Peranian Artikel Behavioral Factors Affecting The Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices
Peranian Artikel Behavioral Factors Affecting The Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices
Peranian Artikel Behavioral Factors Affecting The Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices
417–471
doi:10.1093/erae/jbz019
Advance Access Publication 28 May 2019
Abstract
This paper reviews the findings from the last 20 years on the behavioural factors that
influence farmers’ decisions to adopt environmentally sustainable practices. It also
proposes policy options to increase adoption, based on these behavioural factors and
embedded in the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Behavioural factors are grouped
into three clusters, from more distal to more proximal: (i) dispositional factors; (ii)
social factors and (iii) cognitive factors. Overall, the review demonstrates that consid-
ering behavioural factors enriches economic analyses of farmer decision-making, and
can lead to more realistic and effective agri-environmental policies.
JEL classification: D91 Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and
Cognitive Factors on Decision Making, Q15 Agriculture and Environment, Q17
Agricultural Policy
1. Introduction
1.1. Context and objectives
Over the last decades, researchers have increasingly studied the factors that
influence farmers’ adoption of environmentally sustainable practices. Within
this literature, there is a burgeoning stream investigating the role of behav-
ioural factors. Previous academic attempts to take stock of the factors influen-
cing farmers’ adoption of sustainable practices (Kabii and Horwitz, 2006;
Pannell et al., 2006; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2008;
Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy and Floress, 2012) did not specifically focus on the
role of behavioural factors, often resulting in an incomplete overview and
limited theoretical understanding of how and why these factors affect
1 The 2015 World Development Report (World Bank Group, 2015) does make dozens of refer-
ences to the application of behavioural insights to agricultural policy, but all of the reported
cases concern developing countries and very few cases relate to actual policy-led interventions
(as opposed to researcher-led field trials).
Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices 419
are not covered in this review. The paper does not build on a specific theoretical
framework – such as the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) or prospect
theory (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979) – to map behavioural factors influencing
farmer decision-making, as the lack of a unified theory means that we would
inevitably restrict the range of factors considered (Schlüter et al., 2017).
4 EU member states and non-EU countries in the top quartile of the Human Development Index.
5 Nudges are defined as ‘liberty-preserving approaches that steer people in particular directions’
(Sunstein, 2014).
Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices 421
interactions with other individuals (e.g. other farmers or advisors) and include
social norms and signalling motives. Social factors may be proximal or distal;
for instance, injunctive norms (i.e. what farmers perceive others expect from
them) may push farmers to adopt a particular practice or more sustainable
practices in general. Cognitive factors are proximal and relate to learning and
reasoning; they include farmers’ perceptions of the relative benefits, costs
and risks associated with a particular sustainable practice or whether they
feel that they are skilled enough to adopt this practice.
Categorising behavioural factors into these three types and along this spec-
trum may be somewhat arbitrary, and the boundaries between them could be
blurred. However, the purpose is to not to offer the final word on behavioural
factors, but rather to facilitate thinking about them in an ordered and systematic
way. Figure 1 illustrates where these three behavioural factors are positioned in
relation to decision-making and the mechanisms and biases that explain how
and why these behavioural factors affect the adoption of sustainable practices.
3. Dispositional factors
Dispositional factors relate to an individual’s general propensity to behave in
a certain way (Malle, 2011). Table 1 presents the studies that found a
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
Table 1. Literature on the role of dispositional factors on the adoption of sustainable farming practices
423
(continued)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
424
Table 1. (continued)
F. J. Dessart et al.
Behavioural factor Authors of the effect in brackets) Farming activity dependent variable Country
Kallas, Serra and Gil Organic farming practices (+) Permanent crops Self-reported adoption Spain
(2010) (grapes)
Läpple and Van Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (various) Actual adoption Ireland
Rensburg (2011)
Giovanopoulou, Nastis Nitrate pollution reducing schemes Unspecified Actual adoption Greece
and Papanagiotou (+)
(2011)
Mzoughi (2011) Organic farming practices (+) Arable (vegetables) Self-reported adoption France
and permanent
(fruits) crops
Läpple and Kelley Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (various) Actual adoption Ireland
(2015)
Hermann, Mußhoff Investment in organic farming (+) Livestock (hog) Self-reported intention Germany
and Agethen (2016) to adopt*
Flaten and colleagues Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (dairy) Actual adoption Norway
(2018)
Concern
Moral concern Raymond, Brown and Planting of native vegetation (+) Livestock (various) Self-reported adoption Australia
Robinson (2011)
Sheeder and Lynne Conservation tillage (+) Unspecified Self-reported adoption USA
(2011)
Mzoughi (2011) Organic farming practices (+) Arable (vegetables) Self-reported adoption France
and permanent
(fruits) crops
Unspecified Actual adoption Sweden
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
Johansson, Rahm and Forest preservation and wetland
Gyllin (2013) restoration (+)
Environmental Michel-Guillou and Organic farming, watershed Arable crops (various) Self-reported adoption France
concern Moser (2006) operations, integrated farming (+)
Toma and Mathijs Organic farming practices (+) Unspecified Self-reported intention Romania
425
(continued)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
426
Table 1. (continued)
F. J. Dessart et al.
Behavioural factor Authors of the effect in brackets) Farming activity dependent variable Country
sustainable practices (Toma and Mathijs, 2007; Best, 2010; Läpple and Van
Rensburg, 2011). For instance, farmers who adopt sustainable practices are
more likely than conventional farmers to be worried about water quality
(Michel-Guillou and Moser, 2006). Being a member of an environmental
organisation, a proxy for environmental concern, leads farmers to accept
(Maybery, Crase and Gullifer, 2005). This dichotomy has also been referred
to as an opposition between entrepreneurship and peasantry/conservation
(Miira, Vesala and Vesala, 2012). Raymond, Brown and Robinson (2011)
reviewed evidence suggesting that the importance farmers give to conserva-
tion objectives has grown only marginally since the early 2000s. Importantly,
9 Louhichi and colleagues (2018) report that 45 per cent of the farms are exempted and an add-
itional 25 per cent already comply with the greening measures, meaning that only 30 per cent
of farms need to change their land allocation to comply with greening. According to the
European Court of Auditors (2017), greening led to changes in farming practices on around only
5 per cent of all EU farmland.
432 F. J. Dessart et al.
4. Social factors
Interpersonal relationships influence farmers’ decisions to adopt more sus-
tainable practices. Social factors include social norms and signalling motives.
Social norms, in their broad sense, represent collective representations of
acceptable behaviour as well as individual perceptions of the adoption of a
particular conduct by others (Lapinski and Rimal, 2005). Table 2 summarises
selected studies that found a significant relationship between social factors
and the adoption of sustainable farming practices.
Social factors can be relatively distal (e.g. perceived societal pressure to adopt
more sustainable practices in general) or more proximal (e.g. a spouse disap-
proving of a particular labour-intensive, sustainable practice). Traditionally, the
social factors of farmer decision-making have been studied by sociologists and
social psychologists (Michel-Guillou and Moser, 2006), but now there is also a
burgeoning economics literature investigating them.
F. J. Dessart et al.
Operationalisation
Sustainable practice (direction of dependent
Behavioural factor Authors of the effect in brackets) Farming activity variable Country
Descriptive norm
Vanslembrouck, Van Extensification of field margins Unspecified Self-reported Belgium
Huylenbroeck and (+) intention to adopt
Verbeke (2002)
D’Emden, Llewellyn and Conservation tillage (+) Arable crop (various) Self-reported Australia
Burton (2008) adoption
Defrancesco et al. (2008) Participation in agri- Livestock and arable Self-reported Italy
environmental-scheme (+) crops (various) intention to adopt
Kuhfuss et al. (2016b) Permanence in agri- Permanent crops Self-reported France
environmental scheme (+) (grapes) intention to
adopt**
Injunctive norm Beedell and Rehman (1999) Sustainable hedge management Unspecified Actual adoption UK
(+)
Defrancesco et al. (2008) Participation in agri- Livestock and arable Self-reported Italy
environmental-scheme (+) crops (various) intention to adopt
Kallas, Serra and Gil (2010) Organic farming practices (+) Permanent crops Self-reported Spain
(grapes) adoption
Wauters et al. (2010) Soil conservation practices (+) Arable crops (various) Self-reported Belgium
intention to adopt
Läpple and Kelley (2013) Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (various) Self-reported Ireland
intention to adopt
van Dijk et al. (2016) Agri-environmental Livestock (dairy) Self-reported The Netherlands
management practices (+) intention to adopt
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
Signalling motives Willock et al. (1999) Various environmentally Livestock and arable Self-reported UK
oriented behaviours (+) crops (various) adoption
Michel-Guillou and Moser Organic farming, watershed Arable crops (various) Self-reported France
(2006) operations, integrated adoption
farming (+)
Mzoughi (2011) Integrated protection and Arable (vegetables) and Self-reported France
435
436 F. J. Dessart et al.
probably because of the resulting lack of perceived control – see the section
on cognitive factors below.
Harnessing the power of injunctive norms is also a policy option. Instead
of targeting farmers, agri-environmental policies may attempt to persuade
their social referents. Here, it is important to identify the most influential sta-
5. Cognitive factors
The adoption of sustainable practices is influenced by how farmers learn,
understand and perceive these practices, particularly the associated difficul-
ties, costs, benefits and risks. These cognitive factors are very specific and,
hence, proximal to the decision-making process in question: whereas one
type of sustainable practice may be considered risky, costly and difficult to
implement, another may be seen as entailing little risk, cost or difficulty.
Table 3 presents an overview of studies that found a significant relationship
between cognitive factors and the adoptions of sustainable farming practices.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
440
Table 3. Literature on the role of cognitive factors on the adoption of sustainable farming practices
F. J. Dessart et al.
Sustainable practice (direction Operationalisation of
Behavioural factor Authors of the effect in brackets) Farming activity dependent variable Country
Knowledge about D’Emden, Llewellyn and Conservation tillage (+) Arable crops Self-reported adoption Australia
sustainable Burton (2008) (various)
practices Kallas, Serra and Gil (2010) Organic farming practices (+) Permanent crops Self-reported adoption Spain
(schemes) (grapes)
Läpple and Van Rensburg Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (various) Actual adoption Ireland
(2011)
Pavlis et al. (2016) Participation in agri- Permanent and Self-reported intention Five EU
environmental scheme (+) arable crops to adopt countries
(various)
Perceived control Michel-Guillou and Moser Organic farming, watershed Arable crops Self-reported adoption
(2006) operations, integrated farming (various)
(+)
Defrancesco et al. (2008) Participation in agri- Livestock and Self-reported intention Italy
environmental scheme (+) arable crops to adopt
(various)
Läpple and Kelley (2013) Organic farming practices (+) Livestock (various) Self-reported intention Ireland
to adopt
Morgan et al. (2015) Low-emission practices (+) Self-reported adoption Australia
van Dijk et al. (2016) Agri-environmental Livestock (dairy) Self-reported intention The Netherlands
management (+) to adopt
Kuhfuss et al. (2016b) Permanence in agri- Permanent crops Self-reported intention France
environmental scheme (+) (grapes) to adopt**
Perceived benefits Beedell and Rehman (1999) Sustainable hedge management Unspecified Actual adoption UK
(+)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
Perceived Vanslembrouck, Van Participation in voluntary Unspecified Self-reported intention Belgium
environmental Huylenbroeck and extensification of field to adopt
benefits Verbeke (2002) margins (+)
Michel-Guillou and Moser Organic farming, watershed Arable crops Self-reported adoption France
(2006) operations, integrated farming (various)
(+)
(continued)
441
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/erae/article/46/3/417/5499186 by Gadjah Mada University user on 26 May 2022
442
Table 3. (continued)
F. J. Dessart et al.
Behavioural factor Authors of the effect in brackets) Farming activity dependent variable Country
Perceived risks Kurkalova, Kling and Zhao Conservation tillage (−) Arable crops Actual adoption USA
Perceived financial (2006) (various)
risks Pavlis et al. (2016) Participation in agri- Permanent and Self-reported intention Five EU
environmental scheme (−) arable crops to adopt countries
(various)
Trujillo-Barrera, Pennings Building of sustainable Livestock (hog) Actual adoption The Netherlands
and Hofenk (2016) husbandry (−)
Perceived Toma and Mathijs (2007) Organic farming practices (+) Unspecified Self-reported intention Romania
environmental to adopt
risks Arbuckle, Morton and Hobbs Climate change mitigation Arable crops (corn, Self-reported intention USA
(2013) practices (+) soybean) to support
*Lab experiment; **discrete choice experiment; ***field experiment.
Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices 443
5.1. Knowledge
If farmers are to adopt more sustainable practices, an obvious prerequisite is
that they are aware that such practices exist. Generally speaking, having
access to relevant and reliable information is crucial if farmers are to adopt
farmers, whereas the benefits are diluted among other farmers and society in
general. This phenomenon may account for the importance farmers place on
personal benefits, relative to environmental benefits, when deciding whether
to adopt conservation tillage (D’Emden, Llewellyn and Burton, 2008).
Loss aversion also comes into play where the risks of losses loom larger
than the chances of equally valuable gains (Kahneman and Tversky, 1984).
In practice, this means that farmers’ decisions will be more affected by the
risks of yield losses induced by adopting an agri-environmental contract than
by possible increases in revenue due to the reduced costs of chemical inputs
6. Discussion
6.1. Contributions
This paper complements and builds on previous attempts to map the behav-
ioural factors influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt more sustainable prac-
tices. The previous reviews carried out have had an academic focus (Kabii
and Horwitz, 2006; Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007; Prokopy et al., 2008;
Baumgart-Getz, Prokopy and Floress, 2012) and a policy perspective (Dwyer
et al., 2007; OECD, 2012). This review adds to the former in three ways.
First, we addressed the fragmentation of this literature (Pannell et al., 2006)
by covering recent and emerging behavioural economic, psychological and,
to a lesser extent, sociological research on the topic. This allowed us to
Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices 449
When considering the role of the identified behavioural factors, one should
avoid a deterministic stance. This paper identified behavioural factors signifi-
cantly influencing farmers’ decisions to adopt specific sustainable practices in
specific cultural contexts. In other words, the external validity of these behav-
ioural factors, beyond the cultural settings in which they were examined, is
question the validity and direction of the effects. For instance, the perceived
environmental benefits associated with sustainable practices are correlated
with the adoption of organic farming practices (e.g. Beedell and Rehman,
1999). However, it may very well be that the adoption triggers a perception
of higher environmental benefits rather than the other way around.
7. Conclusions
The main goal of this paper was to provide a structured, integrative overview
of the behavioural factors that influence farmers’ adoption of environmentally
sustainable practices. Our second objective was to propose initial directions
456 F. J. Dessart et al.
for policy options addressing these behavioural factors within the context of
the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). We have orga-
nised the behavioural factors and the policy recommendations addressing
them conceptually around three clusters: dispositional, social and cognitive.
These clusters were placed on a distal–proximal spectrum depending on their
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of this paper,
who provided extremely useful feedback on earlier versions, as well as the
participants to the coaching workshop gathering the authors of the papers
submitted to the present special issue (Montpellier, June 2018) and partici-
pants to the second workshop of the Research Network on Economic
Experiments for the CAP (Vienna, September 2018) for relevant insights.
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this article do not imply an official policy position of
the European Commission.
Copyright
Icons used for Figure 1 were retrieved from Adobe Stock (authors: Rasha
Daliyev, Skarin, Napeter, Igarts).
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 50(2): 179–211. http://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Alamian, A. and Paradis, G. (2012). Individual and social determinants of multiple
chronic disease behavioral risk factors among youth. BMC Public Health 12: 224,
http://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-224.
Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics
95(9–10): 1082–1095. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.03.003.
American Psychological Association. (2018a). Behavior – APA dictionary. Retrieved
from https://dictionary.apa.org/behavior
American Psychological Association. (2018b). Personality. Retrieved April 2, 2018, from
http://www.apa.org/topics/personality/
American Psychological Association. (2018c). Psychology – APA Dictionary of
Psychology. Retrieved July 20, 2018, from https://dictionary.apa.org/psychology
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-
glow giving. The Economic Journal 100(401): 464–477. http://doi.org/10.2307/
2234133.
Andrews, A. C., Clawson, R. A., Gramig, B. M. and Raymond, L. (2013). Why do farm-
ers adopt conservation tillage? An experimental investigation of framing effects.
458 F. J. Dessart et al.
Duquette, E., Higgins, N. and Horowitz, J. (2012). Farmer discount rates: experimental
evidence. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 94(2): 451–456. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1093/ajae/aar067.
Dwyer, J., Mills, J., Ingram, J., Taylor, J., Burton, R., Blackstock, K., Slee, B., Brown,
K., Schwarz, G., Matthews, K. and Dilley, R. (2007). Understanding and Influencing
https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/key_policies/documents/
eco_background_final_en.pdf
European Commission. (2017e). Special Eurobarometer 468 – October 2017. Report.
Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment. Retrieved from http://ec.
europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/
Flay, B. R., Snyder, F. and Petraitis, J. (2009). The theory of triadic influence. Emerging
Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research 2: 451–510.
Flocks, J., Clarke, L., Albrecht, S., Bryant, C., Monaghan, P. and Baker, H. (2001).
Implementing a community-based social marketing project to improve agricultural
worker health. Environmental Health Perspectives 109(Suppl 3): 461–468. https://
Grolleau, G., Mzoughi, N. and Thoyer, S. (2015). Les incitations monétaires dans la poli-
tique agro-environnementale: peut-on faire mieux avec moins? Revue d’Etudes En
Agriculture et Environnement 96(02): 241–257.
Halek, M. and Eisenhauer, J. G. (2001). Demography of risk aversion. The Journal of
Risk and Insurance 68(1): 1–24. http://doi.org/10.2307/2678130.
Le Coent, P., Préget, R. and Thoyer, S. (2017). Compensating environmental losses versus
creating environmental gains: implications for biodiversity offsets. Ecological Economics
142(Supplement C): 120–129. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.008.
Lefebvre, M., Langrell, S. R. H. and Gomez-y-Paloma, S. (2015). Incentives and policies
for integrated pest management in Europe: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable
Willock, J., Deary, I. J., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibson, G. J., McGregor, M. J., Sutherland,
A., Dent, J. B., Morgan, O. and Grieve, R. (1999). The role of attitudes and objectives
in farmer decision making: business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in
Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50(2): 286–303. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1477-9552.1999.tb00814.x.