Farmer Behaviour & Environmental Management

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