IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v68y2017icp200-211.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy

Author

Listed:
  • Garini, C.S.
  • Vanwindekens, F.
  • Scholberg, J.M.S.
  • Wezel, A.
  • Groot, J.C.J.

Abstract

Many agricultural practices are negatively impacting the environment and threatening the ecological foundations of the global food system. Therefore, agroecological practices are being proposed as viable and desirable alternatives. Biophysical, economic, social, and political factors, matched with farmers’ psychological attributes, may all be governing the choice of agricultural practices. Public policies can play a significant role as they can stimulate the adoption of innovative farming practices. The main objective of this research was the evaluation of farmers’ motivations for the adoption of agroecological practices in the viticulture sector in the province of Trento, Italy. A specific focus was laid on the influences from the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) measures. For the evaluation of farmers’ perceptions of their systems of practices, the Cognitive Mapping Approach for Analysing Actors’ Systems Of Practices (CMASOP) was applied. Based on information collected during in-depth interviews, Individual and Social Cognitive Maps were generated, representing the most frequently adopted agroecological practices and the major drivers of adoption of such practices, as mentioned by farmers. Drivers of adoption were categorized according to the self-determination theory of human motivations. Farmers reported that adoption of agroecological practices was mainly driven by existence of site-specific pedoclimatic conditions, followed with decreasing importance by requirements from wineries, availability of material, appreciation for aesthetics, health concerns, influence from irrigation consortia, and legal requirements, among which a local legislation for integrated pest management based on a CAP measure. Overall, results show that farmers reported to adopt agroecological practices mainly because of autonomous choices rather than coercion. Therefore, wineries and local policy-makers might incentivize the adoption of agroecological practices by promoting autonomy-supportive policies that foster farmers’ identified and intrinsic motivations.

Suggested Citation

  • Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:200-211
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.048
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716308389
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.048?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. John Fairweather, 1999. "Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 16(1), pages 51-63, March.
    2. John Fairweather & Lesley Hunt, 2011. "Can farmers map their farm system? Causal mapping and the sustainability of sheep/beef farms in New Zealand," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(1), pages 55-66, February.
    3. D. Peter Stonehouse, 1996. "A Targeted Policy Approach to Inducing Improved Rates of Conservation Compliance in Agriculture," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 44(2), pages 105-119, July.
    4. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    5. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    6. Dinar, Ariel & Yaron, Dan, 1990. "Influence Of Quality And Scarcity Of Inputs On The Adoption Of Modern Irrigation Technologies," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(2), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Nieswiadomy, Michael L., 1988. "Input Substitution In Irrigated Agriculture In The High Plains Of Texas, 1970-80," Western Journal of Agricultural Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 13(01), pages 1-8, July.
    8. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    9. Marie-Claude Bélis-Bergouignan & Véronique Saint-Ges, 2009. "Ways of reducing pesticides use in Bordeaux vineyards," Post-Print hal-00652876, HAL.
    10. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    11. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Baret, Philippe V. & Stilmant, Didier, 2014. "A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Christine A. Ervin & David E. Ervin, 1982. "Factors Affecting the Use of Soil Conservation Practices: Hypotheses, Evidence, and Policy Implications," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 58(3), pages 277-292.
    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. Gaglio, Mattias & Aschonitis, Vassilis & Castaldelli, Giuseppe & Fano, Elisa Anna, 2020. "Land use intensification rather than land cover change affects regulating services in the mountainous Adige river basin (Italy)," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Victoria Alomia‐Hinojosa & Jeroen C. J. Groot & Jens A. Andersson & Erika N. Speelman & Andrew J. McDonald & Pablo Tittonell, 2023. "Assessing farmer perceptions on livestock intensification and associated trade‐offs using fuzzy cognitive maps; a study in mixed farming systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 146-158, January.
    3. De Salvo, Maria & Capitello, Roberta & Gaudenzi, Barbara & Begalli, Diego, 2019. "Risk management strategies and residual risk perception in the wine industry: A spatial analysis in Northeast Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 47-62.
    4. Wendy McWilliam & Andreas Wesener, 2021. "Attitudes and Behaviours of Certified Winegrowers towards the Design and Implementation of Biodiversity Farming Strategies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-22, January.
    5. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Louis Tessier & Jo Bijttebier & Fleur Marchand & Philippe V. Baret, 2021. "Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: a critical methodological reflection," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1019, December.
    7. Pingan Xiang & Jian Guo, 2023. "Understanding Farmers’ Intentions to Adopt Pest and Disease Green Control Techniques: Comparison and Integration Based on Multiple Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Felipe Gallardo-López & Mario Alejandro Hernández-Chontal & Pedro Cisneros-Saguilán & Ariadna Linares-Gabriel, 2018. "Development of the Concept of Agroecology in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.

    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. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    2. Louis Tessier & Jo Bijttebier & Fleur Marchand & Philippe V. Baret, 2021. "Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: a critical methodological reflection," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1019, December.
    3. Victoria Alomia‐Hinojosa & Jeroen C. J. Groot & Jens A. Andersson & Erika N. Speelman & Andrew J. McDonald & Pablo Tittonell, 2023. "Assessing farmer perceptions on livestock intensification and associated trade‐offs using fuzzy cognitive maps; a study in mixed farming systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 146-158, January.
    4. Nick Middleton & Utchang Kang, 2017. "Sand and Dust Storms: Impact Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    5. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    6. Patrick Baur, 2020. "When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1175-1194, December.
    7. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2_v1, Center for Open Science.
    8. Han, Guang & Niles, Meredith T., 2023. "An adoption spectrum for sustainable agriculture practices: A new framework applied to cover crop adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    9. Tingting Liu & Randall J. F. Bruins & Matthew T. Heberling, 2018. "Factors Influencing Farmers’ Adoption of Best Management Practices: A Review and Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-26, February.
    10. Canales Medina, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Modeling the factors affecting farmers’ timing of adoption of in-field conservation cropping practices," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Lalani, Baqir & Aminpour, Payam & Gray, Steven & Williams, Meredith & Büchi, Lucie & Haggar, Jeremy & Grabowski, Philip & Dambiro, José, 2021. "Mapping farmer perceptions, Conservation Agriculture practices and on-farm measurements: The role of systems thinking in the process of adoption," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    12. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    13. Villegas, Laura, 2017. "Shady Business: Why do Puerto Rican Coffee Farmers Adopt Conservation Agriculture Practices?," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259136, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    15. Lijing Gao & J. Arbuckle, 2022. "Examining farmers’ adoption of nutrient management best management practices: a social cognitive framework," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 535-553, June.
    16. Liu, Hongmei & Huang, Qiuqiong, 2013. "Adoption and continued use of contour cultivation in the highlands of southwest China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 28-37.
    17. 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.
    18. Odendo, Martins & Obare, Gideon A. & Salasya, Beatrice, 2010. "Determinants of the Speed of Adoption of Soil Fertility-Enhancing Technologies in Western Kenya," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96192, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    19. Benitez-Altuna, Francisco & Trienekens, Jacques & Materia, Valentina C. & Bijman, Jos, 2021. "Factors affecting the adoption of ecological intensification practices: A case study in vegetable production in Chile," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    20. Tamer El-Shater & Amin Mugera & Yigezu A. Yigezu, 2020. "Implications of Adoption of Zero Tillage (ZT) on Productive Efficiency and Production Risk of Wheat Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-13, May.

    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:lauspo:v:68:y:2017:i:c:p:200-211. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.