Understanding farmers’ motivations for providing unsubsidised environmental benefits

Abstract

This paper examines farmers' motivations for voluntary unsubsidised practices that benefit the environment. It identifies amongst a group of English farmers the amount of unsubsidised environmental activities on mainly arable land, and explores the extent to which motivations are extrinsic and intrinsic for undertaking this unsubsidised activity. Using responses from a national survey in England of 1,345 farmers, in-depth face-to-face interviews with 60 farmers and an analysis of existing agri-environment scheme data, the extent to which subsidised and unsubsidised environmental activity is undertaken on arable land was identified. Furthermore, it was also possible to identify and compare the motivations behind subsidised and unsubsidised environmental activity and to understand the interaction between these two types of activity at the farm scale. The research found that around 25% of all environmental activity undertaken on arable farms in England is unsubsidised, although some of this activity sits alongside subsidised activity. There were clear differences between the motivations for undertaking subsidised and unsubsidised environmental activities. Financial reasons dominated farmers' motivations for engaging in subsidised agri-environment scheme practices, whilst agronomic and environmental motivations were of greater importance for unsubsidised activity. Data analysis also revealed oversubscription in agri-environment schemes, with a considerable amount of environmental activity occurring without payment. From a policy perspective it is helpful to understand motivations for existing unsubsidised environmental activity as this can inform the design of advice and message framing to encourage uptake of more widespread voluntary environmental behaviour.

Policy and Practice Certainty for Effective Uptake of Diffuse Pollution Practices in A Light-Touch Regulated Country

“…An important contribution of this study to the current literature is the identification and inclusion of the factors Time horizon and Spatial horizon, as the perception of farmers regarding these two factors has not been included in previous studies, although diffuse pollution is known to be 'invisible' to farmers, which affects their motivation to act upon it (Macgregor and Warren 2006). These factors are likely to be less relevant to the adoption of environmental practices that have visible outcomes, such as conservation efforts or biodiversity practices (de Snoo et al 2013;Mills et al 2018;Truelove et al 2014;Van Herzele et al 2013), but will be more relevant for practices that have seemingly distant effects (both in time and space) such as climate change (Geoghegan and Leyson 2012). The results of our study imply that communication on nitrate leaching practices needs to be tailored for farmers with short time and space horizons.…”

“…Considering the limited financial resources compared with the Perpetuate Cooperates it might be important for the Enthusiasts to create a good fit with current management practices by focusing on how to combine financial and environmental aspects in best management practice to overcome the value-action gap (Burton et al 2008;Mills et al 2018). On the other hand, previous research shows there is a chance that focusing on economic gain changes farmers' decision-making from based on intrinsic motivations (wanting to do the 'right thing') to material factors (e.g.…”

Development of an Agricultural Primary Productivity Decision Support Model: A Case Study in France

“…Previous research investigating farmers' knowledge on soil functions across Europe and their demands for a decision support tool showed that not all farmers want the same kind of advice (Bampa et al, 2019). That study, in agreement with Mills et al (2018), concluded that farmer's motivations need to be taken into account to increase environmental benefits through management of agricultural landscapes. Bampa et al (2019) observed that farmers were generally highly interested in practical solutions and in access to high-quality information in conjunction with one-on-one personal communication with soil scientists, agronomists, and advisors.…”

Landowner valuation of a working wetlands program in the Prairie Pothole Region

“…They have been found to be particularly useful in determining how specific attributes affect choices and can allow for estimation of the marginal rate of substitution (MRS) between attributes (Garrod, Ruto, Willis, & Powe, ; Greiner et al., ; Lancsar & Savage, ). Inclusion of information regarding farmers and farms allows for consideration of the heterogeneity in motivation and environmental behavior that is well documented in the literature (e.g., see Farmer, Ma, Drescher, Knackmuhs, & Dickinson, ; Mills et al., ; Sorice, Haider, Conner, & Ditton, ).…”

“…There is a considerable and growing body of literature that investigates how landowners, farmers, and ranchers make choices about participation in conservation programs, including those specifically targeted to restore or maintain wetlands (Kim & Petrolia, ; Pattison, Boxall, & Adamowicz, ; Schulz, Breustedt, & Latacz‐Lohmann, ; Welsh, Webb, & Langen, ; Yu & Belcher, ). In addition to financial incentives, farm characteristics, landowner and farmer characteristics, programs available, participant responsibilities and costs, farmer awareness and understanding of programs, access to information, conservation attitudes, presence of a succession plan, and experience managing wetlands, among others, have been identified as influencing adoption (Lesch & Wachenheim, ; Mills, Gaskell, Ingram, & Chaplin, ; Ribaudo, ).…”