IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v78y2018icp460-471.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adoption of non-inversion tillage across Europe: Use of a behavioural approach in understanding decision making of farmers

Author

Listed:
  • Bijttebier, J.
  • Ruysschaert, G.
  • Hijbeek, R.
  • Werner, M.
  • Pronk, A.A.
  • Zavattaro, L.
  • Bechini, L.
  • Grignani, C.
  • ten Berge, H.
  • Marchand, F.
  • Wauters, E.

Abstract

Non-inversion tillage (NIT) is often recommended as a soil conservation measure, protecting soil structure and soil life and preventing erosion. As the adoption of this measure is still below policy targets in many European regions, this study aimed at gaining insights in constraints and drivers of implementing NIT to understand how to stimulate behavioural change. This study uses the theory of planned behaviour as a framework for understanding farmers’ decisions on applying NIT. This framework was applied in 8 case studies from 8 Farm Type Zones (FTZ) spread over 4 European countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy). We used a sequential mixed method, starting with qualitative semi-structured interviews followed by a quantitative survey. Our results show varying adoption rates ranging from 19% to more than 80% across the FTZs. There are large differences between FTZs and even more between countries regarding the number and nature of enabling and hampering factors identified. Although our results do reveal some widely acknowledged advantages and constraints (such as less labour/fuel needs and more weeds), several of them are restricted to one or only some of the FTZs. Some of the conditions favouring or discouraging NIT are related to biophysical characteristics of the FTZs. Besides these biophysical characteristics, agricultural specialization and especially the crops cultivated influence the decision whether or not to plough. Also timing of sowing and harvest of particular crops influences farmers’ perceptions on the ease or difficulty to apply NIT. Finally, cultural, political and socio-economic conditions of the regions are influencing adoption behaviour of the farmers, e.g. good results with ploughing, having nice-looking fields, availability of equipment, the existence of subsidies and the opinion of referents influence the decision whether or not to implement NIT in the singular FTZs. These insights in context-specific enabling and disabling conditions are helpful in defining targeted actions to stimulate adoption in a given region. This paper concludes with an overview of how the resulting insights in farmers’ behaviour might contribute in addressing effective intervention strategies to increase adoption of NIT.

Suggested Citation

  • Bijttebier, J. & Ruysschaert, G. & Hijbeek, R. & Werner, M. & Pronk, A.A. & Zavattaro, L. & Bechini, L. & Grignani, C. & ten Berge, H. & Marchand, F. & Wauters, E., 2018. "Adoption of non-inversion tillage across Europe: Use of a behavioural approach in understanding decision making of farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 460-471.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:78:y:2018:i:c:p:460-471
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717312437
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.044?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. Sebastian Bamberg & Daniel Rölle & Christoph Weber, 2003. "Does habitual car use not lead to more resistance to change of travel mode?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 97-108, February.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    5. Erwin Wauters & Erik Mathijs, 2014. "The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: a meta-analytic review," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 78-102.
    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. Daxini, Amar & Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2019. "Understanding farmers’ intentions to follow a nutrient management plan using the theory of planned behaviour," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 428-437.
    2. de Lauwere, Carolien & Slegers, Monique & Meeusen, Marieke, 2022. "The influence of behavioural factors and external conditions on Dutch farmers’ decision making in the transition towards circular agriculture," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Ayat Ullah & Shahab E. Saqib & Harald Kächele, 2022. "Determinants of Farmers’ Awareness and Adoption of Extension Recommended Wheat Varieties in the Rainfed Areas of Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-18, March.
    4. Li, Fuduo & Zhang, Kangjie & Ren, Jing & Yin, Changbin & Zhang, Yang & Nie, Jun, 2021. "Driving mechanism for farmers to adopt improved agricultural systems in China: The case of rice-green manure crops rotation system," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    5. Chenle Xue & Dan Qiao & Noshaba Aziz, 2022. "Influence of Natural Disaster Shock and Collective Action on Farmland Transferees’ No-Tillage Technology Adoption in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-23, September.
    6. Kathage, Jonas & Smit, Bert & Janssens, Bas & Haagsma, Wiepie & Adrados, Jose Luis, 2022. "How much is policy driving the adoption of cover crops? Evidence from four EU regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Tschopp, Maurice & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Inguaggiato, Carla & Bardsley, Nicholas O. & Hernández, Hernán, 2020. "Understanding the adoption of sustainable silvopastoral practices in Northern Argentina: What is the role of land tenure?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(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. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    2. Mayara Moraes Monteiro & João de Abreu e Silva & Jesper Bláfoss Ingvardson & Otto Anker Nielsen & Jorge Pinho de Sousa, 2021. "Public Transport Use and Satisfaction by International Students and Researchers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-17, July.
    3. Dmytro Serebrennikov & Fiona Thorne & Zein Kallas & Sinéad N. McCarthy, 2020. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in Europe: A Systemic Review of Empirical Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    4. Lalani, Baqir & Dorward, Peter & Holloway, Garth & Wauters, Erwin, 2016. "Smallholder farmers' motivations for using Conservation Agriculture and the roles of yield, labour and soil fertility in decision making," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 80-90.
    5. Adnan, Nadia & Nordin, Shahrina Md & Ali, Murad, 2018. "A solution for the sunset industry: Adoption of Green Fertiliser Technology amongst Malaysian paddy farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 575-584.
    6. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    7. Ryschawy, Julie & Tiffany, Sara & Gaudin, Amélie & Niles, Meredith T. & Garrett, Rachael D., 2021. "Moving niche agroecological initiatives to the mainstream: A case-study of sheep-vineyard integration in California," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Mei-Fang Chen & Ching-Ti Pan & Ming-Chuan Pan, 2009. "The Joint Moderating Impact of Moral Intensity and Moral Judgment on Consumer’s Use Intention of Pirated Software," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 90(3), pages 361-373, December.
    9. Kim, Seheon & Rasouli, Soora, 2022. "The influence of latent lifestyle on acceptance of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): A hierarchical latent variable and latent class approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 304-319.
    10. Joanie Roussel-Ouellet & Dominique Beaulieu & Lydi-Anne Vézina-Im & Stéphane Turcotte & Valérie Labbé & Danielle Bouchard, 2022. "Psychosocial Correlates of Recreational Screen Time among Adolescents," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-15, December.
    11. Farzana Sharmin & Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Alina Badulescu & Dorin Paul Bac & Benqian Li, 2020. "Millennial Tourists’ Environmentally Sustainable Behavior Towards a Natural Protected Area: An Integrative Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-24, October.
    12. Ya-Hui Want, 2014. "Does Online Trading Affect Investors' Trading Intention?," The International Journal of Business and Finance Research, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 8(5), pages 71-79.
    13. Jun Hwan Kim & Hyun Cheol Lee, 2019. "Understanding the Repurchase Intention of Premium Economy Passengers Using an Extended Theory of Planned Behavior," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, June.
    14. Chen Wei, 2021. "The influence of Consumers’ Purchase intention on Smart Wearable Device: A study of Consumers in East China," International Journal of Science and Business, IJSAB International, vol. 5(8), pages 46-72.
    15. Mohammad Tipu Sultan & Farzana Sharmin & Alina Badulescu & Darie Gavrilut & Ke Xue, 2021. "Social Media-Based Content towards Image Formation: A New Approach to the Selection of Sustainable Destinations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-22, April.
    16. Jordi Martínez-Ventura & Eduardo de-Miguel-Arbonés & Carla Sentieri-Omarrementería & Juanjo Galan & María Calero-Llinares, 2021. "A Tool to Assess Architectural Education from the Sustainable Development Perspective and the Students’ Viewpoint," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-40, August.
    17. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.
    18. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Luo, Zongwei & Dubey, Rameshwar & Gunasekaran, Angappa & Childe, Stephen J. & Papadopoulos, Thanos & Hazen, Benjamin & Roubaud, David, 2017. "Sustainable production framework for cement manufacturing firms: A behavioural perspective," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 495-502.
    20. Licheng Sun & Qunwei Wang & Shilong Ge, 2018. "Urban resident energy-saving behavior: a case study under the A2SC framework," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 91(2), pages 515-536, March.

    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:78:y:2018:i:c:p:460-471. 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.