IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v207y2023ics0921800923000307.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach

Author

Listed:
  • Leduc, Gaëlle
  • Billaudet, Larissa
  • Engström, Ebba
  • Hansson, Helena
  • Ryan, Mary

Abstract

Values act as driving forces for individuals to behave in a certain way or to choose certain actions. They may explain current differences of converted organic land among EU countries. In this paper, we identified and compared the types of values, economic and other, that motivate farmers to choose certified organic or conventional production systems in France, Ireland and Sweden. To identify these values, we analysed and compared attribute-consequence-value representations of the choice of production systems among farmers, using a Means-end chain approach. Seventy-eight in-depth laddering interviews were conducted to explore how farmers characterised their choice, the consequences they perceived from these characteristics and the values they associated with these consequences. The uncovered values were classified along Rokeach's typology to distinguish between instrumental and terminal values. Results indicate that both farmers with a conventional farm and farmers with a certified organic farm are driven by complex sets of financial, business, or productivity values and by non-financial, non-business, or non-productivity values. Findings are useful to policy makers and farm advisors, who can use these results to develop more efficient communication schemes to promote organic farming. The findings can also be communicated to consumers and the public in order to encourage consumption.

Suggested Citation

  • Leduc, Gaëlle & Billaudet, Larissa & Engström, Ebba & Hansson, Helena & Ryan, Mary, 2023. "Farmers' perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:207:y:2023:i:c:s0921800923000307
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107767
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923000307
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107767?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    2. Bech-Larsen, Tino & Nielsen, Niels Asger, 1999. "A comparison of five elicitation techniques for elicitation of attributes of low involvement products," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 315-341, June.
    3. A. P. Barnes & J. Willock & L. Toma & C. Hall, 2011. "Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 477-494.
    4. Peter Howley, 2015. "The Happy Farmer: The Effect of Nonpecuniary Benefits on Behavior," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1072-1086.
    5. Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    6. Helena Hansson & Gordana Manevska-Tasevska & Mette Asmild, 2020. "Rationalising inefficiency in agricultural production – the case of Swedish dairy agriculture [Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(1), pages 1-24.
    7. Carl Johan Lagerkvist & Helena Hansson & Sebastian Hess & Ruben Hoffman, 2011. "Provision of Farm Animal Welfare: Integrating Productivity and Non-Use Values," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 33(4), pages 484-509.
    8. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Birhanu Addisu Adamie & Helena Hansson, 2022. "Rationalising inefficiency in dairy production: evidence from an over-time approach," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 433-471.
    2. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D. F., 2017. "Farm heterogeneity and agricultural policy impacts on size dynamics: evidence from France," Working Papers 258013, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    3. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    4. Hansson, Helena & Lagerkvist, Carl Johan, 2015. "Identifying use and non-use values of animal welfare: Evidence from Swedish dairy agriculture," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 35-42.
    5. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    6. Mergenthaler, Marcus & Schröter, Iris, 2020. "Institutionelle Grenzen und Perspektiven bei der ökonomischen Bewertung und der Bereitstellung von Tierwohl," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305598, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    7. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    8. Zabala, Aiora & Pascual, Unai & García-Barrios, Luis, 2017. "Payments for Pioneers? Revisiting the Role of External Rewards for Sustainable Innovation under Heterogeneous Motivations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 234-245.
    9. Julia A. Schreiner & Sebastian Hess, 2017. "The Role of Non-Use Values in Dairy Farmers’ Willingness to Accept a Farm Animal Welfare Programme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(2), pages 553-578, June.
    10. Emtage, Nicholas & Herbohn, John, 2012. "Assessing rural landholders diversity in the Wet Tropics region of Queensland, Australia in relation to natural resource management programs: A market segmentation approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 107-118.
    11. Läpple, Doris & Osawe, Osayanmon Wellington, 2022. "Animal Welfare, Altruism and Policy Support," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321212, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    12. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D. F., 2016. "Farm segmentation and agricultural policy impacts on structural change: evidence from France," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 244789, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Peter Howley & Neel Ocean, 2022. "Can nudging only get you so far? Testing for nudge combination effects," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 1086-1112.
    14. Montefrio, Marvin Joseph F. & Sonnenfeld, David A. & Luzadis, Valerie A., 2015. "Social construction of the environment and smallholder farmers' participation in ‘low-carbon’, agro-industrial crop production contracts in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 70-77.
    15. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    16. Enoch Owusu-Sekyere & Helena Hansson & Evgenij Telezhenko, 2022. "Use and non-use values to explain farmers’ motivation for the provision of animal welfare," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(2), pages 499-525.
    17. Jesus Lozano Vita & Florence Jacquet & Sophie Thoyer, 2017. "Choix de pratiques des viticulteurs et facteurs comportementaux : une approche par la modélisation multi-objectif," Post-Print hal-02738164, HAL.
    18. Graskemper, Viktoria & Feil, Jan-Henning, 2021. "Values of farmers: Evidence from Germany," DARE Discussion Papers 2101, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:207:y:2023:i:c:s0921800923000307. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.