Social network analysis among German farmers reveals potentials to overcome the production–conservation dichotomy in land use

Abstract For agriculture to become more sustainable, farming needs to incorporate biodiversity conservation practices. However, farmers must largely choose between agricultural production and biodiversity conservation in their land‐use decisions, and accordingly, seek knowledge and support for either of these goals. A better understanding of knowledge exchange and support in farmers' social networks could highlight how biodiversity conservation may be integrated with agricultural production. We conducted structured interviews with 70 farmers in northwest Saxony, Germany. We asked farmers about basic farm characteristics, their participation in agri‐environmental schemes (AES), with whom they exchange knowledge and how those contacts support them in reaching their agricultural or conservation goals. This information was used for social network analysis, including network autocorrelation modelling. We found that the knowledge‐exchange network related to biodiversity conservation was centralized, with non‐profit organizations as central knowledge providers. The knowledge exchange network related to agricultural production was decentral, with private companies having a central role. The farmers' support networks for achieving conservation and agricultural goals were largely overlapping. Peer support was the most important mechanism for farmers to participate in AES. Participation of large‐scale farmers was associated with the level of AES participation of other large‐scale farmers in their network. However, large‐scale farmers did not influence small‐scale farmers. Arable‐crop farmers maintained ties to large, private companies while participating in the fewest AES. If non‐profit organizations engaged in advice for agricultural production, they might reach arable‐crop farmers. Large‐scale farmers who have comprehensive experience in both agricultural production and participation in AES play a central role in both knowledge exchange and support networks. Together with non‐profit organizations, they might be important for breaking down the dichotomy of production and conservation, if they can more widely communicate their contextual, experiential knowledge of implementing AES. Policy implications . Public and non‐profit advisory services should be empowered in their ability to provide both agronomic and biodiversity conservation information to support a less dichotomous land use. Promoting mutual support among farmers may effectively facilitate AES participation. Large‐scale farmers should be encouraged to share knowledge regarding biodiversity conservation, particularly with small‐scale farmers who operate within different economic contexts. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.