Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Effect of Farmer Attitudes and Objectives on the Heterogeneity of Farm Attributes and Management in Switzerland

  • Published:
Human Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Identifying and interpreting the heterogeneity of farmer behaviour is becoming increasingly important in support of policy- and decision-making goals. This paper explores whether observed differences in farming practices can be interpreted from the heterogeneity of farmer behaviour. Farmer attitudes and objectives were analysed using a combination of principal components and cluster analysis applied to responses to statements in a telephone-based survey. Respondents were classified into four profiles; business-oriented, lifestylers, multifunctionalists and traditionalists. Each profile differed in terms of farm management practices, the amount of land farmers either managed or owned, the existence of successors and the importance placed on household members in providing information. The results suggest that knowledge of farmer behavioural profiles could support more targeted policy development that accounts for alternative farmer goals. However, similarities were also found between the profiles, suggesting that farmer behaviour would be better interpreted as a dynamic set of identities, rather than as static profiles.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The aim of the first survey was to identify the economic and non-economic factors that farmers in the region take into account when deciding on participation in agri-environmental schemes and applying organic farming. Different samples were involved in the two surveys in order to test the relevancy of the identified factors to a different and larger population.

References

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Álvarez-López, C. J., Riveiro-Valiño, J. A., and Marey-Pérez, M. F. (2008). Typology, classification and characterisation of farms for agricultural production planning. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research 6: 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, K. D. (1994). Typologies and Taxonomies: An Introduction to Classification Techniques. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, 07–102. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beg, M. A., and Beg, S. G. (Eds) (2006). Global Encyclopaedia of the Theoretical Psychology. Volume 1.

  • 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.pdf

  • Briggeman, B. C., Gray, A. W., Morehart, M. J., Baker, T. G., and Wilson, C. A. (2007). A New U.S. Farm Household Typology: Implications for Agricultural Policy. Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 765–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Britz, W., Heckelei, T., and Dominguez, I. P. (2006). Effects of decoupling on land use: an EU wide, regionally differentiated analysis. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 55: 215–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brodt, S., Klonsky, K., and Tourte, L. (2006). Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture. Agricultural Systems 89: 90–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Busck, A. G. (2002). Farmers’ Landscape Decisions: Relationships between Farmers’ Values and Landscape Practices. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 233–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, R. (2007). Cluster Analysis-Introduction. Retrieved on 10/09/12 from http://mlsc.lboro.ac.uk/resources/statistics/Clusteranalysis.pdf

  • Cretegny, L. (2001). The Agricultural Policy Reform in Switzerland: An Assessment of the Agriculture Multi-functionality. 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damianos, D., and Giannakopoulos, N. (2002). Farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes in Greece. British Food Journal 104: 261–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnhofer, I. (2006). Can family farmers be understood as adaptive managers? In 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards-Jones, G. (2006). Modelling farmer decision-making: concept, progress and challenges. Animal Science 82: 783–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emtage, N., Herbohn, J., and Harrison, S. (2006). Landholder typologies used in the development of natural resource management programs in Australia-A Review. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management 13: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emtage, N., Herbohn, J., and Harrison, S. (2007). Landholder Profiling and Typologies for Natural Resource-Management Policy and Program Support: Potential and Constraints. Environmental Management 40: 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fairweather, J. R., and Keating, N. C. (1994). Goals and management of New Zealand farmers. Agricultural Systems 44: 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. SAGE Publications.

  • Fish, R., Seymour, S., and Watkins, C. (2003). Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agri-environmental policy. Environment and Planning A 35: 19–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishbein, M., and Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior. Addison-Wesley, Reading.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasson, R. (1973). Goals and Values of Farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24: 521–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godar, J., Tizado, E. J., Pokorny, B., and Johnson, J. (2012). Typology and Characterization of Amazon Colonists: A Case Study Along the Transamazon Highway. Human Ecology 40: 251–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottwald, S. (2010). An early approach toward graded identity and graded membership in set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 161: 2369–2379.

    Article  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: 199–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guagnano, G. A., Stern, P. C., and Dietz, T. (1995). Influences on attitude-behavior relationships: A natural experiment with curbside recycling. Environment & Behavior 27: 699–718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillem, E. E., Barnes, A. P., Rounsevell, M. D. A., and Renwick, A. (2012). Refining perception-based farmer typologies with the analysis of past census data. Journal of Environmental Management 110: 226–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hersperger, A. M., and Bürgi, M. (2010). How Do Policies Shape Landscapes? Landscape Change and its Political Driving Forces in the Limmat Valley, Switzerland 1930–2000. Landscape Research 35: 259–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karali, E. (2012). Investigating the effect of farmer land-use decisions on rural landscapes using an agent-based model approach. PhD thesis, The University of Edinburgh.

  • Kiptop, E., Hebinck, P., Franzel, S., and Richards, P. (2007). Adopters, testers or pseudo-adopters? Dynamics of the use of improved tree fallows by farmers in western Kenya. Agricultural Systems 94: 509–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, D. M., Sullivan, P., Claassen, R., and Foreman, L. (2007). Profiles of US farm households adopting conservation-compatible practices. Land Use Policy 24: 72–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S. (2005a). Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri-environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case. Journal of Agricultural Economics 56: 373–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S. (2005b). Different perspectives on Cross-Compliance. Environmental values 14: 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Månson, P. (2000). Part I: Classical Social Theories. Max Weber. In: Andersen, H. and Kaspersen, L. B., Editors, 2000. Classical and Modern Social Theories. Blackwell Publishers.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray-Rust, D., Dendoncker, N., Dawson, T., Acosta-Michlik, L., Karali, E., Guillem, E., and Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2011). Conceptualising the analysis of socio-ecological systems through ecosystem services and agent based modelling. Journal of Land Use Science 6: 83–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, U., Mertz, O., and Noweg, G. T. (2006). The Rationality of Shifting Cultivation Systems: Labor Productivity Revisited. Human Ecology 34: 201–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2010). Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries: At a Glance. OECD, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS Survival Manual. Open University Press, McGrawHill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piorr, A., Ungaro, F., Ciancaglini, A., Happe, K., Sahrbacher, A., Sattler, C., Uthes, S., and Zander, P. (2009). Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environmental Science & Policy 1: 1122–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, C., and Lobley, M. (1992). Ageing and Succession of Family Farms. Sociologia Ruralis 32: 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renwick, A., Jansson, T., Verburg, P. H., Revoredo-Giha, C., Britz, W., Gocht, A., and McCracken, D. (2013). Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30: 446–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, Attitudes and Values: A Theory of Organisation and Change. Jossey-Bass, Inc., San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell, M. D. A., Annetts, J. E., Audsley, E., Mayr, T., and Reginster, I. (2003). Modelling the spatial distribution of agricultural land use at the regional scale. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 95: 465–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rounsevell, M. D. A., Dawson, T. P., and Harrison, P. A. (2010). A conceptual framework to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodiversity and Conservation 19: 2823–2842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitzberger, I., Wrbka, T., Steurer, B., Aschenbrenner, G., Peterseil, J., and Zechmeister, H. G. (2005). How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 108: 274–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, F., Fry, P., Ledermann, T., and Rist, S. (2009). Social Learning Processes in Swiss Soil Protection-The ‘From Farmer-To Farmer’ Project. Human Ecology 37: 475–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarantakos, S. (2005). Social Research. Palgrave, Macmilan

  • Solano, C., León, H., Pérez, E., and Herrero, M. (2001). Characterising objective profiles of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 67: 153–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Doorn, A., and Bakker, M. (2007). The destination of arable land in a marginal agricultural landscape in South Portugal: an exploration of land use change determinants. Landscape Ecology 22: 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandev, D. L., and Tsvetanova, Y. G. (1997). Ordering of hierarchical classification. Retrieved from www.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/fmi/statist/Personal/Vandev/papers/orden97.pdf on 15/09/12.

  • Valbuena, D., Verburg, P. H., and Bregt, A. K. (2008). A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land-use research. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 128: 27–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verboom, J., Alkemade, R., Klijn, J., Metzger, M. J., and Reijnen, R. (2007). Combining biodiversity modeling with political and economic development scenarios for the 25 EU countries. Ecological Economics 62: 267–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg, P. H., Eickhout, B., and van Meijl, H. (2008). A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analysing the future dynamics of European land use. The Annals of Regional Science 42: 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter, G. (1997). Images of Success: How Illinois Farmers Define the Successful Farmer? Rural Sociology 62: 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. A. (1996). Farmer environmental attitudes and ESA participation. Geoforum 27: 115–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G. A. (1997). Factors Influencing Farmer Participation in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 67–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control 8: 338–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper was conducted under the EU-FP6 Ecochange project GOCE-036866. Eleni Karali was also funded 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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK

    Eleni Karali, Ruth Doherty & Mark D. A. Rounsevell

  2. Landert & Partner, Social research Evaluation and Concepts, Zürich, Switzerland

    Beat Brunner

  3. WSL, Birmensdorf, Switzerland

    Anna M. Hersperger

  4. Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC), Viale Aldo Moro 44, I-40127, Bologna, Italy

    Eleni Karali

Authors
  1. Eleni Karali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Beat Brunner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ruth Doherty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anna M. Hersperger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mark D. A. Rounsevell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eleni Karali.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Statements related to farmer attitudes
Full size table

Appendix 2

Table 7 Statements related to farmer objectives
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karali, E., Brunner, B., Doherty, R. et al. The Effect of Farmer Attitudes and Objectives on the Heterogeneity of Farm Attributes and Management in Switzerland. Hum Ecol 41, 915–926 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9612-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-013-9612-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation