider agronomically useful. For them, biodiversity primarily pertains to endogenous resources such as old grassland. They elaborate relatively little on broader societal issues, preferring instead to delve into the technical details of farm management. As such, they mainly discuss functional roles of biodiversity ('for society', Figure 3). For instance, they argue that higher plant species richness makes grassland more resilient to disturbances and that having different grassland types provides flexibility in management. They also place much emphasis on how aspects such as healthy soil, grass-based production and robust cows would help reduce costs—frugality is a key principle. One farmer explained:

> We opt for 100% permanent grassland. This way, we don't have to pay each time for diesel to work the soil, for seeds, and so on.

(wMC8)
Regarding benefits related to biodiversity, farmers also mention that paid biodiversity schemes can provide additional income and that conservation grazing in nature reserves can provide relatively cheap access to land.

In terms of biodiversity impact, they claim that their more extensive way of working 'automatically' leaves room for farmland species, as a kind of by-product ('for nature'). They see this as a 'nice bonus', but not much more. For them, preserving biodiversity for its own sake is not a major factor in decision making:

> I take it into account somewhat, but not excessively. It's not something that overly concerns me.

(wMC7)

Relationally, farmers link 'producing from biodiversity' to independence, to generating a good income with little reliance on others. Such independence demonstrates craftsmanship and is something to be proud of, they argue. It is part of their identity ('as culture'). One farmer explained:

> When you farm in a more natural way, you're less dependent on the big companies. ... Many farmers milk more cows for the bank and feed company than for themselves. I wouldn't want that.

(Wk10)

Conversely, 'biodiversity' has a negative connotation, for example, when farmers associate it with policies that conflict with notions of good care for the land ('in conflict with culture'). A typical example (in the Dutch areas) is the requirement to inject slurry into the soil:

> Just look at the damage you are causing by cutting all those slits! The manure should be on top of the grass. You should leave the soil untouched. ... You have to pretend you don't see it, because it feels completely wrong.

(Wk5)

### 4.1.3 | Narrative 3: 'Farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability'

In this narrative, farmers portray themselves as pioneers engaging in highly innovative ways of employing biodiversity. 'Biodiversity' here mainly refers to 'novel' crops and practices. Examples include complex grass-herb-legume mixtures, certain forms of intercropping and agroforestry (e.g. with different species or better adapted to modern machinery), and soil management techniques like reduced tillage and the use of bokashi. They argue that such biodiversity can help to 'produce more with less': to achieve higher yields while reducing resource use and environmental costs. According to them, this is essential to feed the growing world population; current agricultural techniques would be insufficiently productive and too environmentally damaging. No less important, farmers

indicate having financial reasons to experiment with biodiversity. Employing biodiversity in the way they do requires significant investments (e.g. genetics, machinery and expertise), but, according to them, these are profitable through savings in other areas (e.g. fertilisers and irrigation) and yield increases. They strongly associate biodiversity with performance gains ('for society'):

> We use those mixtures to boost yield. In well-designed mixtures, the different species support each other, leading to markedly higher yields.

(Wk2)

Moreover, with further agronomic and technological advances, they expect these performance gains to increase further. For instance, one farmer noted:

> Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) grows generally quite flat, but from New Zealand we're already seeing cultivars that grow upright (allowing easier harvesting) ... with higher yields. Fantastic!

(AV8)

When discussing the environmental impact of agriculture, farmers also use the term 'biodiversity' to refer to wild nature and are predominantly positive about their own impact in this regard (strongly 'for nature', Figure 3). They argue that the new techniques they employ help reduce the environmental footprint of food production, thus alleviating pressure on natural ecosystems. Furthermore, they claim that these also benefit certain farmland species directly. For example, incorporating legumes and herbs into grassland mixtures would increase nectar supply for pollinators.

In a relational sense, too, 'biodiversity' has a mostly positive connotation ('as culture'). 'Employing biodiversity' stands for progress, for responding to today's global challenges. On a more personal level, farmers also say they enjoy diving into new techniques to find that an exciting challenge. According to them, it is fulfilling to be a frontrunner and one should not fear doing things differently:

> Trees protect crops during drought. So, I'm a bit unconventional: I'm planting trees in the middle of fields. ... My friends prefer open, treeless plots for efficiency. They say I'm crazy. But this isn't a step back. I'm spacing them 26 meters apart: they won't interfere with my machines.

(wMC15)

### 4.1.4 | Narrative 4: 'Farming FOR biodiversity'

In this narrative, farmers portray themselves as actively working for biodiversity and explicitly frame that as providing a public service. They strongly emphasise that biodiversity conservation is costly for farmers and argue that, because it concerns a public service, the
rest of society should financially support farmers in this. According to them, the question of how to preserve biodiversity is primarily a question of how to establish a sufficiently funded, long-term, reliable payment system. To achieve this, ‘stacking’ of payments from public and private sources is essential, they believe. ‘Biodiversity’ in this context denotes almost exclusively what could be called ‘farm-land nature’: specific farmland species, agricultural landscape types, etc., considered of cultural and/or ecological value. Farmers present such biodiversity very much as an end in itself: they talk a lot about taking measures specifically to benefit biodiversity, such as inundating fields to benefit certain grassland birds. In doing so, they frame farming and biodiversity conservation largely as separate activities. For example, they talk about having traded agricultural production for the ‘production’ of biodiversity:

In addition to the heifers, we also rear godwits (Limosa limosa). ... We inundate 3 hectares, take it away from heifer rearing. There we rear godwits.

(Wk13)

Farmers are very positive about the biodiversity impact of their farm (more ‘for nature’ than ‘against nature’, Figure 3), but emphasise that this comes at a high cost in terms of agricultural income (high ‘against society’, Figure 3). They indicate that, in return, they are paid for their conservation efforts (‘for society’). They argue that these payments should at the very least cover the agricultural income they lose. For example, one farmer explained:

This costs me 2,000 litres per cow: a lot of money. ...
So it's only fair that we are paid. And it's not a subsidy!
It's a renumeration of a service we provide.

(AV12)

Farmers hardly associate biodiversity with functional contributions to agricultural production.

On a relational level, farmers state that their efforts for biodi-
versity foster connections with other people, both farmers and
nonfarmers (volunteers, conservation staff), which they greatly ap-
preciate ('as culture'). They also point out that they experience great
satisfaction when their efforts yield results. Having many fledglings,
for instance, brings pride much like achieving a high milk yield, they
say. The joy of competition also plays a role in this:

We inundated an additional parcel to attract even
more birds. It has a competitive element for us: out-
doing the neighbours.

(Wk12)

At the same time, in a negative sense ('in conflict with culture'), farmers indicate that conservation projects also cause frustration. For example, they often feel that their expertise is dismissed. They mention, for example, that when they raise alarm about the amount of bird predation they observe, experts ignore this, claiming there is insufficient reliable

evidence. Public discourse is also a source of frustration. According to farmers, the message is constantly that farmer-led conservation yields little biodiversity for the money spent. They find this far too generalis-ing and say it feels like a slap in the face:

> We put in so much effort. And then I read something like that. Then I think: do you ever take the time to see what we do? We do everything we can!

(Wk3)

4.1.5 | Narrative 5: 'Farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity'

In this narrative, farmers describe themselves as being trapped in a system that, much to their regret, makes it impossible to take bio-diversity into account. Here, 'biodiversity' primarily means farm-land nature, but can also include less productive livestock breeds, for example. The core problem, according to them, is that farmers are in a severe financial squeeze. This squeeze would force them towards scale enlargement and intensification. Governments, sup-ply chain parties and consumers all contribute to this situation, they say. They argue that there is little hope for a way out, as it would require highly unlikely societal changes, such as govern-ments restricting cheap food imports and consumers paying more for their groceries. In this narrative, farmers are largely negative about their biodiversity impact (more 'against nature' than 'for na-ture', Figure 3). They state that their practices leave little room for biodiversity:

> I am well aware, when I order the contractor and he mows 15 hectares an hour ... what chance of survival do those birds have?

(Wk8)

They express that this bothers them but that they see no way around it. Taking biodiversity into account would equate to lower yields and higher costs, and the margins would simply be too small for that. They say that prices have been stagnating for years while costs only rise, that available biodiversity payments are insufficient to bridge the gap and, therefore, that they cannot afford to incur costs for biodiver-sity (hence, a low 'against society', Figure 3). For instance, one farmer explained:

> With permanent grassland, you have a wide range of plants ... but I need temporary grassland for the yield. ... If the price of milk would increase, yes ... but today we are in a very difficult position.

(wMC6)

Furthermore, farmers rarely link biodiversity to instrumental bene-
fits and seldom refer to functional agrobiodiversity (low ‘for society’;
Figure 3).
At the relational level ('culture'), the term 'biodiversity' carries a mostly positive meaning. Older farmers, for example, associate certain species (e.g. the skylark, *Alauda arvensis*) with warm memories of the past, when there was more time to breathe. On the other hand, farmers talk about a sense of discomfort in doing things that do not feel right, but seem necessary to 'survive', such as removing landscape elements. Moreover, they strongly feel that 'biodiversity' is a topic where farmers are being let down. Farmers are willing to change, they say. Yet, despite all the talk about sustainability, no one does anything to change the 'race to the bottom' in which they are entangled. They criticise the politicians who, by abolishing the milk quota, would have driven farmers into a 'financial trap' and the advisors who would be talking farmers into taking on large loans. According to them, farmers are not solely to blame for intensification; instead, they are just as much victims of it as biodiversity is:

> We didn't invent glyphosate. We didn't invent those pharmaceuticals. ... Everyone told us: do it this way. Now they say: you've done so much damage. Indeed, we are the ones who ended up using those products. Indeed, we are the ones that get cancer from it. But remember that we are not the ones who invented all this.

(FM12)

### 4.1.6 | Narrative 6: 'Farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction'

In this narrative, farmers indicate that they deliberately choose not to promote biodiversity on their land. 'Biodiversity' here means farmland nature. According to these farmers, promoting biodiversity would compromise agricultural production too much, which would be undesirable for farm economic, societal and environmental reasons. For a wide variety of considerations—to ensure farmers can earn a decent income, maintain an economically strong agri-food sector, avoid reliance on foreign supply, keep food affordable for low-income households, combat global hunger and minimise food production's environmental impact—they argue that large-scale, intensive agriculture is the only realistic solution. For instance, in relation to geopolitical interests, one said:

> Arab Spring: food prices. The Chinese are already in Africa. ... If we want to be self-sufficient in Europe, we need to produce volume.

(Wk4)

Farmers indicate that they focus on maximising output while minimising resource use and environmental impact, and thereby primarily draw on technological innovation. They are very sceptical about functional agrobiodiversity (low 'for society', Figure 3).

Although they acknowledge that there is little room for biodiversity on their land, they are rather positive about their overall biodiversity impact (more 'for nature' than 'against nature', Figure 3). They claim to produce with a relatively low environmental impact (per unit product); this would keep the pressure on 'wider biodiversity'—wild nature elsewhere—relatively low. Moreover, they argue that if they were to reduce production, it would only shift the pressure elsewhere:

> Milking one cow less here only to milk two more in Eastern Europe, harming biodiversity there, is just shifting the problem.

(AV7)

In relational terms, 'biodiversity' has a positive connotation in the sense that farmers still view their profession as 'working with nature' and still cherish certain farmland species ('as culture'). However, the negative connotation ('in conflict with culture') is stronger. Farmers associate 'biodiversity' with extensification, which they consider socially irresponsible. In a world facing hunger, they argue, it is morally imperative to make full use of the land's production potential. For example, one farmer emphasised:

> Bear in mind, it is *food* that is being exported. People there also want a full belly in the evening, just like us.

(Wk13)

On a more personal level, they indicate that the practices promoted by conservation schemes, such as inundating grassland, do not fit with how they identify as farmers. They see themselves as entrepreneurs and food producers, not as 'conservation officers', they say. For instance, one explained:

> That is not where my fulfilment comes from. Getting as much milk as possible from every kilo of grass: this resonates more.

(Wk1)

Finally, on a relational level, there is also a strong sense of not being understood. Farmers complain that society fails to see that their 'rational' approach is exactly what is needed to tackle today's problems and instead 'pushes everyone to go organic'.

### 4.2 | Differences and commonalities across the Dutch and Massif Central areas

Two narratives, 'FOR' and 'SEPARATE—out of conviction', we encountered almost exclusively in the Dutch areas, and there we encountered them quite often (Figure 4). The remaining four narratives we encountered in both the Dutch and Massif Central areas, although in different proportions and with strong region-specific
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>FIGURE 4 Appearance of the six narratives across the four sets of interviews, depicting per interview which narrative(s) it reflects most.</figcaption></figure>

Regarding these differences in proportions, it is particularly notable that we encountered 'WITH' more often in the Massif Central areas than in the Dutch areas (Figure 4).

Regarding these region-specific details, in the Dutch areas, farmers strongly associated biodiversity with grassland birds such as black-tailed godwit, lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) and redshank (Tringa totanus), to which they attributed considerable relational importance ('as culture'). Another topic that frequently emerged in relational terms, albeit negatively ('in conflict with culture'), was the conversion of farmland into nature reserves; farmers expressed sorrow that landscapes that have been farmed for generations are being changed beyond recognition. Moreover, in the Dutch areas farmers often mentioned high land prices and policy uncertainty as barriers to more biodiversity-friendly farming practices (particularly in 'SEPARATE-out of necessity'). In contrast, in the Massif Central areas, many farmers emphasised a connection between

biodiversity and food culture. For example, they linked biodiversity to the expression of *terroir* in cheese quality through aspects such as grassland botanical composition, cow breed and cheese microbiota ('for society' and 'as culture'). Also, many discussed land abandonment and encroachment by scrubs such as broom (*Cytisus* spp.) ('against nature' and 'in conflict with culture') and grassland damage from vole (*Arvicola terrestris*) outbreaks ('against society' and 'in conflict with culture'). Furthermore, in the Massif Central areas, 'WITH' was generally described in a post-productivist way: farmers reflected on a past transition, usually around the 1990s, from more intensive to more extensive farming practices. They said that for a while they had attempted to replicate the 'lowland model', but it proved agronomically and economically unsuitable for their conditions. Additionally, while in the Dutch areas many farmers used the policy term 'nature-inclusive', in the Massif Central areas the focus was on 'agroecology'.
Also, sometimes the same aspect of biodiversity was characterised very differently across the two regions. For instance, woody landscape features (in each region in their own characteristic forms) were in the Massif Central areas often characterised as 'for society' (e.g. for facilitating grass growth during droughts, shading livestock and providing firewood) but in the Dutch areas mainly as 'against society' (e.g. for impeding mechanisation, reducing eligible land for subsidies and manure accounting and competing with grass growth). Likewise, small predators such as foxes (Vulpes vulpes) were in the Massif Central areas mainly characterised as 'for society' (for 'controlling' voles) but in the Dutch areas mainly as 'against culture' (for 'predating' grassland birds and related conflict between farmers and other stakeholders).

Differences between the two areas in each region were less pronounced. Nevertheless, in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden, we encountered 'FOR' somewhat more often than in the Westerkwartier. In the Fourme de Montbrison area, we encountered 'WITH' and 'SEPARATE-out of necessity' more often, and both 'FROM' narratives less often than in the wider Massif Central (Figure 4). Additionally, there were differences in the biodiversity aspects that came up. Whereas in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden farmers talked about marsh marigold (Caltha palustris) and willow pollards (Salix spp.), in the southern part of the Westerkwartier, it was alder tree belts (Alnus glutinosa), for instance. Similarly, whereas in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden the Meuse-Rhine-Issel and Groningen Whiteheaded breeds came up, in the Fourme de Montbrison area it was the Ferrandaise, and in certain parts of the wider Massif Central, the Aubrac. Moreover, in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden, biodiversity was often explicitly linked to Christian stewardship principles ('as culture'), something we hardly encountered in the Westerkwartier. Furthermore, in the Fourme de Montbrison area, farmers placed much greater emphasis on agricultural damage by wild boar (Sus scrofa) and red deer (Cervus elaphus) than in the wider Massif Central ('against society' and 'in conflict with culture').

## 5 | DISCUSSION

In this section, we discuss the content of the six narratives (Section 5.1), differences and commonalities we encountered across the Dutch and Massif Central areas (Section 5.2), the importance of considering negatively valued dimensions and insights for further use of the I-NFF (Section 5.3), and the relevance of our findings for biodiversity governance (Section 5.4).

### 5.1 | Narrative content

#### 5.1.1 | How the narratives relate to each other and to other classifications

To properly situate the narratives, it is valuable to explore how they relate to each other and to other classifications.

To begin with, it is important to note that although the narratives are rooted in dairy farming in the areas studied, we expect that the core understandings of the farming-biodiversity relationship behind them can be found more widely across land-based farming systems. Despite variation in the exact interactions with nature, such systems are, in broad terms, shaped by similar dependencies on nature, farmer-nature interactions, management considerations and particularly in the case of family farms-social and cultural dimensions. This is less likely to hold for landless systems, where narratives of the 'WITH', 'FROM-valorising what is there' or 'FOR' type are difficult to imagine.

It is also worth clarifying that although the names resemble the life frames 'living from/in/with/as nature' (O'Connor & Kenter, 2019), also referenced in IPBES' Values Assessment (IPBES, 2022), this was not intentional. We chose names we felt best reflected the language used by the farmers, and only later realised the overlap. Moreover, the alignment is not perfect. For example, 'WITH' corresponds more closely to 'living in nature' and perhaps even to 'living as nature' than to 'living with nature'.

Other 'lenses' are likely more helpful in understanding how the narratives relate to each other. One is the spectrum from segmented to holistic discourses: from those focusing only on certain dimensions of a debate to those comprehensively integrating multiple (cf. Friant et al., 2020). 'FROM-valorising what is there' is the most segmented narrative: it almost solely considers personal income. Both 'FOR' and 'SEPARATE-out of necessity' additionally consider biodiversity for non-instrumental reasons. 'FROM-innovating for sustainability' further incorporates other environmental sustainability goals and food security. 'WITH' and 'SEPARATE-out of conviction' are the most holistic, addressing the full spectrum of environmental, economic and social sustainability goals.

For narratives that also consider biodiversity for non-instrumental reasons, one can further distinguish between those advocating land sharing and those advocating land sparing (Green et al., 2005). 'WITH' and 'SEPARATE-out of necessity' advocate sharing, although the latter sees few possibilities for it. 'FROM-innovating for sustainability' and 'SEPARATE-out of conviction' advocate sparing, with the distinction that only the former views functional biodiversity as a means to achieve higher yields (ecological intensification; Bommarco et al., 2013). 'FOR' can be part of both sharing and sparing at farm level. The latter underlies the co-occurrence of 'FOR' and 'SEPARATE-out of conviction' we frequently encountered in the Dutch areas. There, farmers clearly differentiated between 'conservation land' and 'production land', speaking about the former in a 'FOR' manner and about the latter in a 'SEPARATE-out of conviction' manner, effectively making 'FOR' and 'SEPARATE out of conviction' two sides of the same coin. (This echoes findings by Cayre et al. (2018), who showed that farmers may approach different aspects of their farm from different worldviews.) While we frequently encountered the co-occurrence of 'FOR' en 'SEPARATE-out of conviction', we never encountered the co-occurrence of 'WITH' and 'SEPARATE-out of conviction'.
of conviction'; these are clearly counter-narratives (cf. Louder & Wyborn, 2020) that advocate opposing directions and criticise each other. There was one farmer (Wk3) who combined 'WITH' and 'SEPARATE'-out of necessity': a farmer who described his way of farming as strongly aligned with nature, but also said that he wants to go much further, yet is unable to do so.

Furthermore, it is relevant to compare our findings with those of Westerink et al. (2024), given that they also focused on dairy farmers in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden. They identified four farming styles related to the use of species-rich grassland. Their 'farming and nature integrated' is largely consistent with our 'WITH'; their 'low cost' with our 'FROM-valorising what is there'; and their 'farming and nature combined', as well as some elements of their 'high production', with our 'FOR'. Westerink et al. (2024) did not report farming styles that closely resemble our 'SEPARATE' narratives, possibly because they focused on farmers incorporating species-rich grassland into their production system. For the other areas, we are not aware of recent studies for direct comparison.

## 5.1.2 | Biodiversity conceptualisations

Allowing farmers to use the word 'biodiversity' in their own way and considering this in the analysis has yielded relevant insights on two fronts. First, it shows how different farmers' narratives about biodiversity can pertain to different interpretations of the concept. While there has been research into how farmers define biodiversity (e.g. Kelemen et al., 2013), the connection between this and their broader narratives about the farming-biodiversity relationship is less explored. Meanwhile, research on farmers' narratives—and related concepts, such as farming styles and worldviews—has mainly focused on specific, predefined biodiversity aspects (e.g. species-rich grassland in Westerink et al., 2024). Second, it shows the extent to which societal use of the word biodiversity can stretch beyond formal definitions (e.g. that of CBD, 1992). In this regard, our findings align with previous studies (e.g. Bardsley et al., 2019), where farmers' definitions of biodiversity included highly anthropogenic elements. A broad interpretation of biodiversity was most evident in 'WITH'. Its conceptualisation of biodiversity echoes what the literature describes as 'biocultural diversity' (Maffi, 2001) and, particularly for the Massif Central areas, 'food cultural biodiversity' (Mariani et al., 2021). The biodiversity focus of the other narratives also aligns with concepts in the literature. In the 'FROM' narratives, there is a strong focus on 'planned biodiversity' (Matson et al., 1997) and 'functional agrobiodiversity' (Bianchi et al., 2013), and in 'FOR', on 'farmland biodiversity' (Benton et al., 2003).

## 5.2 | Differences and commonalities across the Dutch and Massif Central areas

Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences.

For example, in the Dutch areas, we commonly encountered 'FOR' and 'SEPARATE'-out of conviction', whereas in the Massif Central areas, we hardly ever did. Instead, there we encountered 'WITH' more often. Additionally, the narratives had strong region-specific details (Section 4.2).

The fact that in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, despite substantial regional differences in socio-ecological context, we still encountered overall similar lines of reasoning may stem from shared underlying worldviews and similarities in challenges faced, which are also present.

The differences in terms of which narratives we encountered more often, make sense. In the Netherlands, where agricultural practice is more intensive, it is more logical to talk about the conservation of farmland nature as an additional service ('FOR') and/or to defend more intensive systems ('SEPARATE'-out of conviction'). In the Massif Central, where dairy farming often revolves around PDO production and the story behind the product is generally more important than in the Netherlands, 'WITH' is more obvious.

In terms of region-specific detailing of narratives, it stood out that certain biodiversity aspects (e.g. woody landscape features and small predators) were characterised very differently in the Dutch areas than in the Massif Central areas. This parallels the observation by Rasmussen et al. (2017) that specific biodiversity aspects may be perceived as providing particular services and/or disservices in one context and different ones in another.

The differences between the two areas within each region can also generally be well explained. For example, the fact that we encountered 'FOR' noticeably more often in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden than in the Westerkwartier makes sense given the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden's particularly long history (Horlings, 1996) of payment-based conservation initiatives. (It should be noted, however, that discussions about farmer-led conservation emerged relatively early in the Westerkwartier as well (de Bruin & van der Ploeg, 1991). Notably, de Bruin and van der Ploeg already reported the presence of a particular farming style—the 'business-oriented' dairy farmer—that, much like 'SEPARATE'-out of conviction', strongly rejected the idea of integrating farming and nature conservation.) Similarly, the fact that we encountered 'FROM-valorising what is there' markedly more often in the wider Massif Central than in the Fourme de Montbrison area may be due to the project through which we engaged farmers; it strongly focuses on instrumental value of semi-natural grasslands (Galliot et al., 2019).

Area-specific detailing of narratives generally traces back well too. For example, it is not surprising that in the Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden, where Reformed Protestantism plays a relatively large role in social life, farmers often linked biodiversity to Christian stewardship principles; and in the Fourme de Montbrison area, which is heavily forested, to wild boar and red deer.

## 5.3 | Lessons from applying the I-NFF

This study, the first extensive empirical application of the I-NFF (Oostvogels et al., 2024), underscores the importance of also
capturing negative values. Had we focused solely on positive values, we would have obtained a less complete understanding of the narratives. For example, we would have missed governance-relevant aspects such as the concerns about contra-effectiveness of certain biodiversity policies in 'WITH' and the frustration with conservation schemes in 'FOR'. Moreover, we might have overlooked some narratives entirely; for example, most of the defining elements of 'SEPARATE'-out of necessity' are in the negative characterisations. This is an important message since plural valuation studies rarely consider negative values (Lliso et al., 2022; Luque-Lora, 2024). Similarly, the ability of I-NFF to map not only value to humans ('society' and 'culture') but also impacts on nature ('nature'), unlike, for example, the ecosystem disservices concept (Zhang et al., 2007) and the disvalues typology by Lliso et al. (2022), has proven beneficial. For example, it allowed us to highlight a key component distinguishing 'SEPARATE'-out of necessity' from 'SEPARATE'-out of conviction', namely the distinctly different way in which farmers explain their own impact on biodiversity.

This study also shows that drawing I-NFF 'axis scores' alone is insufficient to meaningfully portray narratives. Axis scores alone do not convey arguments and storylines. Similar scores, therefore, may reflect very different things. For instance, the high 'for society' score in 'WITH' (Figure 3) largely pertains to ecological processes, whereas in 'FOR' it pertains to payments. It is therefore essential to clarify what the scores represent. In this context, it is worth noting that drawing these axis scores-beyond being a means to visualise results-may also serve to support the analytical process. Reflecting on which scores to assign was, at least for us, a helpful way to further clarify patterns in the data.

Overall, this study shows that the I-NFF is an effective framework for analysing how people describe their relationships with nature and can be applied across diverse socio-ecological contexts. Other researchers wishing to apply the I-NFF can follow the approach we have outlined in this paper (see also Data S3). This would be valuable not least because having a set of studies using the I-NFF in a similar way could provide insight into its suitability as a shared framework for linking findings across empirical work. At the same time, we equally welcome other uses-we intend the I-NFF to be a flexible framework.

## 5.4 | Relevance for biodiversity governance

Insight into regional differences in the narratives that circulate among farmers, as provided in this study, is in our view of clear value for improving support for more biodiversity-friendly ways of farming and for fostering more understanding engagement with farmers.

In terms of improving support, our study points in the same direction as previous ones (e.g. van der Ploeg & Ventura, 2014; Westerink et al., 2024): different farmers have different needs, and thus a combination of measures, from different actors, is needed. For example, 'WITH' sees potential in local, community-based business models. Such initiatives might benefit from exempting small-scale production from regulation aimed at more conventional production. 'FROM-innovating

for sustainability' places importance on learning about novel production practices. This could be supported through the facilitation of study groups and joint experimentation, for example, by knowledge institutions. 'FOR' advocates for adequate, long-term, reliable payments. To contribute to this, governments could offer longer-term agri-environment contracts (as currently under consideration in the Netherlands; Ministerie van LVVN, 2024) and encourage supply chain actors to increase sustainability premiums. Importantly, the exact combination of measures needed will, to some extent, differ across regions. For example, the fact that we frequently encountered 'FOR' in the Dutch areas but not in the Massif Central areas suggests that Dutch farmers see a greater need for direct biodiversity payments. Therefore, in the Netherlands, relatively more emphasis on such payments may be appropriate. Different measures are also needed because challenges vary; addressing the high land prices highlighted by the Dutch farmers requires different solutions than the loss of agricultural activity highlighted by the Massif Central farmers.

In direct collaborations with farmers, insight into the narratives at play can help better understand what matters to them and provide a basis for open, respectful and empathetic dialogue. In doing so, it can also help anticipate what kind of arguments may arise. In the Netherlands, where a segment of farmers appears to identify with maximising food production ('SEPARATE-out of conviction'), different arguments are likely to enter the arena than in the Massif Central, where a substantial part of farmers appears to reject volume-oriented models ('WITH'). In addition, where tensions among farmers risk being magnified, insight into the narratives at play can help identify common ground to focus on. The narratives we identified converge around certain relational values, such as farmers' connectedness to their land; these may offer a constructive entry point in such cases. This is relevant also because current biodiversity governance in agroecosystems is argued to primarily reflect either intrinsic or instrumental values (Allen et al., 2018), and aligns with calls for greater consideration of relational values in European nature policy (Mattijssen et al., 2020).

Overall, our study especially highlights the importance of listening. Some farmers we interviewed shared positive experiences with conservation professionals who, they felt, genuinely listened to them-and told us how much they appreciated that. However, many expressed feeling unheard. They noted that their concerns about negative impacts of conservation activities are dismissed, their knowledge of nature is overlooked or their struggles with policies that hinder more biodiversity-friendly ways of farming are ignored. This cannot be disregarded. Regardless of the narratives at play or the region in question, truly listening to those most directly engaging with the biodiversity at stake is a crucial first step towards progress in biodiversity conservation in European agriculture.

## 6 | CONCLUSION

To contribute to better insight into commonalities and differences across diverse socio-ecological contexts in Europe, we studied how
dairy farmers in specific areas in the Netherlands and the French Massif Central describe their relationship with biodiversity. We used the I-NFF (Oostvogels et al., 2024), a novel framework to analyse positively as well as negatively valued dimensions of nature-related matters. We identified six narratives that vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity and define problems and solutions in relation to biodiversity. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences: two narratives we encountered almost exclusively in the Dutch areas, whereas the other narratives we encountered in different proportions and had strong area-specific details. We argue that better consideration of such regional differences can improve the social justice and ecological effectiveness of biodiversity initiatives in agriculture, and we hope that this paper will contribute to such change.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Vincent Oostvogels, Raimon Ripoll-Bosch, Hanneke Nijland, Imke de Boer and Bertrand Dumont conceived the ideas and designed the methodology; Vincent Oostvogels, Lucie Allart and Rébecca Etienne collected the data, and Vincent Oostvogels, Lucie Allart, Rébecca Etienne and Bertrand Dumont analysed the data. Vincent Oostvogels, Raimon Ripoll-Bosch and Bertrand Dumont led the writing of the manuscript. All authors contributed critically to the drafts and gave final approval for publication.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We warmly thank the interviewed farmers for their time and open-
ness. We thank agri-environment collectives Groningen West and
Alblasserwaard-Vijfheerenlanden for their help in reaching out
to farmers. In the Fourme de Montbrison area, farmer interviews
were conducted as part of the Trans[Fourm]ation research action
project. We thank Pauline Corbin and Lennard de Jong for their
assistance with data analysis and Wilfred Altena for creating the
maps. This research was performed as part of a collaboration be-
tween the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food
and the Environment (INRAE) and the Animal Sciences Group of
Wageningen University and Research, and of the ‘Deltaplan Living
Labs voor biodiversiteitsherstel: van Landschap naar Landelijk’ (No.
NWA.1331.19.201) of the Dutch Research Agenda programme
‘Living labs for the restoration of rural biodiversity’, (partly) financed
by the Dutch Research Council (NWO).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no conflict of interest.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data are stored for at least 10 years on the Animal Production
Systems group network share, which is backed up daily by the
Wageningen University and Research IT service. In line with our in-
stitution's ethical guidelines, we cannot publicly share the data to
protect participant confidentiality and due to the sensitive nature of
certain information.

STATEMENT ON INCLUSION

The authors are based in the countries where data was collected. All authors were engaged early on with the research and study design to ensure that a diverse set of perspectives was considered from the onset. Efforts were and will be made to present the results in the language of the research context.

ORCID

Vincent J. Oostvogels https://orcid.org/0009-0007-6767-4711
Raimon Ripoll-Bosch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1234-7015
Lucie Allart https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6598-4176
Rébecca Etienne https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6649-1937
Hanneke J. Nijland https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8281-0434
Imke J. M. de Boer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0675-7528
Bertrand Dumont https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8376-4417

REFERENCES

Alblas, E., & van Zeben, J. (2023). Collaborative agri-environmental governance in the Netherlands: A novel institutional arrangement to bridge social-ecological dynamics. *Ecology and Society*, 28(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13648-280128

Allart, L., Joly, F., Oostvogels, V., Mosnier, C., Gross, N., Ripoll-Bosch, R., & Dumont, B. (2024). Farmers' perceptions of permanent grasslands and their intentions to adapt to climate change influence their resilience strategy. *Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems*, 39, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170524000279

Allen, K. E., Quinn, C. E., English, C., & Quinn, J. E. (2018). Relational values in agroecosystem governance. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 35, 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.10.026

André, M.-F. (1998). Depopulation, land-use change and landscape transformation in the French Massif Central. *Ambio*, 27(4), 351–353. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4314750

ATLAS.ti. (2023). ATLAS.Ti 7 user guide and reference. ATLAS.Ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. http://downloads.atlasti.com/docs/manual/atlasti_v7_manual_en.pdf

Bardsley, D. K., Palazzo, E., & Stringer, R. (2019). What should we conserve? Farmer narratives on biodiversity values in the McLaren Vale, South Australia. *Land Use Policy*, 83, 594–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.036

Beekman, J. (2023). Melkveehouders migreren naar het noorden [Dairy farmers migrate to the north]. *Melk van het Noorden*, 2(5), 58–59. https://www.melkvanhetnoorden.nl/laatste-nieuws/achtergrond/melkveehouders-migreren-naar-het-noorden/#:~:text=Het%20gros%20van%20verkochte%20melkveebedrijven,en%20groend%20geven%20de%20doorslag

Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., & Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 18(4), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(03)00011-9

Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Mikos, V., Brussaard, L., Delbaere, B., & Pulleman, M. (2013). Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context. *Environmental Science & Policy*, 27, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.12.014

Bieleman, J. (2008). *Boeren in Nederland. Geschiedenis van de landbouw* 1500–2000 [Farming in the Netherlands. Agricultural history 1500–2000]. Boom.

Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D., & Potts, S. G. (2013). Ecological intensification: Harnessing ecosystem services for food security. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution*, 28(4), 230–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.012

Brunschwig, G., Agabriel, J., Cerles, A., Martin, B., & Doreau, M. (2020). Eléments d'histoire de l'élevage ruminant du Massif central: Une
diversité d'élevage et de produits [Elements of ruminant breeding history in Massif central: a diversity of breeding and products]. *Rencontres Autour Des Recherches Sur Les Ruminants*, 25, 575-579.
https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03930709v1

Brunschwig, G., Chevillot, B., Sibra, C., & Michelin, Y. (2004). Représentation cartographique d'activités d'élevage: exemple de l'élevage bovin laitier pour la production de fromages d'AOC dans le Massif Central [Cartographic representation of livestock activities: the example of dairy cattle rarming for AOC cheese production in Massif Central]. *INRA Productions Animales*, 17(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2004.17.1.3559

Burton, R. J. (2004). Seeing through the 'good farmer's' eyes: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of 'productivist' behaviour. *Sociologia Ruralis*, 44(2), 195-215. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x

Cayre, P., Michaud, A., Theau, J.-P., & Rigolot, C. (2018). The coexistence of multiple worldviews in livestock farming drives agroecological transition. A case study in French Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) cheese mountain areas. *Sustainability*, 10(4), 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041097

CBD. (1992). *Convention on Biological Diversity*. United Nations. https://www.cbd.int/convention/text/

Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Chapman, M., & Deplazes-Zemp, A. (2023). 'I owe it to the animals': The bidirectionality of Swiss alpine farmers' relational values. *People and Nature*, 5(1), 147-161. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10415

de Boer, J. (2017). *Landschapspijn: over de toekomst van ons platteland* [Landscape pain: On the future of our countryside]. Atlas Contact.

de Bruin, R., & van der Ploeg, J. D. (1991). *Maat houden. Bedrijfsstijlen en het beheer van natuur en landschap in de noordelijke Friese Wouden en het Zuidelijk Westerkwartier* [Maintaining balance. Farming styles and the management of nature and landscape in the Northern Friese Wouden and the Southern Westerkwartier]. Bos-en Landschapsbouw.

Dernat, S., Etienne, R., Hostiou, N., Pailleux, C., & Rigolot, C. (2022). Ex-post consequences of participatory foresight processes in agriculture. How to help dairy farmers to face outcomes of collective decisions planning? *Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6*, 776959.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fsfus.2022.776959

DREAL Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. (2015). *Atlas pratique des paysages d'Auvergne* [Practical atlas of the landscapes of Auvergne]. http://www.paysages.auvergne-rhone-alpes.gouv.fr/

Etienne, R., Dernat, S., Rigolot, C., & Ingrand, S. (2024). Évaluation et ajustement chemin faisant de la mobilisation de jeux sérieux afin d'accompagner les éleveurs dans leurs changements de pratiques [Ongoing evaluation and adjustment of the use of serious games to support farmers in changing their practices]. *Natures Sciences Societes*, 32(3), 293-305. https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2025004

Eurostat. (2022). *Farmers and the agricultural labour force—Statistics*. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farmers_and_the_agricultural_labour_force_-_statistics

Filleux, S.-L. (2023). Dairy cows grazing to the future. INRAE. https://www.inrae.fr/en/reports/dairy-cows-grazing-future

Friant, M. C., Vermeulen, W. J., & Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of circular economy discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. *Resources, Conservation and Recycling*, 161, 104917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917

Galliot, J.-N., Hulin, S., Bonsacquet, E., & Carrère, P. (2019). Apprécier les compromis entre services à travers la typologie multifonctionnelle des prairies du Massif central [Assessing trade-offs in ecosystem

services with a multifunctional classification system for grasslands in the Massif Central]. *Fourrages*, 237, 67-74. https://afpf-asso.fr/article/apprecier-les-compromis-entre-services-a-travers-la-typologie-multifonctionnelle-des-prairies-du-massif-central

Galliot, J. N., Hulin, S., Le Henaff, P. M., Farruggia, A., Seytre, L., Perera, S., Dupic, G., Faure, P., & Carrère, P. (2020). *Typologie multifonctionnelle des prairies du Massif central* [Multifunctional typology of the grasslands of Massif Central]. SIDAM. https://www.sidam-massifcentral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/TMPMC_2020_BD_Partie-1.pdf

Garibaldi, A., & Turner, N. (2004). Cultural keystone species: Implications for ecological conservation and restoration. *Ecology and Society*, 9(3), 1. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/art1

Green, R. E., Cornell, S. J., Scharlemann, J. P., & Balmford, A. (2005). Farming and the fate of wild nature. *Science*, 307(5709), 550-555. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106049

Hannah, D. R., & Lautsch, B. A. (2011). Counting in qualitative research: Why to conduct it, when to avoid it, and when to closet it. *Journal of Management Inquiry*, 20(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492610375988

Hauck, J., Schmidt, J., & Werner, A. (2016). Using social network analysis to identify key stakeholders in agricultural biodiversity governance and related land-use decisions at regional and local level. *Ecology and Society*, 21(2), 49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08596-210249

Herzon, I., & Mikk, M. (2007). Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: A comparative study from Estonia and Finland. *Journal for Nature Conservation*, 15(1), 10-25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001

Hilal, M., Barczak, A., Tourneux, F.-P., Schaeffer, Y., Houdart, M. M., & Cremer-Schulte, D. (2011). *Typologie des campagnes françaises et des espaces à enjeux spécifiques (littoral, montagne et DOM)* [Typology of French rural areas and spaces with specific challenges (coastal, mountain, and overseas territories)]. DATAR. https://hal.science/hal-00911232v1

Horlings, I. (1996). *Duurzaam boeren met beleid: Innovatiegroepen in de Nederlandse landbouw* [Sustainable farming with policy: Innovation groups in Dutch agriculture] (Doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/146262

INOSYS. (2016). *L'agriculture du Massif central vue par la typologie INOSYS* [Agriculture in the Massif Central through the INOSYS typology]. https://www.sidam-massifcentral.fr/observatoire-et-prospective/referentiel/

IPBES. (2022). *Methodological assessment report on the diverse values and valuation of nature of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services*. IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7687931

Jacobs, S., Zafra-Calvo, N., Gonzalez-Jimenez, D., Guibrunet, L., Benessaiah, K., Berghöfer, A., Chaves-Chaparro, J., Díaz, S., Gomez-Baggethun, E., Lele, S., Martín-López, B., Masterson, V. A., Merçon, J., Moersberger, H., Muraca, B., Norström, A., O'Farrell, P., Ordonez, J. C., Prieur-Richard, A., ... Balvanera, P. (2020). Use your power for good: Plural valuation of nature - the Oaxaca statement. *Global Sustainability*, 3, e8. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.2

Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovács, E., Choisis, J.-P., Choisis, N., Paoletti, M. G., Podmaniczky, L., Ryschawy, J., & Sarthou, J.-P. (2013). Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. *Land Use Policy*, 35, 318-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005

Klootwijk, C., Van Middelaar, C., Berentsen, P., & De Boer, I. (2016). Dutch dairy farms after milk quota abolition: Economic and environmental consequences of a new manure policy. *Journal of Dairy Science*, 99(10), 8384-8396. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-10781

Legris, S., & Lhonneur, T. (2024). *De quoi les agriculteurs en colère sont-ils le nom?* [What do the angry farmers stand for?]. Fondation Jean Jaurès. https://www.jean-jaures.org/publication/de-quoi-les-agriculteurs-en-colere-sont-ils-le-nom/?post_id=53540&export_pdf=1
Lenzi, D., Balvanera, P., Arias-Arévalo, P., Eser, U., Guibrunet, L., Martin, A., Muraca, B., & Pascual, U. (2023). Justice, sustainability, and the diverse values of nature: Why they matter for biodiversity conservation. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 64*, 101353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2023.101353

Lliso, B., Lenzi, D., Muraca, B., Chan, K. M., & Pascual, U. (2022). Nature's disvalues: What are they and why do they matter? *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 56*, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101173

Louder, E., & Wyborn, C. (2020). Biodiversity narratives: Stories of the evolving conservation landscape. *Environmental Conservation, 47*(4), 251–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892920000387

Luick, R., & Bignal, E. (2002). The significance of EU agricultural policy on the nature conservation of pastoral farmland. In B. Redecker, W. Härdtle, P. Finck, U. Riecken, & E. Schröder (Eds.), *Pasture landscapes and nature conservation* (pp. 329–346). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-55953-2_25

Luque-Lora, R. (2024). IPBES: Three ways forward with frameworks of values. *Environmental Science & Policy, 159*, 103827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103827

Maffi, L. (2001). *On biocultural diversity: Linking language, knowledge, and the environment*. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Mariani, M., Casabianca, F., Cerdan, C., & Peri, I. (2021). Protecting food cultural biodiversity: From theory to practice. Challenging the geographical indications and the slow food models. *Sustainability, 13*(9), 5265. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13095265

Martin, B., Verdier-Metz, I., Buchin, S., Hurtaud, C., & Coulon, J.-B. (2005). How do the nature of forages and pasture diversity influence the sensory quality of dairy livestock products? *Animal Science, 81*(2), 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1079/ASC50800205

Matson, P. A., Parton, W. J., Power, A. G., & Swift, M. J. (1997). Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. *Science, 277*(5325), 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5325.504

Mattijssen, T. J., Ganzevoort, W., Van Den Born, R. J., Arts, B. J., Breman, B. C., Buijs, A. E., Van Dam, R. I., Elands, B. H., De Groot, W. T., & Knippenberg, L. W. (2020). Relational values of nature: Leverage points for nature policy in Europe. *Ecosystems and People, 16*(1), 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1848926

Ministerie van LVVN. (2024). *Contourenbrief agrarisch natuurbeheer* [Policy outline agri-environment management]. https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/6a3d40d0-d24d-41a2-ab15-2fe1c3b8906a/file

Moroder, A. M., & Kernecker, M. L. (2022). Grassland farmers' relationship with biodiversity: A case study from the northern Italian Alps. *Ecosystems and People, 18*(1), 484–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2107080

O'Connor, S., & Kenter, J. O. (2019). Making intrinsic values work; integrating intrinsic values of the more-than-human world through the life framework of values. *Sustainability Science, 14*(5), 1247–1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-019-00715-7

OECD. (2015). *Innovation, agricultural productivity and sustainability in the Netherlands*. OECD food and agricultural reviews. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/innovation-agricultural-productivity-and-sustainability-in-the-netherlands_9789264238473-en.html

Oostvogels, V., Dumont, B., Nijland, H., de Boer, I., & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2024). What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation. *People and Nature, 6*(6), 2633–2646. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10750

Pascual, U., Adams, W. M., Díaz, S., Lele, S., Mace, G. M., & Turnhout, E. (2021). Biodiversity and the challenge of pluralism. *Nature Sustainability, 4*(7), 567–572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00694-7

Pereira, L. M., Davies, K. K., den Belder, E., Ferrier, S., Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S., Kim, H., Kuiper, J. J., Okayasu, S., Palomo, M. G., Pereira, H. M., Peterson, G., Sathyapalan, J., Schoolenberg, M., Alkemade, R., Carvalho Ribeiro, S., Greenaway, A., Hauck, J., King, N., Lazarova, T., ... Lundquist, C. J. (2020). Developing multiscale and integrative nature-people scenarios using the nature futures framework. *People and Nature, 2*(4), 1172–1195. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10146

Raap, E., Brinkkemper, O., & Baas, H. (2022). *Panorama Landschap: Karakterisering van het Nederlandse landschap in 78 regio's* [Panorama Landscape: Characterisation of the Dutch landscape in 78 Regions]. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2022/01/01/panorama-landschap-karakterisering-van-het-nederlandse-landschap-in-78-regios

Rasmussen, L. V., Christensen, A. E., Danielsen, F., Dawson, N., Martin, A., Mertz, O., Sikor, T., Thongmanivong, S., & Xaydongvanh, P. (2017). From food to pest: Conversion factors determine switches between ecosystem services and disservices. *Ambio, 46*, 173–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0813-6

Rois-Díaz, M., Lovric, N., Lovric, M., Ferreiro-Domínguez, N., Mosquera-Losada, M., Den Herder, M., Graves, A., Palma, J. H., Paulo, J., & Pisanelli, A. (2018). Farmers' reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: Evidence from multiple case-studies across Europe. *Agroforestry Systems, 92*, 811–828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0139-9

Schils, R. L., Bufe, C., Rhymer, C. M., Francksen, R. M., Klaus, V. H., Abdalla, M., Milazzo, F., Lellei-Kovács, E., ten Berge, H., Bertora, C., Chodkiewicz, A., Dämätircä, C., Feigenwinter, I., Fernández-Rebollo, P., Ghiasi, S., Hejduk, S., Hiron, M., Janicka, M., Pellaton, R., ... Newell Price, J. P. (2022). Permanent grasslands in Europe: Land use change and intensification decrease their multifunctionality. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 330*, 107891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107891

Schmeets, H. (2016). *De religieuze kaart van Nederland, 2010–2015* [The Religious Landscape of the Netherlands, 2010–2015]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2016/51/de-religieuze-kaart-van-nederland-2010-2015

Schmitt, T. M., Riebl, R., Martín-López, B., Hänsel, M., & Koellner, T. (2022). Plural valuation in space: Mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services. *Ecosystems and People, 18*(1), 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2022.2065361

Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner, G., Peterseil, J., & Zechmeister, H. (2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. *Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 108*(3), 274–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.009

Service interdépartemental pour l'animation du Massif central (SIDAM). (2023). *L'agriculture du Massif central en quelques chiffres* [Agriculture in Massif Central by the numbers]. https://www sidam-massifcent ral.fr/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/PLAQUETTE-AGRICULTUR E-MC_A4_VF-fr.pdf

Siegmann, A. (2024). The farmers' revolt in the Netherlands: Causes and consequences. *European View, 23*(2), 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/17186858241288396

Silverman, D. (2019). *Interpreting qualitative data* (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

Silvis, H., & Voskuilen, M. (2020). *Melkveebedrijven: Steeds groter en intensiever* [Dairy farms: Growing larger and more intensive]. Wageningen Economic Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/518702

Slee, B., & Pinto-Correia, T. (2015). Chapter 3: Understanding the diversity of European rural areas. In I. Darnhofer, D. Gibbon, & B. Dedieu (Eds.), *Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: Case studies from Europe* (pp. 33–50). CABI. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781780642192.0033

van der Ploeg, J. D., & Ventura, F. (2014). Heterogeneity reconsidered. *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 8*, 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.07.001

van Dijk, S. (2019). *Boeren Alblasserwaard massaal bezig met weidevogelbeheer: 'Zit in de genen' [Farmers Alblasserwaard actively engaged in conservation of grassland birds: 'It's in our genes']*. Agraaf. https://www.agraaf.nl/artikel/195086-weidevogelbeheer-in-onze-genen/
Vellinga, T. V., Bannink, A., Smits, M., Van den Pol-Dasselaar, A., & Pinxterhuis, I. (2011). Intensive dairy production systems in an urban landscape, the Dutch situation. *Livestock Science*, 139(1-2), 122-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.010

Vermunt, D., Wojtynia, N., Hekkert, M., Van Dijk, J., Verburg, R., Verweij, P., Wassen, M., & Runhaar, H. (2022). Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards 'nature-inclusive' agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming. *Agricultural Systems*, 195, 103280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103280

Vollet, D., Huguenin-Elie, O., Martin, B., & Dumont, B. (2017). La diversité des services rendus par les territoires d'élevage herbagers fournissant des produits de qualité dans des environnements préservés [Bundles of services in grassland-based cheese production systems from preserved environment areas]. *INRA Productions Animales*, 30(4), 333-350. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2017.30.4.2264

Weber, M. (1978). *Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology* (Vol. 1). University of California Press.

Westerink, J., Hassink, J., Plomp, M., & van Os, J. (2024). Towards more biodiverse agricultural landscapes: How to make species-rich grassland a desirable and feasible option for dairy farmers. *Journal of Rural Studies*, 105, 103195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103195

Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2015). *Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn* (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., & Swinton, S. M. (2007). Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. *Ecological Economics*, 64(2), 253-260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

## DATA SOURCES (references from supporting information)

Allart, L., Joly, F., Oostvogels, V., Mosnier, C., Gross, N., Ripoll-Bosch, R., & Dumont, B. (2024). Farmers' perceptions of permanent grasslands and their intentions to adapt to climate change influence their resilience strategy. *Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems*, 39, e33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170524000279

Beekman, J. (2023). Melkveehouders migreren naar het noorden [Dairy farmers migrate to the north]. *Melk van het Noorden*, 2(5), 58-59. https://www.melkv.anhetnoorden.nl/laatste-nieuws/achtergrond/melkveehouders-migreren-naar-het-noorden#:~:text=Het%20gros%20van%20verkochte%20melkveeb-edrijven,en%20grond%20geven%20de%20doorslag

Brunschwig, G., Agabriel, J., Cerles, A., Martin, B., & Doreau, M. (2020). Eléments d'histoire de l'élevage ruminant du Massif central: Une diversité d'élevage et de produits [Elements of ruminant breeding history in Massif central: a diversity of breeding and products]. *Rencontres Autour Des Recherches Sur Les Ruminants*, 25, 575-579. https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03930709v1

Brunschwig, G., Chevillot, B., Sibra, C., & Michelin, Y. (2004). Représentation cartographique d'activités d'élevage: Exemple de l'élevage bovin laitier pour la production de fromages d'AOC dans le Massif Central [Cartographic representation of livestock activities: the example of dairy cattle rarming for AOC cheese production in Massif Central]. *INRA Productions Animales*, 17(2), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.20870/productions-animales.2004.17.1.3559

CAUE Aveyron. (2022). *Caractéristiques du Causse Comtal* [Characteristics of the Causse Comtal]. https://paysageaveyon.fr/caracteristiques-du-causse-comtal/

Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gould, R., Hannahs, N., Jax, K., Klain, S., Luck, G. W., Martín-López, B., Muraca, B., Norton, B., Ott, K., Pascual, U., Satterfield, T., Tadaki, M., Taggart, J., & Turner, N. (2016). Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America*, 113(6), 1462-1465. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113

Dernat, S., Rigolot, C., Vollet, D., Cayre, P., & Dumont, B. (2022). Knowledge sharing in practice: A game-based methodology to increase farmers' engagement in a common vision for a cheese PDO union. *The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension*, 28(2), 141-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1389224X.2021.1873155

DREAL Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes. (2015). *Atlas pratique des paysages d'Auvergne* [Practical atlas of the landscapes of Auvergne]. http://www.paysages.auvergne-rhone-alpes.gouv.fr/

Hilal, M., Barczak, A., Tourneux, F.-P., Schaeffer, Y., Houdart, M. M., & Cremer-Schulte, D. (2011). *Typologie des campagnes françaises et des espaces à enjeux spécifiques (littoral, montagne et DOM)* [Typology of French rural areas and spaces with specific challenges (coastal, mountain, and overseas territories)]. DATAR. https://hal.science/hal-00911232v1

Horlings, I. (1996). *Duurzaam boeren met beleid: Innovatiegroepen in de Nederlandse landbouw* [Sustainable farming with policy: Innovation groups in Dutch agriculture] (Doctoral dissertation). Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen. https://hdl.handle.net/2066/146262

INOSYS. (2016). *L'agriculture du Massif central vue par la typologie INOSYS* [Agriculture in the Massif Central through the INOSYS typology]. https://www.sidam-massiifcentral.fr/observatoire-et-prospective/referentiel/

Lliso, B., Lenzi, D., Muraca, B., Chan, K. M., & Pascual, U. (2022). Nature's disvaluies: What are they and why do they matter? *Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability*, 56, 101173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101173

Oostvogels, V., Dumont, B., Nijland, H., de Boer, I., & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2024). What about the negatives? An integrated framework for revealing diverse values of nature and its conservation. *People and Nature*, 6(6), 2633-2646. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10750

Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Brander, L., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Martín-López, B., Verma, M., Armsworth, P., Christie, M., Cornelissen, H., Eppink, F., Farley, J., Loomis, J., Pearson, L., Perrings, C., Polasky, S., McNeely, J. A., Norgaard, R., Siddiqui, R., Simpson, R. D., & Simpson, R. D. (2012). The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. In P. Kumar (Ed.), *The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: Ecological and economic foundations*. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781849775489

PNR de l'Aubrac. (2022). 2. *Cahier d'écriture des paysages* [2. Landscape description report]. https://www.parc-naturel-aubrac.fr/en-action/atlas-des-paysages-de-laubrac/

Poppe, K., van Duinen, L., & de Koeijer, T. (2021). Reduction of greenhouse gases from peat soils in Dutch agriculture. *EuroChoices*, 20(2), 38-45. https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12326

Raap, E., Brinkkemper, O., & Baas, H. (2022). *Panorama Landschap: Karakterisering van het Nederlandse landschap in 78 regio's* [Panorama Landscape: Characterisation of the Dutch landscape in 78 Regions]. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed. https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2022/01/01/panorama-landschap-karakterisering-van-het-nederlands-e-landschap-in-78-regios

Schmeets, H. (2016). *De religieuze kaart van Nederland, 2010-2015* [The Religious Landscape of the Netherlands, 2010-2015]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/publicatie/2016/51/de-religieuze-kaart-van-nederland-2010-2015

Silvis, H., & Voskuilen, M. (2020). *Melkveebedrijven: steeds groter en intensiever [Dairy farms: growing larger and more intensive]*. Wageningen Economic Research. https://edepot.wur.nl/518702

Steenhuis, M., Meurs, P., & Teunissen, V. (2023). *Het Groene Hart: Wereld tussen de steden* [The Green Heart: A world enclosed by cities]. Lecturis.

van Dijk, S. (2019). *Boeren Alblasserwaard massaal bezig met weidevogelbeheer: 'Zit in de genen' [Farmers Alblasserwaard actively engaged in conservation of grassland birds: 'It's in our genes']*. Agraaf. https://www.agraaf.nl/artikel/195086-weidevogelbeheer-in-onze-genen/

## SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.

**Data S1.** More detailed description of the four areas.

**Data S2.** Farm and farmer characteristics.

**Data S3.** Examples and explanations of coding using I-NFF categories.

**How to cite this article:** Oostvogels, V. J., Ripoll-Bosch, R., Allart, L., Etienne, R., Nijland, H. J., de Boer, I. J. M., & Dumont, B. (2025). Dairy farming and biodiversity: A narrative analysis in contrasting socio-ecological contexts. *People and Nature*, 00, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.70124