IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/forlwp/152019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The plurality of farmers' views on soil management calls for a policy mix

Author

Listed:
  • Braito, Michael
  • Leonhardt, Heidi
  • Penker, Marianne
  • Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth
  • Thaler, Georg
  • Flint, Courtney G.

Abstract

While soil degradation is continuing to threaten the global agricultural production system, a common understanding of how to encourage sustainable soil management is missing. With this study, we aim to provide new insights on targeted policies that address the heterogeneity of farmers. We scrutinize the plurality of farmers' views on soil management among arable farmers in the Austrian (and European) policy context. To do so, we apply Q methodology, a method that identifies different perspectives on a topic present in a population and quantifies this subjectivity statistically. We interviewed 34 arable land farmers, who varied in their farming backgrounds. The results yielded four different viewpoints on soil management held by the interviewed farmers: two more ecocentric perspectives (Innovative Nature Participants, Pleasure Seekers) and two more anthropocentric perspectives (Traditional Producers, Profit Maximisers). Our study shows that farmers' soil management is influenced by more than economic considerations and that a mix of policy approaches is needed to reach all farmers and avoid adverse effects or ineffective strategies. We provide several suggestions for policymakers on how to complement agri-environmental schemes: appealing to human-nature relationships, offering training and experimentation services, fostering social networks, and raising the social reputation of farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Braito, Michael & Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth & Thaler, Georg & Flint, Courtney G., 2019. "The plurality of farmers' views on soil management calls for a policy mix," FORLand Working Papers 15 (2019), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:forlwp:152019
    DOI: 10.18452/20946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/213069/1/FORLand-2019-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18452/20946?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Salhofer, Klaus, 2019. "Do farmers care about rented land? A multi-method study on land tenure and soil conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 228-239.
    2. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    3. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    4. Yuki Yoshida & Courtney G. Flint & Mallory K. Dolan, 2018. "Farming between love and money: US Midwestern farmers’ human–nature relationships and impacts on watershed conservation," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 1033-1050, May.
    5. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    6. Aiora Zabala & Unai Pascual, 2016. "Bootstrapping Q Methodology to Improve the Understanding of Human Perspectives," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    7. Rattan Lal, 2015. "Restoring Soil Quality to Mitigate Soil Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-21, May.
    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. Braito, Michael & Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth & Thaler, Georg & Flint, Courtney G., 2020. "The plurality of farmers’ views on soil management calls for a policy mix," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    3. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    4. 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.
    5. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    6. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. Nordhagen, Stella & Pascual, Unai & Drucker, Adam G., 2017. "Feeding the Household, Growing the Business, or Just Showing Off? Farmers' Motivations for Crop Diversity Choices in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 99-109.
    8. Uehleke, Reinhard & Petrick, Martin & Hüttel, Silke, 2022. "Evaluations of agri-environmental schemes based on observational farm data: The importance of covariate selection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    10. Ahmad A. Al-Ghamdi & Yilma Tadesse & Nuru Adgaba & Abdulaziz G. Alghamdi, 2021. "Soil Degradation and Restoration in Southwestern Saudi Arabia through Investigation of Soil Physiochemical Characteristics and Nutrient Status as Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-19, August.
    11. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    12. Sriroop Chaudhuri & Mimi Roy & Louis M. McDonald & Yves Emendack, 2023. "Land Degradation–Desertification in Relation to Farming Practices in India: An Overview of Current Practices and Agro-Policy Perspectives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-27, April.
    13. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    14. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    15. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    16. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    17. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    18. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    19. Romero, Pascual & Navarro, Josefa María & Ordaz, Pablo Botía, 2022. "Towards a sustainable viticulture: The combination of deficit irrigation strategies and agroecological practices in Mediterranean vineyards. A review and update," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    20. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    farmers' viewpoints; soil management; Q methodology; farmer behavior; soil policies;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:forlwp:152019. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    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.