IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v153y2025ics0264837725000596.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. 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.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. repec:elg:eechap:14395_25 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Jock R. Anderson, 2004. "Agricultural Extension: Good Intentions and Hard Realities," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 41-60.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. repec:sae:envval:v:8:y:1999:i:3:p:381-401 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. 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).
    2. 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 356434, Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. McCaig, Melanie & Rezania, Davar & Dara, Rozita, 2023. "Framing the response to IoT in agriculture: A discourse analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    10. repec:zbw:iamodp:356434 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Lorraine Balaine & Doris Läpple & Emma J Dillon & Cathal Buckley, 2023. "Extension and management pathways for enhanced farm sustainability: evidence from Irish dairy farms," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(2), pages 810-850.
    12. Daniel Ruppert & Martin Welp & Michael Spies & Niels Thevs, 2020. "Farmers’ Perceptions of Tree Shelterbelts on Agricultural Land in Rural Kyrgyzstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-18, February.
    13. Teemu Kautonen & Marco van Gelderen & Erno T. Tornikoski, 2011. "Predicting entrepreneurial behaviour: a test of the theory of planned behaviour," Post-Print hal-00741505, HAL.
    14. Arlixcya Vinnisa Anak Empidi & Diana Emang, 2021. "Understanding Public Intentions to Participate in Protection Initiatives for Forested Watershed Areas Using the Theory of Planned Behavior: A Case Study of Cameron Highlands in Pahang, Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Tarja Niemelä, 2015. "Farm Entrepreneurs’ Intentions to Develop Pluriactive Business Activities in Finland," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 11(3), pages 117-141.
    16. Gonyo, Sarah Ball & Fleming, Chloe S. & Freitag, Amy & Goedeke, Theresa L., 2021. "Resident perceptions of local offshore wind energy development: Modeling efforts to improve participatory processes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    17. Jackson, Elizabeth & Quaddus, Mohammed & Islam, Nazrul & Stanton, John, "undated". "A mixed-method approach for determining the risk and complexity farmers associate with using forward contracts," 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK 42305, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    19. Mislimshoeva, Bunafsha & Samimi, Cyrus & Kirchhoff, Joachim-F. & Koellner, Thomas, 2013. "Analysis of costs and people's willingness to enroll in forest rehabilitation in Gorno Badakhshan, Tajikistan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 75-83.
    20. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    21. 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.

    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.