IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v159y2019icp91-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Konrad, Maria Theresia
  • Nielsen, Helle Ørsted
  • Pedersen, Anders Branth
  • Elofsson, Katarina

Abstract

Adoption of new manure and fertiliser technology is considered an effective tool to reduce diffuse nutrient pollution from agriculture, and policy instruments to encourage technology uptake are therefore widespread. But policy makers need to understand farmers' reasons for adoption of such technologies to design policies that actually work. Using data from a survey with responses from 2439 farmers in five countries around the Baltic Sea, we identify the drivers of technology adoption for three different abatement technologies: manure spreading equipment, slurry tanks, and precision technology for fertiliser application. We compare drivers for technology investments across technologies with a particular focus on the role of the scale of farm operations, neighbour relations, environmental concerns and innovation readiness. The results show that the scale of farm operation is important for the uptake of all three technologies, while we find no evidence that neighbour relations are important for technology investments. Environmental concerns for soil quality and other on-farm environmental qualities do drive investment; however, the impact of environmental concerns differs across technologies. Innovation readiness is a driver of investments in relation to some technologies, suggesting that the novelty or sophistication of the technology matters to the investing farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Konrad, Maria Theresia & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Elofsson, Katarina, 2019. "Drivers of Farmers' Investments in Nutrient Abatement Technologies in Five Baltic Sea Countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 91-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:91-100
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800918310486
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.022?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katrin Millock & Céline Nauges, 2010. "Household Adoption of Water-Efficient Equipment: The Role of Socio-Economic Factors, Environmental Attitudes and Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 46(4), pages 539-565, August.
    2. Rehman, T. & McKemey, K. & Yates, C.M. & Cooke, R.J. & Garforth, C.J. & Tranter, R.B. & Park, J.R. & Dorward, P.T., 2007. "Identifying and understanding factors influencing the uptake of new technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the theory of reasoned action," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 281-293, May.
    3. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    4. Keith O. Fuglie & Catherine A. Kascak, 2001. "Adoption and Diffusion of Natural-Resource-Conserving Agricultural Technology," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 23(2), pages 386-403.
    5. Wossink, Ada & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Jointness in production and farmers' willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 297-304, December.
    6. David J. Lewis & Bradford L. Barham & Brian Robinson, 2011. "Are There Spatial Spillovers in the Adoption of Clean Technology? The Case of Organic Dairy Farming," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 250-267.
    7. María Pérez Urdiales & Alfons Oude Lansink & Alan Wall, 2016. "Eco-efficiency Among Dairy Farmers: The Importance of Socio-economic Characteristics and Farmer Attitudes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(4), pages 559-574, August.
    8. Andrew J. Plantinga, 1996. "The Effect of Agricultural Policies on Land Use and Environmental Quality," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 78(4), pages 1082-1091.
    9. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    10. Bekele, Elias G. & Lant, Christopher L. & Soman, Sethuram & Misgna, Girmay, 2013. "The evolution and empirical estimation of ecological-economic production possibilities frontiers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1-9.
    11. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying the Neo-Classical Approach to Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(1), pages 67-80, July.
    12. Laure Latruffe & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Technical efficiency and conversion to organic farming: the case of France," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 41(2), pages 227-253.
    13. Feng Song & Jinhua Zhao & Scott M. Swinton, 2011. "Switching to Perennial Energy Crops Under Uncertainty and Costly Reversibility," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 93(3), pages 764-779.
    14. Lynne, Gary D., 1995. "Modifying The Neo-Classical Approach To Technology Adoption With Behavioral Science Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 27(1), pages 1-14, July.
    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. Zeng, Yangmei & He, Ke & Zhang, Junbiao & Li, Ping, 2023. "Adoption and ex-post impacts of sustainable manure management practices on income and happiness: Evidence from swine breeding farmers in rural Hubei, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    2. Cuiping He & Huicheng Hao & Yanhui Su & Jiaxuan Yang, 2024. "A Study on Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of E-Commerce for Agricultural Products: A Case Study of Wuchang City," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Alicia Ramírez-Orellana & Daniel Ruiz-Palomo & Alfonso Rojo-Ramírez & John E. Burgos-Burgos, 2021. "The Ecuadorian Banana Farms Managers’ Perceptions: Innovation as a Driver of Environmental Sustainability Practices," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Marilena Gemtou & Konstantina Kakkavou & Evangelos Anastasiou & Spyros Fountas & Soren Marcus Pedersen & Gohar Isakhanyan & Kassa Tarekegn Erekalo & Serafin Pazos-Vidal, 2024. "Farmers’ Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Decision-Making Factors Affecting Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Shuangjin Wang & Yuan Tian & Xiaowei Liu & Maggie Foley, 2019. "How Farmers Make Investment Decisions: Evidence from a Farmer Survey in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, December.
    6. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 179-209, September.
    7. Castagna, Andrés & Matonte, Federico & Mauttone, Antonio & Rodríguez-Gallego, Lorena & Blumetto, Oscar, 2024. "Land use planning to minimize the export of phosphorus: An optimization model for dairy production at a catchment area scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    8. Schnebelin, Éléonore, 2022. "Linking the diversity of ecologisation models to farmers' digital use profiles," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).

    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. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J. & Khachaturyan, Marianna & Lynne, Gary D. & Burbach, Mark, 2012. "Walking in the shoes of others: Experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 642-653.
    2. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    3. Munasib, Abdul B.A. & Jordan, Jeffrey L., 2011. "The Effect of Social Capital on the Choice to Use Sustainable Agricultural Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 213-227, May.
    4. Areal, Francisco J. & Riesgo, Laura & Gómez-Barbero, Manuel & Rodríguez-Cerezo, Emilio, 2012. "Consequences of a coexistence policy on the adoption of GMHT crops in the European Union," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 401-411.
    5. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2008. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion and Behavioral Innovation Theory," Working Papers 2008-8, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    7. Kelly, Edel & Heanue, Kevin & Buckley, Cathal & O'Gorman, Colm, 2015. "Proven Science versus Farmer Perception," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 229067, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    9. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L., 2013. "What Drives the Adoption of Clean Agricultural Technologies? An Ex Ante Assessment of Sustainable Biofuel Production in Southwestern Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150557, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. H. Holly Wang & Yu Jiang & Shaosheng Jin & Qiujie Zheng, 2022. "New online market connecting Chinese consumers and small farms to improve food safety and environment," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 70(4), pages 305-324, December.
    11. Barbara Langlois & Vincent Martinet, 2023. "Defining cost-effective ways to improve ecosystem services provision in agroecosystems," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(2), pages 123-165, June.
    12. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    13. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    14. Clark P. Bishop & C. Richard Shumway & Philip R. Wandschneider, 2010. "Agent Heterogeneity in Adoption of Anaerobic Digestion Technology: Integrating Economic, Diffusion, and Behavioral Innovation Theories," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(3).
    15. Ion Lucian Ceapraz & Catherine Delhoume, 2017. "How Social Capital Can Improve The Territorial Innovation? The Case Of The French Agriculture. Some Conceptual Issues," Post-Print hal-04359913, HAL.
    16. Philippe Le Coent & Raphaële Preget & Sophie S. Thoyer, 2018. "Do farmers follow the herd? The influence of social norms in the participation to agri-environmental schemes," CEE-M Working Papers halshs-01936004, CEE-M, Universtiy of Montpellier, CNRS, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro.
    17. Julius Okello & Yuan Zhou & Ian Barker & Elmar Schulte-Geldermann, 2019. "Motivations and Mental Models Associated with Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Improved Agricultural Technology: Evidence from Use of Quality Seed Potato in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(2), pages 271-292, April.
    18. Buckley, Cathal & Howley, Peter & Jordan, Phil, 2015. "The role of differing farming motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(4), July.
    19. Pérez-Blanco, C.D. & Gutiérrez-Martín, C., 2017. "Buy me a river: Use of multi-attribute non-linear utility functions to address overcompensation in agricultural water buyback," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 6-20.
    20. Gary D Lynne & Natalia V Czap, 2024. "Towards Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 36(1), pages 7-25, January.

    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:eee:ecolec:v:159:y:2019:i:c:p:91-100. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.