Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:27:57.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farm level implementation of soil conservation measures: farmers’ beliefs and intentions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 January 2017

Magdalena Werner ,
Erwin Wauters ,
Jo Bijttebier ,
Horst-Henning Steinmann ,
Greet Ruysschaert  and
Andrea Knierim
Magdalena Werner*
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University, Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, Grisebachstrasse 6, D37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Erwin Wauters
Affiliation:
The Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Social Sciences Unit, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Jo Bijttebier
Affiliation:
The Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Social Sciences Unit, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Horst-Henning Steinmann
Affiliation:
Georg-August-University, Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use, Grisebachstrasse 6, D37077 Göttingen, Germany.
Greet Ruysschaert
Affiliation:
The Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research (ILVO), Plant Sciences Unit, Burgemeester Van Gansberghelaan 92, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Andrea Knierim
Affiliation:
Rural Sociology, University Hohenheim, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Understanding motivating factors for taking soil conservation measures is seen as key to improving on-farm implementation. However, to date only few on-farm conservation measures have been investigated. The objective of this paper is to investigate the influence of farmers’ subjective beliefs on their intention to apply and actual implementation of cover cropping, with the region of Brandenburg (Germany) as a case. An additional objective was to investigate how these insights can contribute to increase farm level implementation of soil conservation measures. Theory of planned behavior provides an approach to understand human behavior by analyzing farmers’ subjective beliefs. Our results, based on a survey of 96 farmers, show that attitudes (ATTs) and perceived difficulty significantly explain variations in intention to apply cover cropping, with ATTs being generally very positive. We discuss that, in this case, the most effective way to increase on-farm implementation is to decrease the farmers’ perception of difficulty. This can be achieved by providing information to farmers on how to overcome barriers to implementation of conservation measures. In-depth insights into belief structures reveal what kind of information is most useful in the case of cover cropping.

Keywords

theory of planned behaviorcover cropsconservation practice adoptionbest management practicesagri-environmental problemsfarm compatibility
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 524 - 537
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahnstrom, J., Hockert, J., Bergea, H.L., Francis, C.A., Skelton, P., and Hallgren, L. 2009. Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation? Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1):38–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processess 20:179–211.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. 2002. Constructing a TPB questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological Considerations. Available at Web site http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~aizen/ (verified 7 July 2016).Google Scholar
Amt für Statistik Berlin-Brandenburg (ed.) 2015. Bodennutzung der landwirtschaftlichen Betriebe im Land Brandenburg (Statistischer Bericht, C/1-j/14)’. Available at Web site https://www.statistik-berlin-brandenburg.de/Statistiken/statistik_SB.asp?Ptyp=700andSageb=41002andcreg=BBBandanzwer=6 (verified 10 August 2015).Google Scholar
Armitage, C.J. and Conner, M. 2001. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology 40:471–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beedell, J. and Rehman, T. 1999. Explaining farmers’ conservation behaviour: Why do farmers behave the way they do? Journal of Environmental Management 57(3):165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beedell, J. and Rehman, T. 2000. Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies 16(1):117–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BMELV 2013. Gute fachliche Praxis Bodenbewirtschaftung und Bodenschutz. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, Bonn.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W. and Cudeck, R. 1992. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research 21(2):230–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, B.M. and Watkins, D. 2003. The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology 34(2):155–175.Google Scholar
Carr, S. and Tait, J. 1991. Differences in the attitudes of farmers and conservationists and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management 32(3):281–294.Google Scholar
Conner, M. and Armitage, C.J. 1998. Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28(15):1429–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, J.W. and Plano Clark, V.L. 2007. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif.Google Scholar
Currle, J. 1995. Landwirte und Bodenabtrag: Empirische Analyse der bäuerlichen Wahrnehmung von Bodenerosion und Erosionsschutzverfahren in drei Gemeinden des Kraichgaus. Margraf, Weikersheim.Google Scholar
de Graaf, J., Kessler, A., and Olsen, P. 2010. Farm level adoption of soil and water conservation measures and policy implications in Europe. Land Use Policy 27:1–3.Google Scholar
Ervin, C.A. and Ervin, D.E. 1982. Factors affecting the use of soil conservation practices: Hypotheses, evidence and policy implications. Land Economics 58(3):277–292.Google Scholar
European Commission—Joint Research Centre—IES 2012. The State of Soil in Europe JRC Reference Report. Available at Web site http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ESDB_Archive/eusoils_docs/other/18EUR25186.pdf (verified 24 October 2012).Google Scholar
Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M., Bordia, P., and Hogg, M.A. 2005. Explaining landholders’ decisions about riparian zone management: The role of behavioural, normative, and control beliefs. Journal of Environmental Management 77(1):12–21.Google Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour: An Introduction to Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading.Google Scholar
Flett, R., Alpass, F., Humphries, S., Massey, C., Morriss, S., and Long, N. 2004. The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming. Agricultural Systems 80:199–211.Google Scholar
Fragar, L., Kelly, B., and Peters, M. 2008. Partnerships to promote mental health of NSW farmers: The New South Wales Farmers Blueprint for mental health. Australian Journal Rural Health 16(3):170–175.Google Scholar
Grothmann, T. and Patt, A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change 15(3):199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gselman, A. and Kramberger, B. 2008. Benefits of winter legume cover crops require early seeding. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59:1156–1163.Google Scholar
Hagger, M.S., Chatzisarantis, N.L.D., and Biddle, S.J.H. 2002. A meta-analytic review of the Theories of Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior in physical activity: Predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 24:3–32.Google Scholar
Heong, K.L. and Escalada, M.M. 1999. Quantifying rice farmers’ pest management decisions: Beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Protection 18(5):315–322.Google Scholar
Hijbeek, R., Wolf, J., and van Ittersum, M. 2014. A typology of farming systems, related soil management and soil degradation in eight European countries. Catch-C Report D2.242. Available at Web site http://www.catch-c.eu/deliverables/D2.242-Atypologyoffarmingsystems.pdf (verified 19 March 2016).Google Scholar
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. 1998. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3(4):424–453.Google Scholar
Kuo, S. and Sainju, U.M. 1998. Nitrogen mineralization and availability of mixed leguminous and non-leguminous cover crop residues in soil. Biology and Fertility of Soils 26:346–353.Google Scholar
Lemaire, G., Recous, S., and Mary, B. 2004. Managing residues and nitrogen in intensive cropping systems. New understanding for efficient recovery by crops. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, 26 September–1 October 2004, Brisbane, Australia. Available at Web site www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/ (verified 1 October 2015).Google Scholar
Lokhorst, A.M., Hoon, C., Le Rutte, R., and de Snoo, G. 2014. There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy 39:121–126.Google Scholar
Lokhorst, A.M., Staats, H., van Dijk, J., van Dijk, E., and de Snoo, G. 2011. What's in it for Me? Motivational Differences between Farmers’ Subsidised and Non-Subsidised Conservation Practices. Applied Psychology 60(3):337–353.Google Scholar
Lynne, G.D., Casey, C.F., Hodges, A., and Rahmani, M. 1995. Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 16:581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, E., Sullivan, S., Ericson, D., and DeYoung, R. 1997. Environmental awareness, economic orientation, and farming practices: Comparison of organic and conventional farmers. Environmental Management 21(5):747–758.Google Scholar
Meijer, S., Catacutan, D., Sileshi, G., and Nieuwenhuis, M. 2015. Tree planting by smallholder farmers in Malawi: Using the theory of planned behaviour to examine the relationship between attitudes and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43:1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Napier, T.L., Thraen, C.S., Gore, A., and Goe, W.R. 1984. Factors affecting adoption of conventional and conservation tillage practices in Ohio. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 39(3):205–209.Google Scholar
Prager, K. 2002. Akzeptanz von Massnahmen zur Umsetzung einer umweltschonenden Landbewirtschaftung bei Landwirten und Beratern in Brandenburg. Margraf, Weikersheim.Google Scholar
Price, J.C. and Leviston, Z. 2014. Predicting pro-environmental agricultural practices: The social, psychological and contextual influences on land management. Journal of Rural Studies 34:65–78.Google Scholar
Quast, J., Böhme, M., Ehlert, V., Ette, J., Gottschik, M., Jaeckel, A., Knierim, A., Messal, H., Sawicka, M., Sbjeschni, A., Schmidt, W., Szerencsits, M., and Tümpling, W. v. 2011. Flood risks in consequence of agrarian land-use measures in flood formation and inundation zones and conclusions for flood risk management plans. Irrigation and Drainage 60:105–112.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, J.M., Molnar, J.J., Fazio, R.A., Sydnor, E., and Lowe, M.J. 2009. Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Change agent perspectives. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1):60.Google Scholar
Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schumacker, R.E. and Beyerlein, S.T. 2000. Confirmatory factor analysis with different correlation types and estimation methods. Structural Equation Modelling – A Multidisciplinary Journal 7(4):629–636.Google Scholar
Sheeran, P., Trafimow, D., and Armitage, C.J. 2003. Predicting behaviour from perceived behavioural control: Tests of the accuracy assumption of the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology 42(3):393–410.Google Scholar
Siebert, R., Toogood, M., and Knierim, A. 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46(4):318–340.Google Scholar
Soule, M.J., Abebayehu, T., and Keith, D.W. 2000. Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(4):993–1005.Google Scholar
Statistisches Bundesamt 2011. Bodennutzung der Betriebe einschließlich Zwischenfruchtanbau Landwirtschaftszählung / Agrarstrukturerhebung Fachserie 3 Reihe 2.1.2. Available at Web site https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/LandForstwirtschaft/AlteAusgaben/BodennutzungAlt.html (verified 19 December 2016).Google Scholar
St John, F.A.V., Edwards-Jones, G., and Jones, J.P.G. 2010. Conservation and human behaviour: Lessons from social psychology. Wildlife Research 37(8):658–667.Google Scholar
Turvey, C. 1991. Environmental quality constraints and farm-level decision making. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73:1399–1404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, W.F.A., Lokhorst, A.M., Berendse, F., and de Snoo, G.R. 2015. Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy 42:759–766.Google Scholar
Vanslembrouck, I., Van Huylenbroeck, G., and Verbeke, W. 2002. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53:489–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, J.D., Hoyt, G.D., and Wollum, A.G. II 2000. Cover crop nitrogen availability to conventional and no-till corn: Soil mineral nitrogen, corn nitrogen status, and corn yield. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 31:1017–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, C.A., Atkinson, D., Gosling, P., Jackson, L.R., and Rayns, F.W. 2002. Managing soil fertility in organic farming systems. Soil Use and Management 18:239–247.Google Scholar
Wauters, E., Bielders, C., Poesen, J., Govers, G., and Mathijs, E. 2010. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 27(1):86–94.Google Scholar
Wauters, E. and Mathijs, E. 2014. The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 10(1):78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yammarino, F.J., Skinner, S.J., and Childers, T.L. 1991. Understanding mail survey response behavior: A meta analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly 55:613–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, C.E. and Shortle, J.S. 1984. Investment in soil conservation structures: The role of farm operator and operation characteristics. Agricultural Economics Research 36(2):10–15.Google Scholar
Zubair, M. and Garforth, C. 2006. Farm level tree planting in Pakistan: The role of farmers’ perceptions and attitudes. Agroforestry Systems 66(3):217–229.Google Scholar
Zubair, M., Garforth, C., Hussain, S.B., Zahid, D.M., Baloch, M., Safdar, S., and Fazalur, R. 2011. Farm Forestry in Pakistan: An application of Theory of Planned Behavior by probing in the measurement issues. Pakistan Journal of Botany 43(1):705–714.Google Scholar