farmer behaviour & environmental management
DESCRIPTION
An overview of various research projects since 1995 relating to motivations and behaviour of Farmers who are involved in Environmental Management schemes - such as stewardship.TRANSCRIPT
Farmer Behaviourin relation to environmental management
Jane Mills
Janet Dwyer Julie Ingram Chris Short Matt ReedPete Gaskell
Farmer Behaviour
• Evaluation of agri-environment schemes – minimal social science
• Understanding farmer decision-making - Traditional knowledge transfer practices
Our early work - (1995 – 2005)
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
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
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
• 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
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
Findings – Understanding and influencing behaviour
Willingness
to change
Theory of Planned Behaviour ( Ajzen 1991)
Self-identity
Attitude
Subjective norms
Perceived behavioural control
Societal pressure
Findings – Understanding and influencing behaviour
Willingnessto change
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived behavioural control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Humancapital
Labour
Social capital
Time
Capacityto change
Findings – Understanding and influencing behaviour
Willingnessto change
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived behavioural control
Societal pressure
Farm
Finance
Humancapital
Labour
Social capital
Time
Capacityto change
Heterogeneity& farming styles
Social constructions
Advice at trigger points
Farmer engagement
2-way exchange
Credibility
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.
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
Farmed land
Formal environmental activities
Informal environmental activities
Willingness & capacity
Farmer behaviour
Farmer Perceived benefits
Observed Environmental benefits
Outcomes
Willingnessto adopt
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived behavioural control
Societal pressure
FarmFinance
Humancapital
Labour
Social capital
Time
Capacityto adopt
Farmed land
Formal environmental activities
Informal environmental activities
Willingness & capacity
Farmer behaviour
Farmer Perceived benefits
Observed Environmental benefits
Outcomes
Willingnessto adopt
Self-identity
Attitude
Social norms
Perceived behavioural control
Societal pressure
FarmFinance
Humancapital
Labour
Social capital
Time
Capacityto change
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.
Field corner management
Wild bird /pollen and nectar mixture
Buffer strips
Overwintered stubble
Uncropped land
Hedges: maintenance
Ditches: maintenance, restoration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FinancialEnvironmentalAgronomicOutside farmers controlOther reasons
% of responses
Primary reasons for undertaking activities under AES
Field corner management
Wild bird /pollen and nectar mixture
Buffer strips
Overwintered stubble
Uncropped land
Hedges: maintenance
Ditches: maintenance, restoration
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
FinancialEnvironmentalAgronomicOutside farmers controlOther reasons
Primary reasons for undertaking informal environmental activities
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
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
Results: Buffer strips against watercourses
AESObserved benefit score
category InformalObserved benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceived
benefit
score
High 2 2 2 Perceived
benefit
score
High 2 1 2
Medium 1 3 2Medium 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
Results: Buffer strips against watercourses
AESObserved benefit score
category InformalObserved benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceived
benefit
score
High 2 2 2 Perceived
benefit
score
High 2 1 2
Medium 1 3 2Medium 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
Buffer strips against watercourses
•Particularly understood rationale for buffer strips against watercourse
•Complemented LERAPs and cross-compliance
“With spraying you realise how
many miles [of water course] that
can contaminate, you start
thinking, well for the sake of 6
meters of grass…”
“The margins work well against the
watercourse because of LERAPs. That
is why they are so good and why
people have taken them up…”
“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. ..”
Results: Hedgerows
AESObserved benefit score
category InformalObserved benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceived
benefit
score
High 1 2 0Percei
ved benefit 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
Results: Hedgerows
AESObserved benefit score
category InformalObserved benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceived
benefit
score
High 1 2 0Percei
ved benefit 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.
Results: Hedgerows
AESObserved benefit score
category InformalObserved benefit score
category
High Medium Low High Medium Low
Perceived
benefit
score
High 1 2 0Percei
ved benefit 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
Results: Hedgerows
“I think cutting every 2 or 3 years is
wrong. If you leave it for three years
the wood is a lot stronger and when
you cut it, it opens the hedge up and
the big birds can get in.“
“I don’t agree with the 2-3 year rotation cut in the ELS scheme. It is the little birds that you want to be protecting and you can’t do that in a thin hedge. Once you get a tall hedge or an uncut hedge that is what they become a thin hedge. “
“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”
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