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

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

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

^aAbove potential AES income from basic scheme
SC type type as determined by scale creation method, PC type by profile correlation method
NP Nature Participant, PM Profit Maximizer, PS Pleasure Seeker, TFP Traditional Food Provider, UAA utilized agricultural area, LU livestock unit, LFA least favored area