IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/haaepa/373439.html

Public Perception of Biodiversity Landscape Elements and Autonomous Technologies in Small-Scale Production Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel, Andreas
  • Garnitz, Johanna
  • Spykman, Olivia

Abstract

The perception and evaluation of rural landscapes resulting from human interaction with nature is highly subjective. However, understanding how the non-agricultural population views the impact of an altered landscape image is crucial. This paper explores the German population's perceptions of changes in agricultural landscapes brought about by multi-crop, small-scale field structures (strip intercropping) combined with the introduction of biodiversity landscape elements and field robotics. An online survey was conducted with German residents aged 18 and older (n = 2,022). Preferences and the importance of individual image components were analysed based on four images depicting a field with strip intercropping, featuring various combinations of tractors, robots, and flowering strips. Participants’ emotional associations with key image components were also measured. The findings reveal that nearly two-thirds of respondents preferred the image featuring a flower strip and a tractor, associating it with concepts such as green, nature, and environment (flowering strip), as well as the traditional image of agriculture (tractor). Among the two images without flower strips, the tractor was preferred over the robot by more than a sixfold margin. Conversely, the image with a robot and flower strips was chosen about as frequently as the image with a tractor but without flower strips. Additionally, the study highlights how socio-demographic characteristics may influence the evaluation of agricultural landscape changes. Two logistic regression models indicate that factors such as age, gender, direct contact with farmers, and respondents’ reported "green consumption value" significantly impact preferences of specific landscape components. Overall, the results suggest a preference for landscapes that are both familiar and environmentally oriented. Nevertheless, the use of autonomous technologies and the shift towards small-scale diversified production systems are not broadly rejected.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel, Andreas & Garnitz, Johanna & Spykman, Olivia, 2024. "Public Perception of Biodiversity Landscape Elements and Autonomous Technologies in Small-Scale Production Systems," Agri-Tech Economics Papers 373439, Harper Adams University, Land, Farm & Agribusiness Management Department.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:haaepa:373439
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.373439
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/373439/files/Public%20perception%20of%20biodiversity%20landscape...pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.373439?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilmes, Rolf & Waldhof, Gabi & Breunig, Peter, 2022. "Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 17(11), pages 1-20.
    2. Katherine Dentzman & Jessica R. Goldberger, 2020. "Plastic scraps: biodegradable mulch films and the aesthetics of ‘good farming’ in US specialty crop production," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(1), pages 83-96, March.
    3. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    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. Bernardo Martin-Gorriz & José A. Zabala & Virginia Sánchez-Navarro & Belén Gallego-Elvira & Víctor Martínez-García & Francisco Alcon & José Francisco Maestre-Valero, 2022. "Intercropping Practices in Mediterranean Mandarin Orchards from an Environmental and Economic Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, April.
    2. Parron, Lucilia Maria & Villanueva, Anastasio Jose & Glenk, Klaus, 2022. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    3. Weituschat, Chiara Sophia & Pascucci, Stefano & Materia, Valentina Cristiana & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2023. "Can contract farming support sustainable intensification in agri-food value chains?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    4. Zuo, Qiting & Wu, Qingsong & Yu, Lei & Li, Yongping & Fan, Yurui, 2021. "Optimization of uncertain agricultural management considering the framework of water, energy and food," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    5. Zhen, Huayang & Qiao, Yuhui & Zhao, Haijun & Ju, Xuehai & Zanoli, Raffaele & Waqas, Muhammad Ahmed & Lun, Fei & Knudsen, Marie Trydeman, 2022. "Developing a conceptual model to quantify eco-compensation based on environmental and economic cost-benefit analysis for promoting the ecologically intensified agriculture," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    6. Zewdie, Markose Chekol & Magondu, Esther & Bottema, Mariska & Adam, Rahma & Rossignoli, Cristiano M. & Bonilla Anariba, Sara & Okemwa, Douglas & Yossa, Rodrigue, 2026. "Valuing sustainability in aquaculture: A comprehensive demand and supply side study in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 248(C).
    7. John Strauser & William P. Stewart, 2024. "Moving beyond production: community narratives for good farming," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(3), pages 1195-1210, September.
    8. Dowling, Alyce & Roberts, Penny & Doolette, Ashlea & Zhou, Yi & Denton, Matthew D., 2023. "Oilseed-legume intercropping is productive and profitable in low input scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    9. Lenore Newman & Robert Newell & Colin Dring & Alesandros Glaros & Evan Fraser & Zsofia Mendly-Zambo & Arthur Gill Green & Krishna Bahadur KC, 2023. "Agriculture for the Anthropocene: novel applications of technology and the future of food," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 15(3), pages 613-627, June.
    10. Marette, Stéphan & Roosen, Jutta, 2022. "Just a little bit more legumes! Results of an online survey in Europe," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 25(2), March.
    11. Albaladejo-García, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-García, Víctor & Alcon, Francisco, 2026. "Towards a sustainable agri-food value chain under best agricultural practices: Integrating consumer and supply-side economic analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    12. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Nong, Yixin & Yin, Changbin & Yi, Xiaoyan & Ren, Jing & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2021. "Smallholder farmer preferences for diversifying farming with cover crops of sustainable farm management: A discrete choice experiment in Northwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    14. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Li, Xinyi & Zhang, Weina & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2021. "Policy-oriented versus market-induced: Factors influencing crop diversity across China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    15. Zeddies, Hendrik Hilmar & Busch, Gesa, . "Public Acceptance of Robots and Autonomous Crop Farming – A Cluster Analysis of German Citizens’ Attitudes and Concerns," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 74.
    16. Stéphan Marette, 2021. "Sustainability and Consumer Willingness to Pay for Legumes: A Laboratory Study with Lentils," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-16, March.
    17. Albaladejo-García, José A. & Alcon, Francisco & Martínez-Carrasco, Federico & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2023. "Understanding socio-spatial perceptions and Badlands ecosystem services valuation. Is there any welfare in soil erosion?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    18. Sofia Galeotti & Luca Cacchiarelli & Eleonora Sofia Rossi & Roberto Henke & Raffaella Zucaro, 2025. "The Role of Italian Local Agencies for Water Management in the Mitigation of and Adaptation to Climate Change: Stated Preference Methods for Future Sustainable Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(8), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Rahman, Mohammad Mashiur & Meldrum, James R. & Mueller, Julie M. & Huber, Christopher, 2026. "Valuing socio-economic and ecological attributes of forested watershed restoration to reduce wildfire risk in the southwestern U.S," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    20. Lucía Díez Sanjuán & Paola Migliorini, 2024. "Understanding the rationale and advantages of a traditional Mediterranean intercropping system in the nineteenth century," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 41(2), pages 561-581, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    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:ags:haaepa:373439. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dlhauuk.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.