Advertisement

Human Ecology

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 951–963 | Cite as

Identifying the Factors That Influence Farmer Participation in Environmental Management Practices in Switzerland

  • Eleni KaraliEmail author
  • Beat Brunner
  • Ruth Doherty
  • Anna Hersperger
  • Mark Rounsevell
Article

Abstract

This paper identifies the factors that either constrain or facilitate farmer decisions to participate in environmental management practices in Switzerland. Semi-structured interviews were used to explore participation in agro-environmental schemes (AES) and the application of organic farming (OF) in the north of Switzerland. Seventeen factors were found to influence farmer decisions to participate in environmental management practices, demonstrating that their decisions were not solely driven by economic incentives. Social and political factors, household and individual profile characteristics as well as concern for the natural environment were all shown to affect the way in which farmers made decisions, but financial considerations remained important, suggesting that environmental participation resulted mainly from the need to adapt to recent agricultural policy reforms with associated subsidies. Although policy was shown to encourage environmentally-friendly farm management and the achievement of ecological benefits, there is no evidence to suggest that this reflects a long-term shift in ‘green’ farmer attitudes rather than short-term opportunism.

Keywords

Farmers Decision-making Agro-environmental schemes Organic farming In-depth interviews Switzerland 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was conducted under the EU-FP6 Ecochange project GOCE-036866. Eleni Karali was funded also by the Torrance Bequest, The University of Edinburgh. The authors would like to thank all the farmers in the study area who agreed to participate in the survey and the anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments improved this article.

References

  1. Acosta-Michlik, L., and Espaldon, V. (2008). Assessing Vulnerability of Selected Farming Communities in the Philippines Based on a Behavioural Model of agent’s Adaptation to Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 18: 554–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aramyan, L. H., Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., and Verstegen, J. A. A. M. (2007). Factors Underlying the Investment Decision in Energy-Saving Systems in Dutch Horticulture. Agricultural Systems 94: 520–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atari, D. O. A., Yiridoe, E. K., Smale, S., and Duinker, P. N. (2009). What Motivates Farmers to Participate in the Nova Scotia Environmental Farm Plan Program? Evidence and Environmental Policy Implications. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 1269–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beedell, J. D. C., and Rehman, T. (1999). Explaining Farmers’ Conservation Behaviour: Why do Farmers Behave the way They do? Journal of Environmental Management 57: 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackstock, K. L., Ingram, J., Burton, R., Brown, K. M., and Slee, B. (2009). Understanding and Influencing Behaviour Change by Farmers to Improve Water Quality. Science of the Total Environment 408: 5631–5638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bötsch, M. (2005). Modern Swiss agricultural policy. The new role of agriculture. Congress Switzerland 2005 retrieved on 23/02/12 from www.ifaj2005.ch/_aktuell/referate/boetsch_manfred/20050901_boetsch_speech_e.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. Brandth, B., and Haugen, M. S. (2011). Farm Diversification into Tourism – Implications for Social Identity? Journal of Rural Studies 27: 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., and Tourte, L. (2006). Farmer Goals and Management Styles: Implications for Advancing Biologically Based Agriculture. Agricultural Systems 89: 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burton, R. J. F. (2004). Seeing Through the ‘Good Farmer’s’ Eyes: Towards Developing an Understanding of the Social Symbolic Value of ‘Productivist’ Behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis 44: 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burton, R. J. F., and Wilson, G. A. (1999). The Yellow Pages as a Sampling Frame for Farm Surveys: Assessing Potential Bias in Agri-Environmental Research. Journal of Rural Studies 15: 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burton, R. J. F., and Wilson, G. A. (2006). Injecting Social Psychology Theory into Conceptualisations of Agricultural Agency: Towards a Post-Productivist Farmer Self-Identity. Journal of Rural Studies 22: 95–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burton, R. J. F., Kuczera, C., and Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring Farmers’ Cultural Resistance to Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 48: 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Busck, A. G. (2002). Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships between Farmers’ Values and Landscape Practices. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calus, M., Van Huylenbroeck, G., and Van Lierde, D. (2008). The Relationship Between Farm Succession and Farm Assets on Belgian Farms. Sociologia Ruralis 48: 38–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Celio, E., Flint, C. G., Schoch, P., and Grêt-Regamey, A. (2014). Farmers’ perception of their decision-making in relation to policy schemes: A comparison of case studies from Switzerland and the United States. Land Use Policy 41: 163–171.Google Scholar
  16. Colla, E. (2003). International Expansion and Strategies of Discount Grocery Retailers: The Winning Models. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 31: 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corselius, K. L., Simmons, S. R., and Flora, C. B. (2003). Farmer Perspectives on Cropping Systems Diversification in Northwestern Minnesota. Agriculture and Human Values 20: 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cranfield, J., Henson, S., and Holliday, J. (2010). The Motives, Benefits, and Problems of Conversion to Organic Production. Agriculture and Human Values 27: 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cretegny, L. (2001). The Agricultural Policy Reform in Switzerland: An Assessment of the Agriculture Multifunctionality. Paper presented at the 4th Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Purdue University, 2001 and at the 75th International Conference on Policy Modeling for European and Global Issues, Free University of Brussels, 2001.Google Scholar
  20. Curry, N., and Stucki, E. (1997). Swiss Agricultural Policy and the Environment: An Example for the Rest of Europe to Follow? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 40: 465–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Damianos, D., and Giannakopoulos, N. (2002). Farmers’ Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes in Greece. British Food Journal 104: 261–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Darnhofer, I. (2006). Can Family Farmers be Understood as Adaptive Managers? In Langeweld, H., Langeweld, H., and Röling, N. (eds.), Changing European Farming Systems for a Better Future. New Visions for Rural Areas. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp. 232–236.Google Scholar
  23. Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., and Freyer, B. (2005). Converting or not Converting to Organic Farming in Austria: Farmer Types and Their Rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22: 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daskalopoulou, I., and Petrou, A. (2002). Utilising a Farm Typology to Identify Potential Adopters of Alternative Farming Activities in Greek Agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 18: 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Davies, B. B., and Hodge, I. D. (2006). Farmers’ Preferences for new Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., and Trestini, S. (2008). Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59: 114–131.Google Scholar
  27. Dimara, E., and Skuras, D. (2003). Adoption of Agricultural Innovations as a two-Stage Partial Observability Process. Agricultural Economics 28: 187–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duram, L. A. (2000). Agents’ Perceptions of Structure: How Illinois Organic Farmers View Political, Economic, Social, and Ecological Factors. Agriculture and Human Values 17: 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Emery, S. B., and Franks, J. R. (2012). The Potential for Collaborative Agri-Environmental Schemes in England: Can a Well-Designed Collaborative Approach Address farmers’ Concerns With Current Schemes? Journal of Rural Studies 28: 218–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Errington, A. (2002). Handing over the reins: A comparative study of intergenerational farm transfers in England, France and Canada. Xth EEA Congress “Exploring Diversity in the European Agri-Food System” Zaragoza (Spain), 28-31 August 2002.Google Scholar
  31. Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., and Ruto, E. (2010). What do Farmers Want from Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 259–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Falconer, K. (2000). Farm-Level Constraints on Agri-Environmental Scheme Participation: A Transactional Perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. FOAG-Swiss Federal Office for Agriculture. (2006). Swiss Agricultural Policy. Objectives, tools, prospects. Retrieved on 25/06/09, www.blw.admin.ch/org/00022/index.html?lang = enGoogle Scholar
  34. FOEN/FSO (2009). Environment Switzerland 2009. Retrieved on 15/09/09 www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/infothek/publ.Document.120739.pdfGoogle Scholar
  35. Gasson, R., and Errington, A. J. (1993). The Farm Family Business. CAB International, Wallingford, p. 304.Google Scholar
  36. Gintis, H. (2000). Beyond Homo Economicus: Evidence from Experimental Economics. Ecological economics 35: 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. Gorton, M., Douarin, E., Davidova, S., and Latruffe, L. (2008). Attitudes to Agricultural Policy and Farming Future in the Context of the 2003 CAP Reform: A Comparison of Farmers in Selected Established and new Member States. Journal of Rural Studies 24: 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grunert, K. G. (2005). Food Quality and Safety: Consumer Perception and Demand. European Review of Agricultural Economics 32: 396–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Guillem, E. E., and Barnes, A. (2013). Farmer Perceptions of Bird Conservation and Farming Management at a Catchment Level. Land Use Policy 31: 565–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Guillem, E. E., Barnes, A., and Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2012). Refining Perception-Based Farmer Typologies with the Analysis of Past Census Data. Journal of Environmental Management 110: 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hart, K., and Wilson, G. A. (1998). UK Implementation of Agri-Environment Regulation 2078/92/EEC: Enthusiastic Supporter or Reluctant Participant? Landscape Research 23: 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Haugen, M. S. (1998). The gendering of farming. The case of Norway. The European Journal of Women’s Studies 5: 133–153.Google Scholar
  44. Herzog, F., Dreier, S., Hofer, G., Marfurt, C., Schüpbach, B., Spiess, M., and Walter, T. (2005). Effect of Ecological Compensation Areas on Floristic and Breeding Bird Diversity in Swiss Agricultural Landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 108: 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herzon, I., and Mikk, M. (2007). Farmers’ Perceptions of Biodiversity and Their Willingness to Enhance it Through Agri-Environment Schemes: A Comparative Study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 15: 10–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hodkinson, P. (2008). Grounded Theory and Inducting Research. In: Gilbert, N. (2008). Researching Social Life. SAGE. Third Edition.Google Scholar
  47. Hounsome, B., Edwards, R. T., and Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). A Note on the Farmer Mental Health on Adoption: The Case of Agri-Environmental Schemes. Agricultural Systems 91: 229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B. E., and Díaz, J. (2012). Adoption of Water Conservation Practices: A Socioeconomic Analysis of Small-Scale Farmers in Central Chile. Agricultural Systems 110: 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R., Hersperger, A. M. and Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2013). The effect of farmer attitudes and objectives on the heterogeneity of farm attributes and management in Switzerland. Human Ecology 41: 915–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kiptop, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S., and Richards, P. (2007). Adopters, Testers or Pseudo-Adopters? Dynamic of the use of Improved Tree Fallows by Farmers in Western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 94: 509–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Latruffe, L., and Mann, S. (2008). Labor constraints on choosing profitable products for part-time farmers in Swiss agriculture Working Paper SMART – LERECO N°08-03. Retrieved on 04/09/09, www.rennes.inra.fr/smart_eng/publications/working_papersGoogle Scholar
  52. Long, N., and van der Ploeg, J. (1994). Heterogeneity, actor and structure: towards a reconstitution of the concept of structure. In Booth, D. (ed.), Rethinking Social Development. Theory, Research & Practice. Addison, Weley, Longman, Harlow, Essex, pp. 62–89.Google Scholar
  53. Macé, K., Morlon, P., Munier-Jolain, N., and Quéré, L. (2007). Time Scales as a Factor in Decision-Making by French Farmers on Weed Management in Annual Crops. Agricultural Systems 93: 115–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mann, S. (2003). Doing it the Swiss way. Eurochoices 2: 32–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mann, S. (2005a). Different perspectives on Cross-Compliance. Environmental values 14: 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mann, S. (2005b). Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri-environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 373–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mann, S. (2007). Tracing the process of becoming a farm successor on Swiss family farms. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 435–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mariano, M. J., Villano, R., and Fleming, E. (2012). Factors Influencing farmers’ Adoption of Modern Rice Technologies and Good Management Practices in the Philippines. Agricultural Systems 110: 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mattison, E. H., and Norris, K. (2007). Intentions of UK Farmers Toward Biofuel Crop Production: Implication for Policy Targets and Land-use Change. Environmental Science & Technology 41: 5589–5594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michel-Guillou, E., and Moser, G. (2006). Commitment of Farmers to Environmental Protection: From Social Pressure to Environment Conscience. Journal of Environmental Psychology 26: 227–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miljkovic, D. (1999). Optimal Timing in the Problem of Family Farm Transfer from Parent to Child: An Option Value Approach. Journal of Development Economics 61: 543–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Myyrä, S., Pietola, K., and Yli-Halla, M. (2007). Exploring Long-Term Land Improvements Under Land Insecurity. Agricultural Systems 92: 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Noltze, M., Schwarze, S., and Qaim, M. (2012). Understanding the Adoption of System Technologies in Smallholder Agriculture: The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) in Timor Leste. Agricultural Systems 108: 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Northcole, J., and Alonso, A. D. (2011). Factors Underlying Farm Diversification: The Case of Western Australia’s Olive Farmers. Agriculture and Human Values 28: 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. OECD (2010). Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a glance. OECD, Paris.Google Scholar
  66. Offermann, F., Niberg, H., and Zander, K. (2009). Dependency of Organic Farms on Direct Payments in Selected EU Member States: Today and Tomorrow. Food Policy 34: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Potter, C., and Lobley, M. (1992). Ageing and Succession of Family Farms. Sociologia Ruralis 32: 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Præstholm, S., Reenberd, A., and Kristensen, S. P. (2006). Afforestation of European Landscapes: How do Different Types Respond to EU Agri-Environmental Schemes? GeoJournal 67: 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Salamon, S., Gengenbacher, K. M., and Penas, D. J. (1986). Family Factors Affecting the Intergenerational Succession to Farming. Human Organisation 45: 24–33.Google Scholar
  70. Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research, Palgrave Macmillan, 464 pp.Google Scholar
  71. Sattler, C., and Nagel, U. J. (2010). Factors Affecting Farmers Acceptance of Conservation Measures-A Case Study from North-Eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 27: 70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schenk, A., Hunziker, M., and Kienast, F. (2007). Factors Influencing the Acceptance of Nature Conservation Measures-A Qualitative Study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management 83: 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott, J., and Marshall, G. (2004). Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. Oxford University Press. Third Edition.Google Scholar
  74. Solano, C., León, H., Pérez, E., and Herrero, M. (2001). Who Makes Farming Decisions? A Study of Costa Rican Dairy Farmers. Agricultural Systems 67: 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Soliva, R. (2007). Landscape Stories: Using Ideal Type Narratives as a Heuristic Device in Rural Studies. Journal of Rural Studies 23: 62–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Storstad, O. (2001). The impact of consumer trust in the norwegian food market. In Tovey, H., and Blanc, M. (eds.), Food, Nature and Society. Rural Life in Late Modernity. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK.Google Scholar
  77. Storstad, O., and Bjørkhaug, H. (2003). Foundations of Production and Consumption of Organic Food in Norway: Common Attitudes Among Farmers and Consumers? Agriculture and Human Values 20: 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sullivan, S., McCann, E., de Young, R., and Erickson, D. (1996). Farmers’ Attitudes About Farming and the Environment: A Survey of Conventional and Organic Farmers. Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Ethics 9: 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. van der Ploeg, J. D., Laurent, C., Blondeau, F., and Bonnafous, P. (2009). Farm Diversity, Classification Schemes and Multifunctionality. Journal of Environmental Management 90: S124–S131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Campos, E. M. U., and Vanslembrouck, I. (2001). A (Recursive) Multiple Objective Approach to Analyse Changes in the Utility Function of Farmers due to Policy Reforms. Applied Mathematics and Computation 122: 283–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Villa, M. (1999). Born to be Farmers? Changing Expectations in Norwegian Farmers’ Life Courses. Sociologia Ruralis 39: 328–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wilson, G. A. (1996). Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation. Geoforum 27: 115–131.Google Scholar
  83. Wilson, G. A. (1997). Factors Influencing Farmer Participation in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wilson, G. A. (2001). From Productivism to Post-Productivism…and Back Again? Exploring the (un)Changed Natural and Mental Landscapes of European Agriculture. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 26: 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilson, G. A., and Hart, K. (2000). Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environmental Planning A 32: 2161–2185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zepeda, L., and Kim, J. (2006). Farm parents’ Views on Their Children Labor on Family Farms: A Focus Group Study of Wisconsin Dairy Farmers. Agriculture and Human Values 23: 109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ziervogel, G., Bithell, M., Washington, R., and Dowing, T. (2005). Agent-Based Social Simulation: A Method for Assessing the Impact of Seasonal Climate Forecast Applications Among Smallholder Farmer. Agricultural Systems 82: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleni Karali
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Beat Brunner
    • 3
  • Ruth Doherty
    • 1
  • Anna Hersperger
    • 4
  • Mark Rounsevell
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of EdinburghEdinburghUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)BolognaItaly
  3. 3.Landert & Partner, Social Research Evaluation and ConceptsZürichSwitzerland
  4. 4.WSLBirmensdorfSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations