IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v84y2019icp127-137.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Socio-economic context of soil erosion: A comparative local stakeholders’ case study from traditional agricultural region in the Czech Republic

Author

Listed:
  • Vávra, Jan
  • Duží, Barbora
  • Lapka, Miloslav
  • Cudlínová, Eva
  • Rikoon, J. Sanford

Abstract

Soil erosion by water is the most common cause of land degradation and traditionally coincides with agricultural production. This paper presents the results of a sociological case study comparing the perceptions of soil erosion of stakeholder groups from southern Moravia, an intensive agricultural and erosion-prone region in the Czech Republic. The research documents and analyses perceptions of erosion, perceived causes, and attitudes towards possible corrective measures. Altogether, 216 stakeholders consisting of farmers and local leaders (mostly mayors and vice-mayors) took part in a questionnaire survey between the years of 2012–2015. The results show that the stakeholders as whole are in general aware of the seriousness of the problem and see irresponsible farmers, lack of organic fertilizers and climate change as the major causes. Overall most preferred erosion mitigation measures were the growing of appropriate crops and the splitting of large fields into smaller ones. The views of farmers and local leaders are compared and discussed within the framework of the changing roles of rural areas. A productivist paradigm and corresponding modulation of erosion is significantly more prevalent among farmers, although not the dominant viewpoint in this group. The socio-economic context of soil erosion and recent trends in Czech soil conservation policies are discussed and it is argued that the local stakeholders are supportive of pro-environmental measures despite a lack of effort on the governmental and legislation level.

Suggested Citation

  • Vávra, Jan & Duží, Barbora & Lapka, Miloslav & Cudlínová, Eva & Rikoon, J. Sanford, 2019. "Socio-economic context of soil erosion: A comparative local stakeholders’ case study from traditional agricultural region in the Czech Republic," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 127-137.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:84:y:2019:i:c:p:127-137
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771831336X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.005?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. Chang, Millicent & Yu, Jing & Adamson, William, 2018. "How directors trade and learn during takeovers," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 184-197.
    2. Green, Colin P. & Homroy, Swarnodeep, 2018. "Female directors, board committees and firm performance," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 19-38.
    3. Kevin x.d. Huang & Zhe Li & Jianfei Sun, 2018. "Bank Competition, Directed Search, and Loan Sales," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 18-00001, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    4. Rikoon, Sandy & Constance, Doug, 1997. "Pesticide Use Water Quality: An Assessment of Claims," Miscellaneous Reports 257849, University of Missouri Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    5. Pinto-Correia, T. & Guiomar, N. & Guerra, C.A. & Carvalho-Ribeiro, S., 2016. "Assessing the ability of rural areas to fulfil multiple societal demands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 86-96.
    6. 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.
    7. Vyacheslav Fos & Kai Li & Margarita Tsoutsoura, 2018. "Do Director Elections Matter?," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 31(4), pages 1499-1531.
    8. Christiane Krieger-Boden, 2018. "What Direction Should EU Cohesion Policy Take?," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 19(01), pages 10-15, March.
    9. Christine S. M. Currie & Trivikram Dokka & John Harvey & Arne K. Strauss, 2018. "Future research directions in demand management," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 17(6), pages 459-462, December.
    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. Martin Král & Petr Dvořák & Ivana Capouchová, 2020. "The effect of straw mulch and compost application on the soil losses in potatoes cultivation," Plant, Soil and Environment, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 66(9), pages 446-452.

    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. Owen, Ann L. & Temesvary, Judit, 2018. "The performance effects of gender diversity on bank boards," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 50-63.
    2. Cameira, Maria do Rosário & Rodrigo, Isabel & Garção, Andreia & Neves, Manuela & Ferreira, Antónia & Paredes, Paula, 2024. "Linking participatory approach and rapid appraisal methods to select potential innovations in collective irrigation systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 299(C).
    3. Olson, Kent & Gauto, Victor & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Swain, Braja & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Duncan, Alan, 2021. "Estimating Farmers’ Internal Value of Crop Residues in Smallholder Crop-Livestock Systems: A South Asia Case Study," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315188, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Ararat, Melsa & Yurtoglu, B. Burcin, 2021. "Female directors, board committees, and firm performance: Time-series evidence from Turkey," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    5. Nick Middleton & Utchang Kang, 2017. "Sand and Dust Storms: Impact Mitigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-22, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Hanen Khemakhem & Paulina Arroyo & Julio Montecinos, 2023. "Gender diversity on board committees and ESG disclosure: evidence from Canada," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(4), pages 1397-1422, December.
    8. Nelson Mango & Clifton Makate & Lulseged Tamene & Powell Mponela & Gift Ndengu, 2018. "Adoption of Small-Scale Irrigation Farming as a Climate-Smart Agriculture Practice and Its Influence on Household Income in the Chinyanja Triangle, Southern Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, April.
    9. Sukjoon Oh & John F. Gardner, 2022. "Large Scale Energy Signature Analysis: Tools for Utility Managers and Planners," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-19, July.
    10. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    11. Homroy, Swarnodeep, 2023. "GHG emissions and firm performance: The role of CEO gender socialization," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    12. Marina Gertsberg & Johanna Mollerstrom & Michaela Pagel, 2021. "Gender Quotas and Support for Women in Board Elections," NBER Working Papers 28463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    14. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    15. Ignaciuk, Ada & Malevolti, Giulia & Scognamillo, Antonio & Sitko, Nicholas J., 2022. "Can food aid relax farmers’ constraints to adopting climate-adaptive agricultural practices? Evidence from Ethiopia, Malawi and the United Republic of Tanzania," ESA Working Papers 324073, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA).
    16. Conor Carney & Monica Harber Carney, 2018. "Impact of soil conservation adoption on intra‐household allocations in Zambia," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(4), pages 1390-1408, November.
    17. Beatrice Dingha & Leah Sandler & Arnab Bhowmik & Clement Akotsen-Mensah & Louis Jackai & Kevin Gibson & Ronald Turco, 2019. "Industrial Hemp Knowledge and Interest among North Carolina Organic Farmers in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    18. 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).
    19. Bridget. B. Umar & Jens. B. Aune & Fred. H. Johnsen & Obed. I. Lungu, 2011. "Options for Improving Smallholder Conservation Agriculture in Zambia," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 3(3), pages 1-50, September.
    20. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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:84:y:2019:i:c:p:127-137. 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.