IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v86y2019icp427-437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable soil management - Farmers’ perspectives on subsoil compaction and the opportunities and barriers for intervention

Author

Listed:
  • Thorsøe, Martin Hvarregaard
  • Noe, Egon Bjørnshave
  • Lamandé, Mathieu
  • Frelih-Larsen, Ana
  • Kjeldsen, Chris
  • Zandersen, Marianne
  • Schjønning, Per

Abstract

Soils are the foundation for agricultural production, ecosystem functioning and for human well-being, but paradoxically only limited attention has been given towards sustainable soil management in most national and European policies. Preventing subsoil compaction is essential for ensuring soil functions and ecosystem services, because subsoil compaction is virtually persistent, reduces yields, as well as increases greenhouse gas emissions and the leaching of pollutants. However, it is also challenging as the subsoil compaction risk is dynamic and difficult for stakeholders to observe and address. Hence, this article explores the drivers of soil degradation and discuss the opportunities and barriers for a sustainable governance of the soil resource, based on a case study of subsoil compaction in Danish farming. The article draws on a mixed method case study incorporating qualitative and quantitative elements. Findings suggest that current agricultural practice entails a large risk for subsoil compaction, particularly manure distribution and harvest operations. While farmers, in general, are concerned about the effect of the agricultural practice on their fields, a number of barriers prevent them from addressing subsoil compaction. These include knowledge deficit, technological barriers, responsibility outsourcing, pragmatic tradeoffs, as well as the systemic and wicked problematic nature of subsoil compaction. Hence, we argue for a systemic response including: 1) Competence development, 2) visualization of the compaction risk, 3) changing incentives of field practice, 4) technological innovation and 5) a policy framework. This could systemically address the subsoil compaction risk, integrating the multiple factors that influence how farmers decide on their practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Thorsøe, Martin Hvarregaard & Noe, Egon Bjørnshave & Lamandé, Mathieu & Frelih-Larsen, Ana & Kjeldsen, Chris & Zandersen, Marianne & Schjønning, Per, 2019. "Sustainable soil management - Farmers’ perspectives on subsoil compaction and the opportunities and barriers for intervention," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 427-437.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:86:y:2019:i:c:p:427-437
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718318490
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.05.017?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. Ana Frelih-Larsen & Mandy Hinzmann & Sophie Ittner, 2018. "The ‘Invisible’ Subsoil: An Exploratory View of Societal Acceptance of Subsoil Management in Germany," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Turner, R. Kerry & Paavola, Jouni & Cooper, Philip & Farber, Stephen & Jessamy, Valma & Georgiou, Stavros, 2003. "Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 493-510, October.
    3. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    4. Ika Darnhofer, 2014. "Resilience and why it matters for farm management," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(3), pages 461-484.
    5. Andrew Gilg & Stewart Barr, 2005. "Encouraging 'Environmental Action' by Exhortation: Evidence from a Study in Devon," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(4), pages 593-618.
    6. Anthony King, 2017. "Technology: The Future of Agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 544(7651), pages 21-23, April.
    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. Köninger, Julia & Lugato, Emanuele & Panagos, Panos & Kochupillai, Mrinalini & Orgiazzi, Alberto & Briones, Maria J.I., 2021. "Manure management and soil biodiversity: Towards more sustainable food systems in the EU," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(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. Thorsøe, Martin & Noe, Egon & Maye, Damian & Vigani, Mauro & Kirwan, James & Chiswell, Hannah & Grivins, Mikelis & Adamsone-Fiskovica, Anda & Tisenkopfs, Talis & Tsakalou, Emi & Aubert, Pierre-Marie &, 2020. "Responding to change: Farming system resilience in a liberalized and volatile European dairy market," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Robert Costanza & Shuang Liu, 2014. "Ecosystem Services and Environmental Governance: Comparing China and the U.S," Asia and the Pacific Policy Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 160-170, January.
    3. Alison Kennedy & Jessie Adams & Jeremy Dwyer & Muhammad Aziz Rahman & Susan Brumby, 2020. "Suicide in Rural Australia: Are Farming-Related Suicides Different?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-13, March.
    4. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    5. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Benjamin Leard, 2011. "Joan Martinez-Alier and Ingo Ropke (eds.): Recent developments in ecological economics (2 vols.)," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 161-178, July.
    7. Yaoyao Wang & Yuanpei Kuang, 2023. "Evaluation, Regional Disparities and Driving Mechanisms of High-Quality Agricultural Development in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Daniele, Bertolozzi-Caredio & Barbara, Soriano & Isabel, Bardaji & Alberto, Garrido, 2022. "Analysis of perceived robustness, adaptability and transformability of Spanish extensive livestock farms under alternative challenging scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. Schäffler, Alexis & Swilling, Mark, 2013. "Valuing green infrastructure in an urban environment under pressure — The Johannesburg case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 246-257.
    10. Katarzyna Zawalińska & Alexandra Smyrniotopoulou & Katalin Balazs & Michael Böhm & Mihai Chitea & Violeta Florian & Mihaela Fratila & Piotr Gradziuk & Stuart Henderson & Katherine Irvine & Vasilia Kon, 2022. "Advancing the Contributions of European Stakeholders in Farming Systems to Transitions to Agroecology," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(3), pages 50-63, December.
    11. Basharat Ali & Peter Dahlhaus, 2022. "Roles of Selective Agriculture Practices in Sustainable Agricultural Performance: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    13. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    14. Khalilullah Mayar & David G. Carmichael & Xuesong Shen, 2022. "Resilience and Systems—A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-22, July.
    15. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    17. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Cooper, Nigel & Brady, Emily & Steen, Helen & Bryce, Rosalind, 2016. "Aesthetic and spiritual values of ecosystems: Recognising the ontological and axiological plurality of cultural ecosystem ‘services’," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 218-229.
    19. Zhang, Xiaoyun & Lu, Xianguo, 2010. "Multiple criteria evaluation of ecosystem services for the Ruoergai Plateau Marshes in southwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1463-1470, May.
    20. Rübcke von Veltheim, Friedrich & Claussen, Frans & Heise, Heinke, 2020. "Autonomous Field Robots in Agriculture: A Qualitative Analysis of User Acceptance According to Different Agricultural Machinery Companies," 60th Annual Conference, Halle/ Saale, Germany, September 23-25, 2020 305587, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).

    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:86:y:2019:i:c:p:427-437. 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.