Literature DB >> 35273426

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

Heidi Leonhardt1, Michael Braito1, Reinhard Uehleke2.   

Abstract

Increasing farmers' acceptance and adoption of environmentally beneficial farming practices is essential for mitigating negative impacts of agriculture. To support adoption through policy, it is necessary to understand which types of farms or farmers do or do not (yet) apply such practices. However, farmers are not a homogeneous group and their behavior is subject to a complex array of structural, socioeconomic, and socio-psychological influences. Reducing this complexity, farmer typologies or archetypes are useful tools for understanding differing motivations for the uptake of sustainable farming practices. Previous investigations of the role of farmer archetypes in the adoption of such practices rely on either purely qualitative or purely quantitative methods in data collection, typology creation, and hypothesis testing. Our study combines both approaches by classifying survey respondents into farmer types based on a previous Q methodological study. We then use these types in a two-part regression model that aims to explain participation in agri-environmental schemes (AES) and the level of scheme participation. To control for farm structural factors, we additionally link our questionnaire data to secondary data from the farm accountancy data network. Results indicate that in Austria, AES are attractive to all types of farmers, but the level of participation (AES income per hectare) in these schemes differs between archetypes: Profitability-oriented farmers participate less, and nature-oriented farmers participate more than other types. This suggests that monetary compensations for sustainable farming practices are not perceived as sufficient by certain groups of farmers, and policy makers need to consider additional kinds of incentives.
© The Author(s) 2021.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Agri-environmental schemes; Farmer archetypes; Farmer behavior; Farmer typology; Mixed methods; Q methodology

Year:  2021        PMID: 35273426      PMCID: PMC8894186          DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10242-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Agric Human Values        ISSN: 0889-048X            Impact factor:   3.295


  7 in total

1.  Landholder profiling and typologies for natural resource-management policy and program support: potential and constraints.

Authors:  Nick Emtage; John Herbohn; Steve Harrison
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-06-28       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Sample selection versus two-part models revisited: the case of female smoking and drinking.

Authors:  David Madden
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2007-11-29       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Farm diversity, classification schemes and multifunctionality.

Authors:  J D van der Ploeg; C Laurent; F Blondeau; P Bonnafous
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2009-01-09       Impact factor: 6.789

4.  Measurement Models for Reasoned Action Theory.

Authors:  Michael Hennessy; Amy Bleakley; Martin Fishbein
Journal:  Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci       Date:  2012-03

5.  Refining perception-based farmer typologies with the analysis of past census data.

Authors:  E E Guillem; A P Barnes; M D A Rounsevell; A Renwick
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2012-07-15       Impact factor: 6.789

6.  Beyond polarization: using Q methodology to explore stakeholders' views on pesticide use, and related risks for agricultural workers, in Washington State's tree fruit industry.

Authors:  Nadine Lehrer; Gretchen Sneegas
Journal:  Agric Human Values       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research.

Authors:  Aiora Zabala; Chris Sandbrook; Nibedita Mukherjee
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 6.560

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.