IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i8p6652-d1123518.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Relative Importance of Barriers and Levers to Intercropping Systems Adoption: A Comparison of Farms and Co-Operatives

Author

Listed:
  • M’hand Fares

    (INRAE-ACT, UMR SELMET, 2 Place Pierre Viala, 34000 Montpellier, France)

  • Fateh Mamine

    (Cerfrance Brocéliande, 4 Rue du Bourg Nouveau, 35000 Rennes, France)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the barriers and levers to the adoption of Wheat–Pea intercropping systems. More precisely, we define a hierarchy of the main barriers and levers to adoption using the Relative Importance Index ( RII ) method. This method allows comparison of incentives, negative (brakes) and positive (levers), for adoption at two levels of the value chain, i.e., the farmer and the co-operative level. For this comparison, we conducted two surveys: one on 71 Belgian farmers and the other on 19 French co-operatives. Our results show that the barriers of high importance for the farmers are both internal and external, while the co-operatives consider only internal barriers. That is, the farmers mainly focus on external (market access and public subsidies) and internal (lack of technical advice and extension, as well as collection and storage problems) obstacles to evaluate the intercropping system. For the co-operatives, the most important barriers are related to the sorting and storage of the mixture (internal barriers). Regarding levers, farmers and co-operatives converge on the importance of almost the same external levers, e.g., building new value chains through contracts and labeling, specific extension services for farmers and logistical support for co-operatives.

Suggested Citation

  • M’hand Fares & Fateh Mamine, 2023. "Relative Importance of Barriers and Levers to Intercropping Systems Adoption: A Comparison of Farms and Co-Operatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-15, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:8:p:6652-:d:1123518
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6652/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/8/6652/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tae-Hee Jo, 2021. "A Veblenian Critique of Nelson and Winter’s Evolutionary Theory," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(4), pages 1101-1117, October.
    2. Alem, Habtamu & Lien, Gudbrand & Kumbhakar, Subal C. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 2019. "Are Diversification And Structural Change Good Policy? An Empirical Analysis Of Norwegian Agriculture," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 51(1), pages 1-26, February.
    3. Feliciano, Diana & Nayak, Dali Rani & Vetter, Sylvia Helga & Hillier, Jon, 2017. "CCAFS-MOT - A tool for farmers, extension services and policy-advisors to identify mitigation options for agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 100-111.
    4. Patrick Heidkamp & Dean Hanink & Robert Cromley, 2008. "A land use model of the effects of eco-labeling in coffee markets," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 42(3), pages 725-746, September.
    5. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    6. Gutman, Pablo, 2007. "Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 383-387, May.
    7. Aka, Joël, 2017. "Market approval of phytosanitary active substances in Europe: An empirical duration analysis," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 143-153.
    8. Dawid, Herbert, 2006. "Agent-based Models of Innovation and Technological Change," Handbook of Computational Economics, in: Leigh Tesfatsion & Kenneth L. Judd (ed.), Handbook of Computational Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 25, pages 1235-1272, Elsevier.
    9. Shifang Lin & Yijun Pi & Dayong Long & Jianjun Duan & Xingtao Zhu & Xiaoli Wang & Jin He & Yonghe Zhu, 2022. "Impact of Organic and Chemical Nitrogen Fertilizers on the Crop Yield and Fertilizer Use Efficiency of Soybean–Maize Intercropping Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-9, September.
    10. Nelson, Richard R & Winter, Sidney G, 1982. "The Schumpeterian Tradeoff Revisited," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 114-132, March.
    11. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    12. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    13. van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M., 2008. "Optimal diversity: Increasing returns versus recombinant innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 565-580, December.
    14. Rahman, Sanzidur, 2009. "Whether crop diversification is a desired strategy for agricultural growth in Bangladesh?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 340-349, August.
    15. Grazia Cecere & Nicoletta Corrocher & Cédric Gossart & Muge Ozman, 2014. "Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 1037-1065, November.
    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. D’Orazio, Paola & Valente, Marco, 2019. "The role of finance in environmental innovation diffusion: An evolutionary modeling approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 417-439.
    2. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    4. Patrick Mellacher, 2021. "Growth, Inequality and Declining Business Dynamism in a Unified Schumpeter Mark I + II Model," Papers 2111.09407, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    5. 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.
    6. Lirios Alos-Simo & Antonio J. Verdu-Jover & Jose M. Gomez-Gras, 2020. "Knowledge Transfer in Sustainable Contexts: A Comparative Analysis of Periods of Financial Recession and Expansion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-24, June.
    7. Stojčić, Nebojša, 2021. "Social and private outcomes of green innovation incentives in European advancing economies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    8. Tamer Khraisha & Keren Arthur, 2018. "Can we have a general theory of financial innovation processes? A conceptual review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, December.
    9. Goytom Abraha Kahsay & Daniel Osberghaus, 2018. "Storm Damage and Risk Preferences: Panel Evidence from Germany," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(1), pages 301-318, September.
    10. Ayamga, Matthew & Annosi, Maria Carmela & Kassahun, Ayalew & Dolfsma, Wilfred & Tekinerdogan, Bedir, 2024. "Adaptive organizational responses to varied types of failures: Empirical insights from technology providers in Ghana," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    11. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    12. 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.
    13. Morán-Ordóñez, Alejandra & Ameztegui, Aitor & De Cáceres, Miquel & de-Miguel, Sergio & Lefèvre, François & Brotons, Lluís & Coll, Lluís, 2020. "Future trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in Mediterranean forests under global change scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    14. Schweizer, T.S., 2002. "Managing interactions between technological and stylistic innovation in the media industries, insights from the introduction of ebook technology in the publishing industry," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-16-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    15. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    16. Luis E. Davila & Vijay S. Sampath, 2018. "Determinants of MNEs' Natural Resources Endowments on Performance: An Analytical Model," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(7), pages 35-45, July.
    17. Paul L. Borrill & Leigh Tesfatsion, 2011. "Agent-based Modeling: The Right Mathematics for the Social Sciences?," Chapters, in: John B. Davis & D. Wade Hands (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Recent Economic Methodology, chapter 11, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Francesco Quatraro & Marco Vivarelli, 2015. "Drivers of Entrepreneurship and Post-entry Performance of Newborn Firms in Developing Countries," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 30(2), pages 277-305.
    19. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    20. Battke, Benedikt & Schmidt, Tobias S. & Stollenwerk, Stephan & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2016. "Internal or external spillovers—Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 27-41.

    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:6652-:d:1123518. 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.