Limited adoption of short rotation coppice: The role of farmers' socio-cultural identity in influencing practice

Abstract

UK energy policy promotes biomass energy crops as potentially significant contributors to renewable energy targets, but few farmers have planted these crops. Amongst the many possible explanations for this disconnect between policy ambitions and delivery on the ground, the role of farmers' socio-cultural identity has received little attention. This study focuses on the Lockerbie area in southwest Scotland, a potentially favourable location for perennial energy crops because (i) it is biophysically suitable for short rotation coppice (SRC) willow, and (ii) Britain's first wood-fueled power station provides a significant local market. A survey in 2009 explored farmers' perceptions of SRC willow, and the key reasons why they adopt or reject perennial energy crops. The results show that most farmers regard SRC willow as a financially risky, overly committing and inappropriate crop for their farms. Whilst financial factors are influential, even large potential profits would be insufficient to persuade many farmers to adopt SRC. Non-financial factors related to identity, lifestyle, farming culture and the perceived priority of food production powerfully shape the overwhelmingly negative attitudes of farmers to SRC. These findings suggest that biomass energy policy, especially regarding woody crops like SRC willow, needs to be more precisely tailored to influential social factors such as socio-cultural identity and local producer culture.

Food for Hope: The Role of Personal Resources in Farmers’ Adoption of Green Technology

“…Furthermore, adoption of some agricultural methods such as organic farming and the cultivation of genetically engineered crops also requires a new set of skills, making it possible only for those capable of and interested in acquiring them. Theoretical modelling and empirical evidence suggest, moreover, that the rejection of efficient innovations may also be connected to the adopter's social context (including peer imitation practices) as well as to powerful external influences [19,30,32]. Finally, some farmers seem to be willing to forego profits to adopt conservation practices [33], thus pointing to an ideological feature in this decision-making process as well.…”

“…Another factor affecting adoption rate involves farmers' culture [29] and attachment to current farming practices. For instance, in a study of energy crop producers, farmers' rating of their desire to continue their chosen lifestyle relates to the degree to which their identity is bound to it [30]. Likewise, attitudes toward risk and the extent of uncertainty involved in adoption of technology might affect adoption decisions (see a review of theoretical and empirical literature by [31].…”

“…Many studies suggest tailoring policy to accommodate personal behavioral factors (see, e.g., [17,19,28,30]). Yet the empirical literature on the adopters themselves is scant [34,35], and much remains unknown about technological adoption by farmers.…”

“…Second, as per Fredrickson's broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions may affect the building of an individual's intellectual and social resources [42]. Intellectual resources are needed to fully understand the needs for innovation and its perceived effects, whereas social resources have been found to affect (positively or negatively) adoption decisions and perceptions of the innovation [19,30]. Hence, we hypothesize that positive emotions may influence farmers' establishment of intellectual and social resources that have been found to affect adoption [19,[30][31][32], thus potentially increasing their likelihood of adopting innovative technologies.…”

Assessing behaviour of farmers in linking to village institution: dairy society’s perspective from semiarid regions, Gujarat, India

“…Studies hadfound that extent of adoption of farm practices were influenced by variables such as education, operational landholding, extension contact, innovation proneness and decision making ability (Singha & Baruah, 2012). However, the disconnect between policy development and implementation has been known (Warren et al, 2016). This is pertinent as farmers in rainfed regions were not involved comprehensively while setting up priorities for research (Ravikumar et al, 2015a).…”