IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6576-d1122283.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cooperation of Fruit Farms with the Institutional Environment toward Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • Elżbieta Jadwiga Szymańska

    (Department of Logistics, Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 166 Nowoursynowska St., 02-787 Warsaw, Poland)

  • Maria Rysz

    (Marketing Department, Carpathian State University in Krosno, 1 Rynek St., 38-400 Krosno, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś

    (Department of Management and Economics of Enterprises, University of Agriculture in Kraków, 21 Mickiewicza Av., 31-120 Kraków, Poland)

Abstract

The research problem adopted in this study concerns the limited cooperation of fruit farms with the institutional environment. The aim of the study was to identify the scope and to evaluate the cooperation of fruit farms with the institutional environment and to identify barriers to developing this cooperation. This is an important issue because the increasingly complex and dynamic economic environment makes the results of fruit farms largely dependent on the influence of various organizations and institutions of the agricultural sector. The review of the literature shows that this issue is not recognized. The study’s novelty is developing an original indicator of relations with the institutional environment. It considers the number and frequency of contacts between fruit growers and organizations, as well as the forms of cooperation. The basic research area covered the region of Małopolska and Pogórze, characterized by high agrarian fragmentation and the development of orchard production. The research covered 45 farms and was conducted based on a survey questionnaire. Descriptive and statistical methods were used in the data analysis, such as the chi-square test and the Kruskal–Wallis test, supplemented with post hoc analysis (Dunn test with Bonferroni correction) and the Pearson correlation coefficient. Research shows that the relationship between fruit growers and agricultural organizations is limited. The size of the indicator depends on the level of education of fruit growers and the area of the orchards. Fruit growers most often use advice and seek information about European Union programs. The development of cooperation between fruit farms and institutional environmental organizations reduces the mismatch between the offers of these organizations and the needs of fruit growers.

Suggested Citation

  • Elżbieta Jadwiga Szymańska & Maria Rysz & Katarzyna Utnik-Banaś, 2023. "Cooperation of Fruit Farms with the Institutional Environment toward Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-23, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6576-:d:1122283
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6576/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6576/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. Barbara Wieliczko & Agnieszka Kurdyś-Kujawska & Agnieszka Sompolska-Rzechuła, 2020. "Savings of Small Farms: Their Magnitude, Determinants and Role in Sustainable Development. Example of Poland," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Mary Dobbs & Viviane Gravey & Ludivine Petetin, 2021. "Driving the European Green Deal in Turbulent Times," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 316-326.
    4. John P. Reganold & Jerry D. Glover & Preston K. Andrews & Herbert R. Hinman, 2001. "Sustainability of three apple production systems," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6831), pages 926-930, April.
    5. Slangen, Louis H.G., 2001. "Sustainable Agriculture - Getting The Institutions Right," Discussion Papers 18893, CEESA: Central and Eastern European Sustainable Agriculture International Research Project.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Edwin Muchapondwa & Jesper Stage & Eric Mungatana & Pushpam Kumar, 2018. "Lessons from Applying Market-Based Incentives in Watershed Management," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-41, July.
    2. Galati, Antonino & Crescimanno, Maria & Gristina, Luciano & Keesstra, Saskia & Novara, Agata, 2016. "Actual provision as an alternative criterion to improve the efficiency of payments for ecosystem services for C sequestration in semiarid vineyards," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 58-64.
    3. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    5. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    6. repec:gat:wpaper:1509 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Soh, Moonwon & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Yu, Edward & Boyer, Christopher & English, Burton, 2018. "Targeting Payments for Ecosystem Services Given Ecological and Economic Objectives," 2018 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2018, Jacksonville, Florida 266502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    8. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    9. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    10. Desbureaux, Sébastien & Brimont, Laura, 2015. "Between economic loss and social identity: The multi-dimensional cost of avoiding deforestation in Eastern Madagascar," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 10-20.
    11. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    12. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    13. Odysseas Christou, 2021. "Energy Security in Turbulent Times Towards the European Green Deal," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 360-369.
    14. Zhang, Jing & Brown, Colin & Qiao, Guanghua & Zhang, Bao, 2019. "Effect of Eco-compensation Schemes on Household Income Structures and Herder Satisfaction: Lessons From the Grassland Ecosystem Subsidy and Award Scheme in Inner Mongolia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 46-53.
    15. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.
    16. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    17. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    18. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    19. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    20. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    21. Bösch, Matthias & Elsasser, Peter & Wunder, Sven, 2019. "Why do payments for watershed services emerge? A cross-country analysis of adoption contexts," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 111-119.

    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:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6576-:d:1122283. 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.