IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v153y2025ics0264837725000596.html

Designing social surveys for understanding farming and natural resource management: A purposeful review of best-practice survey methods

Author

Listed:
  • Luke, Hanabeth

Abstract

Social survey research is often used to achieve an improved understanding of land and natural resource management. The question for many land agencies and organisations working to support farmers and other rural landholders is how to gain this information in a scientifically rigorous and cost-effective way. This paper summarises findings from a purposeful review of survey methods applied for understanding rural landholders, including how land and natural resource management may be changing around the globe. Social surveys play a crucial role in understanding the complexities of land management, with survey methods evolving over time as they adapt to technological advancements and shifting research paradigms. Key findings of this review underscore the significance of pre-testing, drawing on diverse sampling techniques, and tailored survey methods to uphold data integrity and enhance response rates. Effective survey design, coupled with integration of conceptual models and identity constructs, can enrich insights into land management practices. Embracing mixed methods and leveraging AI for data integration offer promising avenues for future research, albeit with ethical considerations and challenges in data integration. Previous reviews are extended to describe four main eras in social survey research for natural resource management, being: 1) the Invention Era (1930–1960); 2) the Expansion Era (1960–1990); 3) the Integration Era ('Designed Data' + 'Organic Data') (1990s to 2022); and 4) the Brave New Era (2022 to present). Prioritising longitudinal studies and expanding survey research globally can inform evidence-based policymaking, addressing critical gaps in knowledge as land and natural resource management continues to evolve and respond to changes and challenges worldwide.

Suggested Citation

  • Luke, Hanabeth, 2025. "Designing social surveys for understanding farming and natural resource management: A purposeful review of best-practice survey methods," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725000596
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107526
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837725000596
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107526?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lynne, Gary D. & Franklin Casey, C. & Hodges, Alan & Rahmani, Mohammed, 1995. "Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 581-598, December.
    2. Jock R. Anderson, 2004. "Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 41-60.
    3. Theresa M. Groth & Allan Curtis & Emily Mendham & Eric Toman, 2017. "Examining the agricultural producer identity: utilising the collective occupational identity construct to create a typology and profile of rural landholders in Victoria, Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 628-646, April.
    4. Graham Kalton, 2019. "Developments in Survey Research over the Past 60 Years: A Personal Perspective," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 87(S1), pages 10-30, May.
    5. Luke, Hanabeth, 2017. "Social resistance to coal seam gas development in the Northern Rivers region of Eastern Australia: Proposing a diamond model of social license to operate," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 266-280.
    6. Adam Rybak, 2023. "Survey mode and nonresponse bias: A meta-analysis based on the data from the international social survey programme waves 1996–2018 and the European social survey rounds 1 to 9," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-21, March.
    7. George W. Norton & Jeffrey Alwang, 2020. "Changes in Agricultural Extension and Implications for Farmer Adoption of New Practices," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 8-20, March.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. repec:elg:eechap:14395_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Huang, Judy Y. & Hubbard, Susan M. & Mulvey, Kevin P., 2003. "Obtaining valid response rates: considerations beyond the tailored design method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 91-97, February.
    11. repec:sae:envval:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:381-401 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Alfons Weersink & Evan Fraser & David Pannell & Emily Duncan & Sarah Rotz, 2018. "Opportunities and Challenges for Big Data in Agricultural and Environmental Analysis," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 19-37, October.
    13. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Juakaly Wayisovia, Emmanuel & Ongo Nkoa, Bruno Emmanuel, 2025. "Environmental quality in Africa: Is the demographic dividend an asset?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    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. Tadjiev, Abdusame & Kurbanov, Zafar & Djanibekov, Nodir & Govind, Ajit & Akramkhanov, Akmal, 2023. "Determinants and impact of farmers' participation in social media groups: Evidence from irrigated areas of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan," IAMO Discussion Papers 201, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    2. Shang, Linmei & Heckelei, Thomas & Gerullis, Maria K. & Börner, Jan & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "Adoption and diffusion of digital farming technologies - integrating farm-level evidence and system interaction," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    3. Corradi, Nicola & Priftis, Konstantinos & Jacucci, Giulio & Gamberini, Luciano, 2013. "Oops, I forgot the light on! The cognitive mechanisms supporting the execution of energy saving behaviors," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 88-96.
    4. Bonnin Roca, Jaime & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2020. "Seeking coherence between barriers to manufacturing technology adoption and innovation policy," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    5. Qian Liu & Yongmu Jiang & Carl‐Johan Lagerkvist & Wei Huang, 2023. "Extension services and the technical efficiency of crop‐specific farms in China," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(1), pages 436-459, March.
    6. Thong Anh Tran & Van Touch, 2024. "How agricultural extension responds to amplified agrarian transitions in mainland Southeast Asia: experts’ reflections," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(4), pages 1773-1789, December.
    7. Xuan Liu & Qiancheng Wang & Hsi-Hsien Wei & Hung-Lin Chi & Yaotian Ma & Izzy Yi Jian, 2020. "Psychological and Demographic Factors Affecting Household Energy-Saving Intentions: A TPB-Based Study in Northwest China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.
    8. Mywish K. Maredia & Jarrad Farris & Nicole M. Mason & Stephen Morgan, 2025. "Does Providing Free Trial Packs With Demonstration Plots Increase the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies? Cost Effectiveness Evidence From Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(5), pages 823-838, September.
    9. Zhansheng Li & Qiying Yang & Xuchao Yang & Zutao Ouyang & Xiumin Cai & Jiaguo Qi, 2022. "Assessing Farmers’ Attitudes towards Rural Land Circulation Policy Changes in the Pearl River Delta, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-16, April.
    10. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12445 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Ahlam Al-Muwil & Vishanth Weerakkody & Ramzi El-haddadeh & Yogesh Dwivedi, 2019. "Balancing Digital-By-Default with Inclusion: A Study of the Factors Influencing E-Inclusion in the UK," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 635-659, June.
    12. Kaufmann, Peter & Stagl, Sigrid & Franks, Daniel W., 2009. "Simulating the diffusion of organic farming practices in two New EU Member States," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(10), pages 2580-2593, August.
    13. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Guang-Wen Zheng & Abu Bakkar Siddik & Mohammad Masukujjaman & Syed Shah Alam & Alvina Akter, 2020. "Perceived Environmental Responsibilities and Green Buying Behavior: The Mediating Effect of Attitude," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-27, December.
    15. Popa, Bogdan & Niță, Mihai Daniel & Hălălișan, Aureliu Florin, 2019. "Intentions to engage in forest law enforcement in Romania: An application of the theory of planned behavior," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 33-43.
    16. Murat Okumah & Julia Martin-Ortega & Paula Novo & Pippa J. Chapman, 2020. "Revisiting the Determinants of Pro-Environmental Behaviour to Inform Land Management Policy: A Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Model Application," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-33, April.
    17. Kuhne, Bianka & Lambrecht, Evelien & Vanhonacker, Filiep & Pieniak, Zuzanna & Gellynck, Xavier, 2014. "Factors Underlying Farmers’ Decisions to Participate in Networks," International Journal on Food System Dynamics, International Center for Management, Communication, and Research, vol. 4(3), pages 1-16, February.
    18. Yee, Shion & Rolfe, John, 2006. "Evaluating the Efficiency of a Devolved Grants Program: A Central Queensland case study," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139932, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    19. Giovanni Pino & Pierluigi Toma & Cristian Rizzo & Pier Paolo Miglietta & Alessandro M. Peluso & Gianluigi Guido, 2017. "Determinants of Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Water Saving Measures: Evidence from Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    20. Kumar, Bipul, 2012. "Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach to Understand the Purchasing Behaviour for Environmentally Sustainable Products," IIMA Working Papers WP2012-12-08, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    21. Hafner, Rebecca J. & Elmes, David & Read, Daniel, 2019. "Promoting behavioural change to reduce thermal energy demand in households: A review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 205-214.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:lauspo:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725000596. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.