Achieving successful farmer engagement on greenhouse gas emission mitigation

Abstract

This document is the author's post-print version, incorporating any revisions agreed during the peer-review process. Some differences between the published version and this version may remain and you are advised to consult the published version if you wish to cite from it.Achieving successful farmer engagement on greenhouse gas emission mitigation

A new approach to explain farmers’ adoption of climate change mitigation measures

“…They recognised that all eight measures they considered have different levels of costs, benefits and possible tradeoffs, which might have influenced their adoption. Burbi et al (2016) found similar results. This is corroborated by findings in our research, showing that there is a positive relationship between the implementation of energy saving measures and 'cost saving' as a motivation for taking action.…”

“…precise dosage and timing of fertilisers) or methane emission reduction by the digestion of manure (Smith et al 2014). While energy saving measures are relatively simple and usually cost-effective, many studies have underlined the complexity and uncertain effects of non-CO 2 GHG measures (Fellmann et al 2018;Burbi et al 2016;de Boer et al 2011). However, in farmer-related behavioural studies, only few studies distinguish in the analyses between different types of measures (Haden et al 2012).…”

“…The series of results above imply that there is support for hypothesis 1 (H1), which states that energy saving, the production of renewable energy and non-CO 2 GHG measures can each be explained by a unique pattern of determinants. Even better insights are obtained by splitting up different groups of measures into terms of cost-effectiveness and TRL, which is suggested by some authors (Niles et al 2016;Burbi et al 2016;Jones et al 2013), but which so far has not been tested. 5.2 Influence of willingness to reduce GHG emissions on actual behaviour (H2)…”

“…There is a growing attention on assessing farmers' motivating factors for climate change mitigation behaviour in the literature. A number of studies examine the actual adoption of measures (Jørgensen and Termansen 2016;Burbi et al 2016;Jones et al 2013) while other studies refer to the underlying willingness and intentions of farmers to adopt mitigation measures (Arbuckle et al 2013(Arbuckle et al , 2014Haden et al 2012). Furthermore, Niles et al (2016) examine the relation between the intended and actual behaviour on climate change mitigation, without finding clear links between both issues, thereby showing that farmers might be perfectly willing to change their behaviour, but still do not act accordingly for different reasons.…”

Implementation solutions for greenhouse gas mitigation measures in livestock agriculture: A framework for coherent strategy

“…Although specific barriers vary with environmental, economic and farming system contexts (Feliciano et al, 2014), recent work suggests that categorisations of challenges developed from local studies have relevance at the global level (Kipling et al, 2019). An increasing body of work has focussed on identifying such challenges by gathering information from stakeholders (Burbi et al, 2016) and exploring their preferences in terms of the changes to be implemented (Jones et al, 2013). Other studies have focussed on costs, benefits and uncertainty in the effects of changes, supporting the prioritisation of the most economically effective mitigation measures (Eory et al, 2018;Jones et al, 2015).…”