IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i17p7635-d1470318.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing Produce Growers’ Perceptions and Adoption of Agricultural Water Safety Practices in the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Dharmendra Kalauni

    (Department of Agricultural Education & Communication, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

  • Laura A. Warner

    (Department of Agricultural Education & Communication, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
    Center for Land Use Efficiency, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32609, USA)

  • Matt Benge

    (Department of Agricultural Education & Communication, University of Florida, P.O. Box 110540, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA)

  • Michelle D. Danyluk

    (UF/IFAS Citrus Research and Education Center, University of Florida, 700 Experiment Station Rd., Lake Alfred, FL 33850, USA)

Abstract

The Produce Rule regulates food safety among produce growers in the United States. Policy exemptions (e.g., for farms with average produce sales under USD 30,000 over three years) pose a threat to local food safety, particularly given exempt growers’ role in fresh produce production. Understanding exempt growers’ perceptions of food safety practices and the factors influencing their voluntary adoption is crucial. A cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted to assess growers’ current engagement, their perceptions of agricultural water safety practices, and their influence on adoption decisions. The findings indicate inadequate engagement with agricultural water safety practices, with production water-related safety practices showing higher engagement compared to post-harvest water practices. Overall, growers reported favorable perceptions toward agricultural water safety practices. The perceived compatibility, relative advantage, and observability predicted adoption decisions among exempt growers, with the perceived compatibility being the strongest predictor. Policymakers and education professionals should design strategies and tailored educational interventions and messaging for exempt growers to emphasize the compatibility, relative advantage, and observability of agricultural water safety practices. Furthermore, it is recommended to explore policies and other mechanisms to increase the perceived relative advantage (immediacy of rewards and direct benefits) for exempt growers to promote voluntary adoption of these on-farm food safety practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Dharmendra Kalauni & Laura A. Warner & Matt Benge & Michelle D. Danyluk, 2024. "Assessing Produce Growers’ Perceptions and Adoption of Agricultural Water Safety Practices in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-27, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7635-:d:1470318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7635/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/17/7635/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Low, Sarah A. & Vogel, Stephen J., 2011. "Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States," Economic Research Report 118025, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    2. Holcomb, Rodney B. & Palma, Marco A. & Velandia, Margarita M., 2013. "Food Safety Policies and Implications for Local Food Systems," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 1-4.
    3. Neva Hassanein, 2011. "Matters of scale and the politics of the Food Safety Modernization Act," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 28(4), pages 577-581, December.
    4. Timothy Park & Ashok K. Mishra & Shawn J. Wozniak, 2014. "Do farm operators benefit from direct to consumer marketing strategies?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(2), pages 213-224, March.
    5. Collart, Alba J., 2016. "The Food Safety Modernization Act and the Marketing of Fresh Produce," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(1), pages 1-7, March.
    6. Ahmad, Munir & Khan, Irfan & Shahzad Khan, Muhammad Qaiser & Jabeen, Gul & Jabeen, Hafiza Samra & Işık, Cem, 2023. "Households' perception-based factors influencing biogas adoption: Innovation diffusion framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    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. Sullins, Martha J. & Jablonski, Becca B.R., 2016. "What Influences Produce Growers' On-Farm Expenditures for Food Safety? A Colorado Investigation of Relationships among Farm Scale, Value of Sales, Market Channel, and Expenditure Levels," Western Economics Forum, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 15(1), pages 1-9.
    2. Gupta, Clare & Jablonski, Becca B.R., 2016. "Farm Impacts of Farm-to-Grocer Sales: The Case of Hawai’i," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(3), pages 1-23, November.
    3. Wille, Stefan Clemens & Barklage, Britta & Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie, 2018. "Challenging factors of farmer-to-consumer direct marketing: An empirical analysis of German livestock owners," DARE Discussion Papers 1807, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    4. O'Hara, Jeffrey K. & Benson, Matthew, 2017. "Local Food Production and Farm to School Expenditures," 2017 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2017, Mobile, Alabama 252669, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    5. Stewart, Hayden & Dong, Diansheng, 2018. "How strong is the demand for food through direct-to-consumer outlets?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 35-43.
    6. Yizao Liu & Xuan Chen & Adam N. Rabinowitz & Benjamin Campbell, 2020. "Demand, challenges, and marketing strategies in the retail promotion of local brand milk," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(5), pages 655-668, September.
    7. Ekanem, Enefiok & Mafuyai, Mary & Clardy, Arvazena, 2016. "Economic Importance of Local Food Markets: Evidence from the Literature," Journal of Food Distribution Research, Food Distribution Research Society, vol. 47(1), pages 1-8, March.
    8. Jeffrey K. O'Hara & Jeffrey Lin, 2020. "Population Density and Local Food Market Channels," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(3), pages 477-496, September.
    9. Martinez, Stephen & Park, Timothy, 2021. "Marketing Practices and Financial Performance of Local Food Producers: A Comparison of Beginning and Experienced Farmers," Economic Information Bulletin 327367, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. repec:ags:aaea22:335986 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:ags:aaea16:236057 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Bauman, Allison & Jablonski, Becca B.R. & Thilmany McFadden, Dawn, 2016. "Evaluating Scale and Technical Efficiency among Farms and Ranches with a Local Market Orientation," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 242364, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Astill, G. & Sabasi, D. & Gwatipedza, J., 2018. "Direct Marketing Strategies and Farmers’ Technical Efficiency in U.S. Agriculture," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 275917, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Becca B. R. Jablonski & Martha Sullins & Dawn Thilmany McFadden, 2019. "Community-Supported Agriculture Marketing Performance: Results from Pilot Market Channel Assessments in Colorado," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-14, May.
    15. Paudel, Krishna P. & Park, Timothy A. & Pandit, Mahesh, 2017. "U.S. Farmers' Decision to Choose Direct Sales Channel: A Fractional Seemingly Unrelated Semiparametric Model," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258370, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Becca B. R. Jablonski & Nigel Key & Joleen Hadrich & Allie Bauman & Sarah Campbell & Dawn Thilmany & Martha Sullins, 2022. "Opportunities to support beginning farmers and ranchers in the 2023 Farm Bill," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1177-1194, September.
    17. Park, Timothy & Martinez, Steve & Ibrahim, Mohammed, . "Sales Performance of Local Food Marketers: Evaluation of Multivalued Treatment Effects," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 49(3).
    18. Pei-An LIAO & Hung-Hao CHANG & Junlin HE & Kannika SAELIW, 2017. "Diversification of marketing strategies among small farms: empirical evidence from family farms in Taiwan," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 63(11), pages 493-501.
    19. Liu, Ruifeng & ,, 2021. "What We Can Learn from the Interactions of Food Traceable Attributes? a Case Study of Fuji Apple in China," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315916, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Printezis, Iryna & Grebitus, Carola, 2018. "Marketing Channels for Local Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 161-171.
    21. Watson, Philip & Cooke, Stephen & Kay, David & Alward, Greg & Morales, Alfonso, 2017. "A Method for Evaluating the Economic Contribution of a Local Food System," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(2), May.
    22. Rachel M. Shellabarger & Rachel C. Voss & Monika Egerer & Shun-Nan Chiang, 2019. "Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 91-103, 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:16:y:2024:i:17:p:7635-:d:1470318. 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.