IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i3p1083-d484322.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes and Behaviours of Certified Winegrowers towards the Design and Implementation of Biodiversity Farming Strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy McWilliam

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

  • Andreas Wesener

    (School of Landscape Architecture, Faculty of Environment, Society and Design, Lincoln University, Lincoln 7647, New Zealand)

Abstract

Substantial environmental impacts and loss of resilience occurs with conventional vineyard designs characterized by monotonous specialized production. Studies support the restoration of green infrastructure (GI) and introduction of other production systems as promising biodiversity design strategies. However, little is known about the degree to which winegrowers are implementing them. We surveyed Willamette valley, Oregon, certified sustainable winegrowers as potential early adopters of innovative biodiversity design strategies. Results revealed growers were implementing up to 11 different types of GI components, providing them with up to 16 different ecosystem services, and six disservices. The GI was implemented at three spatial scales, with growers pursuing a sharing GI design strategy at fine scales, and a sharing and sparing strategy at intermediate and farm-wide scales. Only biodynamic certified farmers had implemented valued additional production systems. Growers can improve the implementation of their biodiversity GI designs by adopting an integrated multi-system whole farm design approach. Key enablers for grower implementation of GI and/or additional production systems included: (1) Grower awareness and value of strategy’s ecosystem services and functions, (2) grower knowledge of their design and management, (3) certifier requirements for GI, (4) availability of land incapable of growing quality grapes, (5) availability of GI backup systems in case of failure, (6) low risk of regional pest outbreaks, (7) premium wine prices, and (8) strong grower environmental and cultural heritage ethics. Further research is required to identify effective ways to advance these enablers among growers, and within certification and government programmes, to improve the implementation of these strategies among growers.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1083-:d:484322
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1083/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/3/1083/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. R.F. Townsend & J. Kirsten & N. Vink, 1998. "Farm size, productivity and returns to scale in agriculture revisited: a case study of wine producers in South Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 19(1-2), pages 175-180, September.
    2. Mark Cordano & R. Marshall & Murray Silverman, 2010. "How do Small and Medium Enterprises Go “Green”? A Study of Environmental Management Programs in the U.S. Wine Industry," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 463-478, March.
    3. 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.
    4. R. Scott Marshall & Mark Cordano & Murray Silverman, 2005. "Exploring individual and institutional drivers of proactive environmentalism in the US Wine industry," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(2), pages 92-109, March.
    5. Fischer, Joern & Abson, David J. & Butsic, Van & Chappell, M. Jahi & Ekroos, Johan & Hanspach, Jan & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Smith, Henrik G. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2014. "Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 149-157.
    6. Laura Siepmann & Kimberly A. Nicholas, 2018. "German Winegrowers’ Motives and Barriers to Convert to Organic Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-17, November.
    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. Anna-Kate Goodall & Wendy McWilliam & Colin Meurk & Olaf Schelezki & Suphicha Muangsri, 2023. "Evaluation of an Incentive Programme for Increasing Green Infrastructure on Vineyards," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, September.

    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. Eugenio Pomarici & Riccardo Vecchio & Angela Mariani, 2015. "Wineries’ Perception of Sustainability Costs and Benefits: An Exploratory Study in California," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Hans De Steur & Hélène Temmerman & Xavier Gellynck & Maurizio Canavari, 2020. "Drivers, adoption, and evaluation of sustainability practices in Italian wine SMEs," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 744-762, February.
    3. Pucci, Tommaso & Casprini, Elena & Galati, Antonino & Zanni, Lorenzo, 2020. "The virtuous cycle of stakeholder engagement in developing a sustainability culture: Salcheto winery," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 364-376.
    4. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    5. Benjamin T. Phalan, 2018. "What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Ting Qian & Caoyuan Yang, 2023. "State-Owned Equity Participation and Corporations’ ESG Performance in China: The Mediating Role of Top Management Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, July.
    7. André Eduardo Biscaia Lacerda & Ana Lúcia Hanisch & Evelyn Roberta Nimmo, 2020. "Leveraging Traditional Agroforestry Practices to Support Sustainable and Agrobiodiverse Landscapes in Southern Brazil," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Ryan S. Naylor & Carter A. Hunt, 2021. "Tourism and Livelihood Sovereignty: A Theoretical Introduction and Research Agenda for Arctic Contexts," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, August.
    9. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.
    10. Julie Dekker & Tim Hasso, 2016. "Environmental Performance Focus in Private Family Firms: The Role of Social Embeddedness," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 136(2), pages 293-309, June.
    11. Loconto, Allison & Desquilbet, Marion & Moreau, Théo & Couvet, Denis & Dorin, Bruno, 2020. "The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Joachim P. Hasebrook & Leonie Michalak & Anna Wessels & Sabine Koenig & Stefan Spierling & Stefan Kirmsse, 2022. "Green Behavior: Factors Influencing Behavioral Intention and Actual Environmental Behavior of Employees in the Financial Service Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-35, August.
    13. Aleksandra Kowalska & Julia Wojciechowska-Solis & Milena Bieniek & Monika Ratajczyk & Louise Manning, 2023. "Declared non-buyers of organic food: A study of young British and Polish consumer profiles," Ekonomista, Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne, issue 1, pages 28-50.
    14. Marc Dressler, 2023. "Generic strategic profiling of entrepreneurial SMEs – environmentalism as hygiene factor," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 121-150, March.
    15. Tobias Hahn & Mandy Scheermesser, 2006. "Approaches to corporate sustainability among German companies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(3), pages 150-165, July.
    16. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.
    17. S. Weaver & Pam Ellen & Lars Mathiassen, 2015. "Contextualist Inquiry into Organizational Citizenship: Promoting Recycling Across Heterogeneous Organizational Actors," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 129(2), pages 413-428, June.
    18. Elena-Madalina VATAMANESCU & Florina – Magdalena PINZARU & Andreia - Gabriela ANDREI & Vlad – Andrei ALEXANDRU, 2014. "An Insight into Romanian Business Consulting Organizations from an Ethical Standpoint," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 2(3), pages 440-452, December.
    19. Emmanuelle Augeraud-Véron & Giorgio Fabbri & Katheline Schubert, 2019. "The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance Device," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1068-1081.
    20. Naama Teschner & Daniel E. Orenstein, 2022. "A transdisciplinary study of agroecological niches: understanding sustainability transitions in vineyards," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 33-45, 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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:3:p:1083-:d:484322. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.