This document summarizes research on farmer behaviour in relation to environmental management. It discusses how early work evaluated agri-environment schemes and farmer decision making. More recent research used literature reviews and case studies to develop a better understanding of positively influencing farmer environmental behaviour. Fieldwork identified key factors like attitudes, social norms and control over decisions. Analysis found farmers perceived more environmental benefits from informal hedge management than agri-environment schemes, while observed benefits were higher for scheme-managed hedgerows. The research highlights the importance of understanding farmer perceptions to encourage positive environmental management behaviour.
Hot Call Girls |Delhi |Preet Vihar ☎ 9711199171 Book Your One night Stand
Farmer Behaviour & Environmental Management
1. Farmer Behaviour
in relation to environmental management
Jane Mills
Janet Dwyer Julie Ingram Chris Short Matt ReedPete Gaskell
2. Farmer Behaviour
• Evaluation of agri-
environment schemes –
minimal social science
• Understanding farmer
decision-making - Traditional
knowledge transfer practices
Our early work - (1995 – 2005)
3. Increasing policy interest in farmer
behaviour – why?
• Agri-environment schemes not delivering
(Kleijn & Sutherland et al, 2003)
• Increasing recognition that farmers’ decisions
not always economically rational
• Need for sustainable long-term agri-
environment management
• Voluntary action more likely to become
embedded in social norms
• 2010 The nudge unit – Behavioural Insights
team
4. Understanding and influencing positive
environmental behaviour among farmers and
landowners (2006-2007)
CCRI and MLURI
Aim
• What is good practice in
terms of influencing +ve
environmental
behaviour?
– What does the literature
tell us?
– What do farmers &
stakeholders tell us
5. Literature Review
• Psychology
• Social Learning
• Central Route Processing
– Content of message key
– Relevance, salience,
credibility and responsibility
• Knowledge transfer to
knowledge networks
– Negotiated knowledge &
different forms of expertise
– Reflexivity & power effects
– Legitimacy & accountability
6. • Networks
• Evaluation
• Heterogeneity of farmers
– Diversity within and
between farming styles
– Fractured networks affect
how messages interpreted
& circulated
• Lessons from case studies
– Trust in source, credibility
of the message
– Context-process-
OUTCOME
Literature Review
7. Field work
• Develop a deeper understanding of issues
identified from the literature
• 5 case studies
• 80 face-to-face interviews (individual & family)
– Farmers, scheme promoters & stakeholders
• 2 focus groups
– To ‘member check’ draft findings
8. Findings – Understanding and influencing
behaviour
Willingness
to change
Theory of Planned Behaviour ( Ajzen 1991)
Self-identity
Attitude
Subjective norms
Perceived
behavioural
control
Societal pressure
9. Findings – Understanding and influencing
behaviour
Willingness
to change
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived
behavioural
control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Human
capital
Labour
Social
capital
Time
Capacity
to change
10. Findings – Understanding and influencing
behaviour
Willingness
to change
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived
behavioural
control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Human
capital
Labour
Social
capital
Time
Capacity
to change
Heterogeneity
& farming styles
Social constructions
Advice at
trigger points
Farmer
engagement
2-way
exchange
Credibility
11. Good Practice Guide:
Influencing environmental behaviour
using advice
Principles for use in designing and implementing
advisory measures/ schemes/ initiatives to
stimulate positive environmental behaviour by
farmers and land managers.
12. Farmer attitudes and evaluation of
outcomes to on-farm environmental
management (2011-2013)
• The factors driving environmental activities – both with a
formal agreement and outside of agreements
• The perceived and observed benefits of environmental
management activities
Explore link between farmers' attitudes to environmental
management, their subsequent behaviour, and perceived and
observed environmental benefits
13. Farmed land
Formal environmental
activities
Informal environmental
activities
Willingness
& capacity
Farmer
behaviour
Farmer Perceived
benefits
Observed
Environmental
benefits
Outcomes
Willingness
to adopt
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived
behavioural
control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Human
capital
Labour
Social
capital
Time
Capacity
to adopt
14. Farmed land
Formal environmental
activities
Informal environmental
activities
Willingness
& capacity
Farmer
behaviour
Farmer Perceived
benefits
Observed
Environmental
benefits
Outcomes
Willingness
to adopt
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived
behavioural
control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Human
capital
Labour
Social
capital
Time
Capacity
to change
15. Method - Farm Business Survey Analysis
Analysis of the Countryside Maintenance and
Management Activities module of the FBS
• Based on sample of 1,345 FBS farm businesses
• Analysis of the uptake of arable AES activities and
informal management activities by key farm and farmer
characteristics
• Analysis of the reasons for uptake of AES and informal
arable-related management activities.
16. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Field corner management
Wild bird /pollen and nectar mixture
Buffer strips
Overwintered stubble
Uncropped land
Hedges: maintenance
Ditches: maintenance, restoration
% of responses
Financial
Environmental
Agronomic
Outside farmers control
Other reasons
Primary reasons for undertaking activities under AES
17. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Field corner management
Wild bird /pollen and nectar mixture
Buffer strips
Overwintered stubble
Uncropped land
Hedges: maintenance
Ditches: maintenance, restoration
Financial
Environmental
Agronomic
Outside farmers control
Other reasons
Primary reasons for undertaking informal environmental activities
18. Method - Farmer Interviews
60 in-depth, qualitative, face-to-face interviews
• Farm structural characteristics
• Farmer/family characteristics
• Environmental scheme or policies affecting the farm
• Individual environmental management activities,
including score of the perceived benefits to the
environment
19. 20 environmental features considered falling into three broad
groupings:
•Margins
•In-field features
•Boundary features
Farmer Interviews - Assessment
Scored individual environmental activities on farm scored on a 3
point scale:
1 - ‘Not Convinced Of Any Benefits’
2 - ‘A Few Benefits’
3 - ‘Significant Benefits’
Qualitative analysis of reasons given for scores
20.
21. Results: Buffer strips against watercourses
AES
Observed benefit score
category Informal
Observed benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 2 2 2
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 2 1 2
Medium 1 3 2
Medium 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0
Number of farms in each of perceived and observed score combinations for
buffer strips against watercourses
22. Results: Buffer strips against watercourses
AES
Observed benefit score
category Informal
Observed benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 2 2 2
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 2 1 2
Medium 1 3 2
Medium 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 Low 0 0 0
Number of farms in each of perceived and observed score combinations for
buffer strips against watercourses
•Perceived by farmers in AES to benefit environment
23. Buffer strips against watercourses
•Co
com
“If we weren’t in ELS we would
probably still keep in the buffer
strip alongside the brook. It is easy
to work and it has straight lined
the brook and it does form some
kind of access to the brook,
although you are not supposed to
use it regularly. ..”
24. Results: Hedgerows
AES
Observed benefit score
category Informal
Observed benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 1 2 0
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 3 7 6
Medium 6 1 1 Medium 2 1 1
Low 1 0 0 Low 0 0 0
Number of farms in each of perceived and observed score combinations for
hedgerows
25. Results: Hedgerows
AES
Observed benefit score
category Informal
Observed benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 1 2 0
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 3 7 6
Medium 6 1 1 Medium 2 1 1
Low 1 0 0 Low 0 0 0
Number of farms in each of perceived and observed score combinations for
hedgerows
•Farmers’ perceptions of environmental benefit higher for hedges
managed informally than within an AES.
26. Results: Hedgerows
AES
Observed benefit score
category Informal
Observed benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 1 2 0
Perceivedbenefit
score
High 3 7 6
Medium 6 1 1 Medium 2 1 1
Low 1 0 0 Low 0 0 0
Number of farms in each of perceived and observed score combinations for
hedgerows
•Farmers’ perceptions of environmental benefit higher for hedges
managed informally than within an AES.
•Observed environmental scores higher for hedges managed
under AES compared to those managed informally
27. Results: Hedgerows
“I have seen some terrible damage
to hedges in the area; trying to get
hedges back to the size they were 2
or 3 years ago. Trimming large
branches 1.5 to 2 inches. Looks
awful, split stems; must be opening
it up to disease”
28. Reflections on research findings
• Highlighted importance of understanding farmers perceptions
of the environmental benefits of their activities
willingness to engage in positive environmental management
behaviour
• Belief in efficacy of their actions results in positive attitudes
– e.g buffer strips
• Farmers contest some AES prescriptions which results in
negative attitudes e.g. rotational cutting regimes for
hedgerows
Notas del editor
Strong views about the detrimental impact of 2 to 3 year rotational cutting on wildlife - opened up hedge structure.
Deterring some farmers from entering hedges into ELS or joining ELS.
Observed attributes scored higher under AES related prescriptions - mainly those resulting in rapid change, e.g. cutting frequency, cutting time, and height. Hedge density not assessed