IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/paaero/308241.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Concept Of Sustainable Agriculture Evaluated By Agricultural Producers Depending On Farm Inc

Author

Listed:
  • GRONTKOWSKA, ANNA
  • GOŁĘBIEWSKA, BARBARA
  • GĘBSKA, MONIKA

Abstract

This study aims to estimate the knowledge about sustainable agriculture and its implementation as part of farm practice, depending on a subjective evaluation of farm income status. Moreover, an attempt has been made to determine the importance of benefits for the environment, community, and farmers resulting from the implementation of this concept, in the opinion of farmers declaring a varying income status. The research carried out in 2019 for a sample of 291 farms using an interview questionnaire states that a more favourable subjective evaluation of own income status was connected with a more significant share of farmers formally declaring to know the concept of sustainable agriculture and the methods of this agricultural system. The research shows the following ranking of environmental benefits: water protection against pollution, reduced emission of greenhouse gases, reduced consumption of energy from non-renewable sources, and increased biodiversity in the natural environment. No distinct diversification was observed regarding presented groups according to age and declaration of income status evaluation. As regards benefits for the community in general, the succession was as follows: the production of safer foods, improvement of working conditions in a farm, improvement of farm animal welfare and better attractiveness of rural areas. However, this hierarchy differed depending on income status evaluation. As regards farmer benefits, the developed ranking showed minor diversification of the average position (rank) of individual advantages (ease sale of products, better farm productivity, improved soil condition, acquired knowledge and experience), which primarily resulted from different preferences of respondents depending on their income status.

Suggested Citation

  • Grontkowska, Anna & Gołębiewska, Barbara & Gębska, Monika, 2020. "The Concept Of Sustainable Agriculture Evaluated By Agricultural Producers Depending On Farm Inc," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(4).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:paaero:308241
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.308241
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/308241/files/1497251.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.308241?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. Salinee Santiteerakul & Apichat Sopadang & Korrakot Yaibuathet Tippayawong & Krisana Tamvimol, 2020. "The Role of Smart Technology in Sustainable Agriculture: A Case Study of Wangree Plant Factory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-13, June.
    2. Monther M. Tahat & Kholoud M. Alananbeh & Yahia A. Othman & Daniel I. Leskovar, 2020. "Soil Health and Sustainable Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-26, June.
    3. Maria de Fátima Oliveira & Francisco Gomes da Silva & Susana Ferreira & Margarida Teixeira & Henrique Damásio & António Dinis Ferreira & José Manuel Gonçalves, 2019. "Innovations in Sustainable Agriculture: Case Study of Lis Valley Irrigation District, Portugal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, January.
    4. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    5. Gołębiewska, Barbara & Grontkowska, Anna & Gębska, Monika, 2020. "Education As The Differentiating Factor In Applying Sustainable Development Principles On Farms," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2020(3).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Golebiewska, Barbara & Grontkowska, Anna & Gebska, Monika, 2023. "Wpływ Działalności Rolniczej Na Otoczenie Lokalne W Opinii Producentów Rolnych," Roczniki (Annals), Polish Association of Agricultural Economists and Agribusiness - Stowarzyszenie Ekonomistow Rolnictwa e Agrobiznesu (SERiA), vol. 2023(3).

    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. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    2. Liu, Duan & Tang, Runcheng & Xie, Jun & Tian, Jingjing & Shi, Rui & Zhang, Kai, 2020. "Valuation of ecosystem services of rice–fish coculture systems in Ruyuan County, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    3. Shen Yuan & Shaobing Peng, 2017. "Exploring the Trends in Nitrogen Input and Nitrogen Use Efficiency for Agricultural Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-15, October.
    4. Katarina Arvidsson Segerkvist & Helena Hansson & Ulf Sonesson & Stefan Gunnarsson, 2021. "A Systematic Mapping of Current Literature on Sustainability at Farm-Level in Beef and Lamb Meat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, February.
    5. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    6. Hualin Xie & Yingqian Huang & Qianru Chen & Yanwei Zhang & Qing Wu, 2019. "Prospects for Agricultural Sustainable Intensification: A Review of Research," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(11), pages 1-27, October.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    9. Paul L. G. Vlek & Asia Khamzina & Hossein Azadi & Anik Bhaduri & Luna Bharati & Ademola Braimoh & Christopher Martius & Terry Sunderland & Fatemeh Taheri, 2017. "Trade-Offs in Multi-Purpose Land Use under Land Degradation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, November.
    10. Yehia Zahran & Hazem S. Kassem & Shimaa M. Naba & Bader Alhafi Alotaibi, 2020. "Shifting from Fragmentation to Integration: A Proposed Framework for Strengthening Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System in Egypt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, June.
    11. Diriba Shiferaw G., 2017. "Water-Nutrients Interaction: Exploring the Effects of Water as a Central Role for Availability & Use Efficiency of Nutrients by Shallow Rooted Vegetable Crops - A Review," Journal of Agriculture and Crops, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 3(10), pages 78-93, 10-2017.
    12. Sheng Gong & Jason.S. Bergtold & Elizabeth Yeager, 2021. "Assessing the joint adoption and complementarity between in-field conservation practices of Kansas farmers," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 9(1), pages 1-24, December.
    13. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    14. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    15. Kataki, Sampriti & West, Helen & Clarke, Michèle & Baruah, D.C., 2016. "Phosphorus recovery as struvite: Recent concerns for use of seed, alternative Mg source, nitrogen conservation and fertilizer potential," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 142-156.
    16. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    17. Carpentier, A. & Reboud, X., 2018. "Why farmers consider pesticides the ultimate in crop protection: economic and behavioral insights," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277528, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    19. Alexander D. Chapman & Stephen E. Darby & Hoàng M. Hồng & Emma L. Tompkins & Tri P. D. Van, 2016. "Adaptation and development trade-offs: fluvial sediment deposition and the sustainability of rice-cropping in An Giang Province, Mekong Delta," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(3), pages 593-608, August.
    20. Rosa, R.D. & Ramos, T.B. & Pereira, L.S., 2016. "The dual Kc approach to assess maize and sweet sorghum transpiration and soil evaporation under saline conditions: Application of the SIMDualKc model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 77-94.

    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:308241. 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.