Furthermore, all research participants are members of a collective because only members of collectives can participate in the Dutch agri-environment scheme. The farmers were asked to rank themselves according to the levels of nature-inclusive farming as defined in policy.Our interviews included questions about their identity as a farmer, what they considered as a good farmer and a good landscape, how status can be achieved in the local farming community, learning, and their willingness to ‘do even more with nature’ . In each case study area, we first interviewed farmers individually before we brought them together in a focus group. The interviews and focus groups took place as farm visits and physical meetings between September and December 2018. We used a semi-structured approach to retrieve comparable data, but to allow for natural conversations and emphasis on aspects that were important to the farmers. The same issues were discussed in the interviews and the focus groups, but the focus groups allowed us to observe the interaction between farmers and to identify joint constructions. We offered stipends to the farmers to compensate them for their time investment. The interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed.The codes relate to the theoretical framework to allow for a structured analysis. In line with Miles and Huberman the interviews and focus group reports were summarized in tables per case study organised with columns for individual farmers and rows for codes. In addition, each case study table included a column for joint constructions. This summary allowed for configuring as well as aggregating analysis : per case study we looked for complementary concepts , while between case studies we looked for similarities and dissimilarities. Each case study table was coded for relations between the concepts and for evidence of change of view or change of cultural norms. Our case studies show many similarities, but also some differences. Table 2 summarizes the findings per case study.

Cultural norms for ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good agricultural landscape’ seem quite similar between the case studies. In Noordelijke Friese Wouden the attention for circular farming is apparent, ebb flow which is not surprising because the approach was more or less developed here . While diversity among farmers is appreciated in all case studies, Achterhoek stands out for the reluctance to judge other farmers. In addition, no quotations about cultural change were found in Achterhoek, in contrast to the other case studies. The attitude towards nature-inclusive farming and the nature-inclusive themes that are relevant to the farmers are strongly related to the landscape. In Noord-Beveland, the open landscape has very few natural handicaps and the clayey soil is fertile. The intensity of the arable production and especially the crop rotation is seen as relevant to nature-inclusive farming, as well as flower strips, natural pest reduction and soil quality. For farmers in Midden-Limburg, Achterhoek and Noordelijke Friese Wouden, nature-inclusive farming practices come natural to them because these practices suit the landscape . In addition, the Frisian farmers explain this attitude by the local culture and long history of agri-environmental management in their area. They are particularly proud of their agri-environmental collective. In sum, cultural norms regarding ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good agricultural landscape’ are relevant to farm management decisions in our case studies. However, our findings suggest that the role of self-identity is more important than the role of the opinion of peers. While production-oriented conceptions of ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good landscape’ are still dominant in the subculture that we studied – the subculture of farmers participating in agri-environmental management – we observed a shift in cultural norms towards a broader conception of both the notions of ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good landscape’. Part of the embodied cultural capital that is needed for nature-inclusive farming – both for the production and the assessment of a ‘good nature-inclusive landscape’ is still underdeveloped. For the build-up and transfer of such cultural capital, teaching and training are important, but experimenting and social learning even more. Our respondents say that they learn most from colleagues and farmer groups and that the agrienvironmental collective is particularly important for their knowledge of ecology. Our findings diverge from the literature on a number of aspects. First, the combined case studies yield a broader conception of ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good agricultural landscape’ than reported so far. The literature describes ‘a good farmer’ as hard-working, taking good care of land and livestock, entrepreneurial, a good neighbour and taking responsibility for the environment . Our respondents add innovativeness, responsibility towards biodiversity and society, a good work-life balance, and happiness.

A ‘good agricultural landscape’ is described in literature as a ‘tidy landscape’ . However, according to our respondents, what ‘good land’ should look like depends on its purpose. Land with a biodiversity objective does not need to look so tidy. Biodiversity can be a production objective, just as food. In contrast to Burton we did not find much evidence that Dutch farmers practice ‘roadside farming’. They do drive around andknow that their colleagues do the same, and they do feel their scrutiny, but they say that this does not really influence their management decisions. Self-identity may be more important for farm management decisions than the opinion of local colleagues, and other subcultures may have become more important for the formation of self-identity than the local farming community. Our respondents value and defend diversity of farming styles. While Burton and Wilson and Saunders did not find evidence of changing cultural norms as a result of agri-environmental policies, Burton suggested that new roles and practices could change the meaning of ‘good farming’. Burton and Paragahawewa suggested that group payments could make untidy landscapes to be more easily associated with good farming practice. So far, however, very little empirical evidence has been reported of changing cultural norms in farming. Lavoie and Wardropper observed that conservation tillage was a way for farmers to link conservation values as well as production values to the good farming identity. Sutherland found that well-visible ‘professional and orderly’ organic practice fostered a slight shift in the perception of organic farming amongst conventional farmers. Sutherland and Darnhofer report changing views with farmers as a result of their experience with implementing flower strips or organic farming. In Cusworth farmers report a ‘change of mind’ as a result of participation in agri-environmental management. They have learned the point of the measures and disapprove of poor agri-environmental management of their colleagues. In our study we observed changing cultural norms as a result of participation in and visibility of agri-environmental management. This is most in line with McGuire et al. , who found changing notions of the ‘good farmer’ identity in a group of farmers participating in agri-environmental management, monitoring and social learning. It is also in line with Riley , who found changed cultural norms after long term participation in agri-environmental management. Sutherland and Burton demonstrate how cultural capital in the form of status as ‘good farmer’ can yield social capital in the sense of trust of and collaboration with neighbours.

Our case studies suggest, in line with Bourdieu , that social capital can also support the development of cultural capital. In our case studies, collective agri-environmental management contributed to the build-up and transfer of nature-inclusive cultural capital through introducing nature-inclusive farming practices, increasing the visibility of nature-inclusive practices in the landscape, and facilitating learning by farmers. Membership of a group yielded new skill to produce a different kind of landscape as well as to recognize this skill on the land of others. In addition, in this group, nature-inclusive skill yielded appreciation of peers. These findings are in line with those of Runhaar and Polman who describe how farmers who were active in meadow bird protection found recognition in a national farmer network organised by Birdlife Netherlands while they did not find it among their neighbours. The agri-environmental collectives form a subculture in which nature-inclusive cultural capital yields social capital and vice versa. This way, the collectives have become key agents in cultural change. This explorative study provides an indication of the relevance of cultural norms for farmers’ behaviour in relation to biodiversity. For a more complete understanding of what is needed to support natureinclusive choices of farmers other factors should also be studied, such as access to land, relationship with land owners, market demand, the influence of regulation, level playing field, education and finance . In addition, as our focus was on cultural norms within the farming community, we did not study how cultural images of ‘the good farmer’ and ‘a good agricultural landscape’ as held by other, non-farming stakeholders affect these cultural norms. Nevertheless, some of the respondents brought up the issue themselves. Most likely, non-farmers’ understandings of ‘a good farmer’ and ‘a good agricultural landscape’ do play a role in shaping farmers’ self-identity and cultural norms and this role warrants further research . There is a broad understanding of the need to develop rural areas and sustainable food systems that preserve the environment and ensure food security for future generations . Organic production is seen as an approach that can promote both of these goals. Due to lower environmental impact organic farming has potential to support transformation towards more sustainable agricultural systems . More specifically, increasing organic farming has been identified as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions . In addition, organic farming potentially plays an important role in reducing exposure to pesticides , greenhouse benches supporting beneficial insects and decreasing soil erosion . From the rural development perspective, organic agriculture may also promote employment in rural areas .

Darnhofer concluded that the beneficial impacts of organic farming on rural regions can be more diverse than the general focus on food chains, landscapes, and environmental considerations. However, the benefits of organic farming have also been contested. Smith et al. and Squalli and Adamkiewicz published opposing results about the possible benefits associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Reganold and Wachter underlined the need for other innovative approaches in addition to organic farming. Meta-analyses by Tuomisto et al. and Mondelaers et al. have demonstrated that while organic farming generally has lower environmental impacts per unit of area, the results can differ when examining the impacts per product unit. Furthermore, Meemken and Qaim noted that there are several disadvantages associated with a widespread increase in organic agriculture, for example, a rise in food prices. The impact on rural development is also controversial. Lobley et al. noted that there are factors other than farming methods that may have a greater influence on rural or regional development. Despite these contested views, the benefits of organic farming have been widely accepted, and it is generally promoted as a desirable agricultural system. The growth of organic farming involves shifts in human values and therefore relates to societal change as well as agricultural change . Consequently, previous literature has emphasised the role of governments in increasing organicfarming. Argiles and Brown stated that government decisions are key factors that affect the future of organic farming. Lesjak also revealed correlations between policy decisions and the development of organic farming. Hence, many European countries have set targets to increase the share of organic farmland. In addition, the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy included a target to have 25% of agricultural land under organic farming by 2030. The targets have been set, for example, in order to enhance sustainability and to meet the growing demand for organic products . Increases in direct subsidies further strengthen these types of policy decisions, as they have been shown to exert a positive impact on the conversion to organic farming . Despite an encouraging political and economic climate, the development of organic farming can vary greatly between the different regions of a country . To better understand the complexity of the longitudinal development of organic farming, Ilbery et al. highlighted the need for more studies with a regional focus. To date, however, the research has not adequately addressed the possible connection between subsidies and the regional distribution of organic farming, despite indications that subsidies may have a range of influences across different yield-level land areas .