IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/paaero/308052.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation Of Dimensions Of Farmer Attitudes In Principal Component Analysis (Pca)

Author

Listed:
  • DOMAGALSKA-GRĘDYS, MARTA

Abstract

The aim of the article was to identify leading relationship attitudes among farmers keeping animals of conservative breeds. The practical justification for the adopted analyses was to identify factors that foster desirable relations (attitudes) in agriculture based on ties. The research was conducted among 145 farms using an interview questionnaire in the poviats of three voivodships (Malopolskie, Podkarpackie, Lubelskie), where operations with livestock conservation breeds occurred. Collective selection was deliberate, meeting the criteria for the use of the extended diversity of breeds of farmed animals in 3 categories (cows, sheep and pigs). On the basis of the PCA test and analysis, 2 types of attitudes were selected: bonded and opportunistic. In the implemented accounts represented by farms according to three species of animals of conservative breeds, the opportunistic attitude was more prevalent than the prison attitude. The opportunism of pig and cattle breeders was particularly valued. In addition, the distribution of attitudes in groups was analysed, among others, due to the characteristics of farmers (age, sex, education and professional experience) and the presence of a successor on the farm. What was confirmed, among others, was the impact of a lack of professional experience of farmers on pro-bonding attitudes. In addition, in the groups, the distribution of attitudes was analysed, among others, according to the characteristics of farmers (age, gender, education, professional experience) and the presence of a successor on the farm. The influence of the lack of professional experience of farmers on relationship-oriented attitudes was confirmed. The younger generation of farmers may be more effective in implementing programmes of genetic biodiversity of farm animals. Small-scale farms, developed by better-educated farmers, with short work experience in agriculture and less experience in keeping animals of conservative breeds, prove to be developmental. The obtained results are illustrative of purposely selected objects, with restrictions, they can be related to the population of all Polish farms keeping animals of conservative breeds.

Suggested Citation

  • Domagalska-Grędys, Marta, 2020. "Evaluation Of Dimensions Of Farmer Attitudes In Principal Component Analysis (Pca)," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:paaero:308052
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.308052
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/308052/files/1168218.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.308052?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno S. Frey & Reto Jegen, 2001. "Motivation Crowding Theory," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(5), pages 589-611, December.
    2. Melissa der Merwe & Johann F. Kirsten & Jacques H. Trienekens, 2017. "Information sharing as a safeguard against the opportunistic behavior of South African Karoo Lamb farmers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(S1), pages 101-111, November.
    3. Nigel Key, 2005. "How much do farmers value their independence?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 117-126, July.
    4. M. den Ouden & Aalt A. Dijkhuizen & Ruud B.M. Huirne & Peter J.P. Zuurbier, 1996. "Vertical cooperation in agricultural production-marketing chains, with special reference to product differentiation in pork," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(3), pages 277-290.
    5. Andrés J. Picazo‐Tadeo & Alan Wall, 2011. "Production risk, risk aversion and the determination of risk attitudes among Spanish rice producers," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 42(4), pages 451-464, July.
    6. Nigel Key & William McBride, 2003. "Production Contracts and Productivity in the U.S. Hog Sector," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 85(1), pages 121-133.
    7. Bart Nooteboom, 2004. "Governance and competence: how can they be combined?," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 28(4), pages 505-525, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jason R.V. Franken & Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2017. "Risk attitudes and the structure of decision†making: evidence from the Illinois hog industry," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 48(1), pages 41-50, January.
    2. Størdal, Ståle & Lien, Gudbrand & Baardsen, Sjur, 2008. "Analyzing determinants of forest owners' decision-making using a sample selection framework," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 159-176, June.
    3. Theuvsen, Ludwig & Franz, Annabell, 2007. "The Role and Success Factors of Livestock Trading Cooperatives: Lessons from German Pork Production," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 10(3), pages 1-23.
    4. Granoszewski, Karol & Spiller, Achim, 2013. "Langfristige Rohstoffsicherung in der Supply Chain Biogas: Status Quo und Potenziale vertraglicher Zusammenarbeit," DARE Discussion Papers 1303, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    5. Granoszewski, K. & Spiller, A., 2014. "Vertragliche Zusammenarbeit bei der energetischen Biomasselieferung: Einstellungen und Bindungsbereitschaften von deutschen Landwirten," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    6. Frasa, Stefanie & Carlberg, Jared & Hogan, Robert, 2015. "Use of Contracts by Prairie Agricultural Producers," Working Papers 232328, Structure and Performance of Agriculture and Agri-products Industry (SPAA).
    7. Bagheri, Afsaneh & Chitsazan, Hasti & Ebrahimi, Ashkan, 2019. "Crowdfunding motivations: A focus on donors' perspectives," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 218-232.
    8. Bengtsson, Niklas & Engström, Per, 2011. "Control and Efficiency in the Nonprofit Sector: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment," Working Paper Series, Center for Labor Studies 2011:6, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    9. Riccardo Leoni, 2018. "Efficienza ed efficacia della contrattazione integrativa aziendale. Una rassegna della letteratura empirica italiana," Economia & lavoro, Carocci editore, issue 1, pages 131-170.
    10. K. Pouliakas & I. Theodossiou, 2009. "Confronting Objections To Performance Pay: The Impact Of Individual And Gain‐Sharing Incentives On Job Satisfaction," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 56(5), pages 662-684, November.
    11. repec:zbw:rwirep:0413 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Faillo, Marco & Grieco, Daniela & Zarri, Luca, 2013. "Legitimate punishment, feedback, and the enforcement of cooperation," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 271-283.
    13. Riedel, Nadine & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2013. "Asymmetric obligations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 67-80.
    14. Giuseppe Attanasi & Ylenia Curci & Patrick Llerena & Maria del Pino Ramos-Sosa & Adriana Carolina Pinate & Giulia Urso, 2019. "Looking at Creativity from East to West: Risk Taking and Intrinsic Motivation in Socially and Culturally Diverse Countries," Working Papers of BETA 2019-38, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    15. Andries Richter & Stijn Reinhard, 2023. "How does less public spending affect the motivation of citizens to contribute to nature conservation?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(4), pages 1093-1104.
    16. Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), 2010. "The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 4136.
    17. Vitus Püttmann & Jens Ruhose & Stephan L. Thomsen, 2023. "Academics’ Attitudes Toward Engaging in Public Discussions: Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Engagement Conditions," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 64(5), pages 765-788, August.
    18. Primmer, Eeva & Paloniemi, Riikka & Similä, Jukka & Tainio, Anna, 2014. "Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-10.
    19. Thomas Walter & Christoph Ihl & René Mauer & Malte Brettel, 2018. "Grace, gold, or glory? Exploring incentives for invention disclosure in the university context," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1725-1759, December.
    20. repec:hum:wpaper:sfb649dp2008-008 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Reuben, Ernesto & Tyran, Jean-Robert, 2010. "Everyone is a winner: Promoting cooperation through all-can-win intergroup competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 25-35, March.
    22. Maria Claudia Lopez & James J. Murphy & John M. Spraggon & John K. Stranlund, 2013. "Does government regulation complement existing community efforts to support cooperation? Evidence from field experiments in Colombia," Chapters, in: John A. List & Michael K. Price (ed.), Handbook on Experimental Economics and the Environment, chapter 12, pages 346-366, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:paaero:308052. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/seriaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.