Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of the variables used in the regression model (arithmetic means and percentages), including FADN variable names

From: Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake

Variables Full sample SC type NP SC type PM SC type PS SC type TFP FADN variable name(s)
Number of farms 288 75 82 64 67  
Number of non-participants 40 10 13 12 5  
AES payments (€/ha)a 126.56 144.21 97.86 117.48 150.62 SE621 / SE025
UAA (ha) 52.75 43.76 58.22 42.23 66.20 SE025
Farms with cattle (%) 39.93 46.67 37.80 45.31 29.85 SE085 + SE090 > 0
Cattle per ha if any (LU) 1.14 1.09 1.25 1.25 0.89 SE085 + SE090 / SE025
Farms with pigs/poultry (%) 46.18 50.67 40.24 60.94 34.33 SE100 + SE105 > 0
Pigs/poultry per ha if any (LU) 1.75 1.18 2.30 1.53 2.27 SE100 + SE105 / SE025
Rental share 0.46 0.43 0.47 0.46 0.49 SE030 / SE025
Productivity (Outputs/Inputs) 1.13 1.14 1.14 1.09 1.14 SE132
LFA (%) 58.33 65.33 52.44 70.77 46.27 SE622 > 0
Higher education (%) 21.53 26.67 20.73 15.38 22.39  
Age 49.12 48.55 48.74 47.83 51.45  
PC type NP (mean correlation) 0.50 0.60 0.45 0.45 0.51  
PC type PM 0.48 0.50 0.51 0.43 0.46  
PC type PS 0.40 0.45 0.38 0.44 0.33  
PC type TFP 0.30 0.31 0.22 0.28 0.38  
  1. aAbove potential AES income from basic scheme
  2. SC type type as determined by scale creation method, PC type by profile correlation method
  3. NP Nature Participant, PM Profit Maximizer, PS Pleasure Seeker, TFP Traditional Food Provider, UAA utilized agricultural area, LU livestock unit, LFA least favored area