Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech Republic

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper addresses the development of organic agriculture in the Czech Republic, which is seen as a success story among post-communist countries. The relatively short history of organic farming and specific contextual factors raises questions about the nature and meaning of Czech organic farming. The goal of this study was to find out how farmers view their own practice, interpret its symbolic value, and construct its content. This empirical study uses Q methodology aimed at the identification of the collectively-shared perspectives belonging engaged actors. Data were gathered through semi-standardized interviews with Czech farmers registered in official organic scheme. The analysis emphasized three components, which are considered as three distinct perspectives possessed by organic farmers; that is, (1) organic farming as a way of life, (2) as an occupation, and (3) as a production of food of an alternative quality compared to conventional food. Each viewpoint entails a different understanding of what organic farming means; each then—when considered together—comprises the meaning of organic agriculture in the Czech Republic. The presented classification of the farmers holding the viewpoints contributes to the ongoing theoretical discussion regarding the nature of the current organic sector, its development and potential conventionalization.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See http://www.sedmagenerace.cz.

  2. The distinctions in the approaches to organic farming have been partly diminished by the fact that the interview was conducted with the chief agronomist of the farm. His perspective on organic farming included many traditional elements, which contradicted the actual organization of their enterprise.

  3. Differences between groups are evaluated with the use of statistical testing of z-score differences. The first group scored statements [1], [2] and [18] significantly differently from other two groups (1% level of significance).

  4. The emphasis placed on statements [35], [20] and [14] are the points in which second group differs from others (1% level of significance).

  5. The scores of these quotes are significantly different from the evaluation of the other two groups (1% level of significance).

Abbreviations

EU:

European Union

IFOAM:

International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements

NGO:

Non governmental organization

References

  • Addams, H. 2000. Q methodology. In Social discourse and environmental policy: An application of Q methodology, ed. H. Addams and J. Proops, 14–40. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks, J., and T. Marsden. 2001. The nature of rural development: The organic potential. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 3 (2): 103–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, J., and J. Proops. 2000. Citizenship, sustainability and environmental research: Q methodology and local exchange trading systems. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best, H. 2008. Organic agriculture and the conventionalization hypothesis: A case study from West Germany. Agriculture and Human Values 25 (1): 95–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1980. Political subjectivity: Application of Q methodology in political science. New Haven, USA: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1996. Q methodology and qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research 6 (4): 561–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S.R. 1999. Q methodology. In Handbook of research methods in public administration, ed. G.J. Miller and M.L. Whicker, 599–637. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buck, D., C. Getz, and J. Guthman. 1997. From farm to table: The organic vegetable commodity chain of Northern California. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, H., and R. Liepins. 2001. Naming organics: Understanding organic standards in New Zealand as a discursive field. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conford, P. 2001. The origins of the organic movement. Edinburgh, UK: Floris Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombes, B., and H. Campbell. 1998. Dependent reproduction of alternative modes of agriculture: Organic farming in New Zealand. Sociologia Ruralis 38 (2): 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dabbert, S., A.N. Häring, and R. Zanoli. 2004. Organic farming: Policies and prospects. UK: Zedbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I. 1996. Organic farming between professionalisation and conventionalisation—the need for a more discerning view of farmer practices. http://orgprints.org/7390/. Accessed 7 January 2009.

  • Darnhofer, I. 2005. Organic farming and rural development: Some evidence from Austria. Sociologia Ruralis 45 (4): 308–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I., W. Schneeberger, and B. Freyer. 2005. Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agriculture and Human Values 22 (1): 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duram, L.A. 2000. Agents’ perception of structure: How Illinois organic farmers view political, social and ecological factors. Agriculture and Human Values 17 (1): 35–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. 2007. Eurostat news release 80/2007, 12 June 2007.

  • Fairweather, J.R. 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agriculture and Human Values 16 (1): 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J.R., and K. Klonsky. 2009. Response to Vanclay et al. on farming styles: Q methodology for identifying styles and its relevance to extension. Sociologia Ruralis 49 (2): 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, A., and V. Mogyorody. 2001. Organic farmers in Ontario: An examination of the conventionalization argument. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (4): 399–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hrabalová, A., and K. Zander. 2006. Organic beef farming in the Czech Republic: Structure, development and economic performance. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 52 (2): 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jánský, J., and I. Živělová. 2007. Subsidies for the organic agriculture. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 53 (9): 392–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaltoft, P. 2001. Organic farming in late modernity: At the frontier of modernity or opposing modernity? Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 146–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Librová, H. 2003. Vlažní a váhaví. Kapitoly o ekologickém luxusu. Brno, Czech Republic: Doplněk.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S., and D. Halpin. 2005. The ‘conventionalisation’ thesis reconsidered: Structural and ideological transformation of Australian organic agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 45 (4): 284–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lostak, M. 1994. From socialist equality to post-socialist diversity? (The case of local initiatives and their role in the Czech countryside). Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 40 (11): 893–906.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lostak, M., and E. Kucerova. 2007. The impacts of local endogenous initiatives on the public (the case of the Tradice Bílých Karpat). Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 53 (11): 495–504.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lustigová, L., and P. Kušková. 2006. Ecological footprint in the organic farming system. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 52 (11): 503–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeown, B., and D. Thomas. 1988. Q methodology. Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Application in the Social Sciences, No. 66. London, UK: Sage.

  • Michelsen, J. 2001. Recent development and political acceptance of organic farming in Europe. Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michelsen, J. 2008. A Europeanization deficit? The impact of EU organic agriculture regulations on new member states. Journal of European Public Policy 15 (1): 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MZe ČR. 2004. Action plan for developing organic farming in the Czech Republic to the year 2010. Prague, Czech Republic: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • MZe ČR. 2007. Biopotraviny—ano, ale co to je?/Organic food—yes, but what is it? Prague, Czech Republic: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. http://81.0.228.70/attachments/GFK-BIO_zari07.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2008.

  • MZe ČR. 2008. Yearbook 2008—organic farming in the Czech Republic. Prague, Czech Republic: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. http://www.mze.cz/attachments/rocenka_v_Aj_08-na_web.pdf. Accessed 7 January 2009.

  • MZe ČR. 2009. Základní statistické údaje ekologického zemědělství k 31.12.2008/Basic statistical facts about organic farming 31.12.2008. Prague, Czech Republic: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic. http://www.mze.cz/Index.aspx?ch=73&typ=1&val=43540&ids=0&katId=3343. Accessed 13 March 2009.

  • Noe, E. 2003. The paradox for the diffusion of organic farming in Denmark. In Sociological perspectives of organic agriculture: From pioneer to policy, ed. G. Holt and M. Reed, 210–226. Wallingford, UK: CABI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padel, S. 2001. Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis 41 (1): 40–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Previte, J., B. Pini, and F. Haslam-McKenzie. 2007. Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis 47 (2): 135–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephenson, W. 1953. The study of behavior. Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svatoš, M. 2008. Selected trends forming European agriculture. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 54 (3): 93–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • SZIF. 2008. Nová kampaň na podporu bio výrobků/New camping promoting organic products. The State Agricultural Intervention Fund. http://www.jimebio.cz/index.php?section=spotrebitel&page=bio_kampan. Accessed 7 July 2008.

  • Tomlinson, I. 2008. Re-thinking the transformation of organics: The role of the UK government in shaping British organic food and farming. Sociologia Ruralis 48 (2): 133–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tovey, H. 1997. Food, environmentalism and rural sociology: On the organic farming movement in Ireland. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (1): 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tress, B. 2001. Converting to organic agriculture—Danish farmers’ views and motivations. Geografisk Tidsskrift 101 (1): 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Václavík, T. 2007. Český trh s biopotravinami. Greenmarketing. Moravské Knínice, Czech Republic: Greenmarketing.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, J.D. 1994. Styles of farming: An introductory note on concepts and metodology. In Endogenous regional development in Europe, ed. H.J. de Haan and J.D. van der Ploeg, 7–31. Luxembourg, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

  • van der Ploeg, J.D., et al. 2000. Rural development: From practices and policies towards theory. Sociologia Ruralis 40 (4): 391–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vartdal, B. 1993. Motivatsjon og meistring av omlegging til oekologisk jordbru. Trondheim, Norway: Sentre for Bygedforskning and Norsoek.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vergner, I., and R.J. Barták. 1991. Základy alternativního zemědělství. Prague, Czech Republic: Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, S., and P. Stenner. 2005. Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology 1 (2): 67–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willer, H., M. Yussefi-Menzler, and N. Sorensen. 2008. The world of organic agriculture—statistics and emerging trends 2008. http://orgprints.org/13123/. Accessed 7 July 2008.

  • Zagata, L. 2007. Bio cash-cow? Context and content of Czech organic farming. Agricultural Economics (Zemědělská Ekonomika) 53 (1): 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the helpful comments from the editor and two anonymous referees for their inspirational remarks. Many thanks also go to the farmers, who took part in the research. This paper was supported by the grant “Economics of resources of Czech agriculture and their efficient use in the framework of multifunctional agri-food systems” funded by the Czech Ministry of Education (Grant No. 6046070906).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Humanities, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Kamýcká 129, 165 21, Prague 6—Suchdol, Czech Republic

    Lukas Zagata

Authors
  1. Lukas Zagata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lukas Zagata.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zagata, L. How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech Republic. Agric Hum Values 27, 277–290 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9230-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-009-9230-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation