Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics

2019 Edition
| Editors: David M. Kaplan

Farmer Types and Motivation

  • Ika DarnhoferEmail author
  • Peter Walder
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1179-9_86

Synonyms

Introduction

Building on the diversity of agricultural practices and the observation that even under similar conditions, not all farmers make similar choices, farmer types are often used to distinguish between groups (or types) of farmers. A farmer type is usually described through the interrelationships between attributes, e.g., farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics, their values, the characteristics of their enterprises, and their biophysical assets. Farmer types are thus a means to make sense of the complex relationships between multiple factors that can influence farmer...

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

References

  1. Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., & 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
  2. Davies, B. B., & Hodge, I. D. (2007). Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological Economics, 61, 323–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Emtage, N., Herbohn, H., & 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
  4. Fairweather, J., & Keating, N. (1994). Goals and management styles of New Zealand farmers. Agricultural Systems, 44, 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Farmar-Bowers, Q., & Lane, R. (2009). Understanding farmers’ strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 1135–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Girard, N. (2006). Catégoriser les pratiques d’agriculteurs pour reformuler un problème en partenariat. Une proposition méthodologique [Categorising farmers’ practices to reformulate a problem in partnership: A method for building situation-specific typologies]. Cahiers Agriculture, 15, 261–272.Google Scholar
  7. Glenna, L., Jussaume, R., & Dawson, J. (2011). How farmers matter in shaping agricultural technologies: Social and structural characteristics of wheat growers and wheat varieties. Agriculture and Human Values, 28, 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greiner, R., Patterson, L., & Miller, O. (2009). Motivations, risk perception and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems, 99, 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ingram, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., & Short, C. (2013). Incorporating agri-environment schemes into farm development pathways: A temporal analysis of farmer motivation. Land Use Policy, 31, 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kluge, S. (2000). Empirically grounded construction of types and typologies in qualitative social research. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1124/2499
  11. Kuehne, G., Bjornlund, H., & Cheers, B. (2007). There’s more than one type of farmer: Acknowledging farmers’ diversity – An Australian perspective. The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 2, 179–186.Google Scholar
  12. Mann, S., & Gairing, M. (2012). ‘Loyals’ and ‘optimizers’: Shedding light on the decision for or against organic agriculture among Swiss farmers. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 25, 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morris, C., & Potter, C. (1995). Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the U.K. Journal of Rural Studies, 11, 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morris, J., Mills, J., & Crawford, I. (2000). Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environment schemes: The Countryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy, 17, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Riley, M. (2011). Turning farmers into conservationists? Progress and prospects. Geography Compass, 5, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Soini, K., Diaz, C., Gandini, G., de Haas, Y., Lilja, T., Martin-Collado, D., Pizzi, F., & Hiemstra, S. J. (2012). Developing a typology for local cattle breed farmers in Europe. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 129, 436–447.Google Scholar
  17. van der Ploeg, J. D. (1993). Rural sociology and the new agrarian question. A perspective from the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis, 33, 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Walford, N. (2003). Productivism is allegedly dead, long life productivism. Evidence of continued productivist attitudes and decision-making in South-East England. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economic and Social SciencesBOKU – University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria