IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i18p8196-d1481814.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Producers’ Perception of the Benefits of Farm Certification: The Case of the National Good Agricultural Practices Programme

Author

Listed:
  • Małgorzata Pink

    (Department of Economics and Food Economy, Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Cracow, Poland)

  • Michał Niewiadomski

    (Department of Economics and Food Economy, Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Cracow, Poland)

  • Katarzyna Grochola

    (Department of Microbiology and Biomonitoring, Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Cracow, Poland)

  • Anna Gorczyca

    (Department of Microbiology and Biomonitoring, Faculty of Agriculture and Economics, University of Agriculture in Krakow, 31-120 Cracow, Poland)

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to assess the perception of a national certification programme for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), specifically IPR (Integrated Plant Production). Another aim was to indicate the barriers of the implementation and the benefits of the practices within the IPR certification. The study was conducted using a survey questionnaire. The results were subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and an analysis of the correlations between demographic characteristics and the perception of the certificate among IPR-certified farmers. Among the motivations for implementing the certificate and perceived benefits, respondents revealed specific values: a high level of social and environmental awareness and responsibility, a relatively high pursuit of material security, and a strong pro-market attitude. Of these factors, the responsibility and awareness factor best described the population, while the material security factor was less significant. The demographic characteristics in the researched population were found to be statistically insignificant for the perception of the programme and presented values. The second part of the study revealed a number of phenomena observed in the context of implementing the certificate, including positive environmental changes and those related to relations with market partners. One of the hidden factors behind these changes was the time factor. In this context, it was suggested that the longer validity of the certificate may increase interest in it. Recommendations were also formulated regarding addressing the values declared by respondents as being key in implementing IPR certification and minimising the gap in expectations regarding the price and the price obtained for certified products.

Suggested Citation

  • Małgorzata Pink & Michał Niewiadomski & Katarzyna Grochola & Anna Gorczyca, 2024. "Producers’ Perception of the Benefits of Farm Certification: The Case of the National Good Agricultural Practices Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:18:p:8196-:d:1481814
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/8196/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/8196/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Cawley & Kevin Heanue & Rachel Hilliard & Cathal O’Donoghue & Maura Sheehan, 2023. "How Knowledge Transfer Impact Happens at the Farm Level: Insights from Advisers and Farmers in the Irish Agricultural Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2008. "What influences agricultural professionals' views towards organic agriculture?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 145-154, March.
    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. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    2. Federica Caffaro & Eugenio Cavallo, 2019. "The Effects of Individual Variables, Farming System Characteristics and Perceived Barriers on Actual Use of Smart Farming Technologies: Evidence from the Piedmont Region, Northwestern Italy," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, May.
    3. Arpaphan Pattanapant & Ganesh P. Shivakoti, 2009. "Opportunities and constraints of organic agriculture in Chiang Mai Province, Thailand," Asia-Pacific Development Journal, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), vol. 16(1), pages 115-147, June.
    4. Kristin Jürkenbeck & Achim Spiller, 2020. "Consumers’ Evaluation of Stockfree-Organic Agriculture—A Segmentation Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-19, May.
    5. Anastasiadis, Foivos & Kolympari, Petroula, 2019. "Sustainable or conventional production? The influence of farmer demographic characteristics," Agricultural Economics Review, Greek Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 0(Issue 2).
    6. Yaghoubi, Jafar & Yazdanpanah, Masoud & Komendantova, Nadejda, 2019. "Iranian agriculture advisors' perception and intention toward biofuel: Green way toward energy security, rural development and climate change mitigation," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 452-459.
    7. Ralph De Witte & Dirk Janssen & Samir Sayadi Gmada & Carmen García-García, 2023. "Best Practices for Training in Sustainable Greenhouse Horticulture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, March.
    8. Araba, Narjiss, 2022. "Organic markets: a safe haven from volatility," 96th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2022, K U Leuven, Belgium 321209, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    9. Aeberhard, Andrea & Rist, Stephan, 2009. "Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge in the development of organic agriculture in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(4), pages 1171-1181, February.
    10. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Classifying carbon credit buyers according to their attitudes towards and involvement in CDM sustainability labels," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 6271-6279, October.
    11. Chen, Xuqi & Gao, Yujuan & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "Impacts of color-coded nutrition facts panel and consumer responses," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322206, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Parvathi, Priyanka & Waibel, Hermann, 2015. "Adoption and Impact of Black Pepper Certification in India," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 54(2), pages 1-29, May.
    13. Laure Latruffe & Douadia Bougherara & Jasmin Sainte-Beuve, 2012. "Economic performance in organic farming in France: incentive or disincentive to convert?," Post-Print hal-01190622, HAL.
    14. Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Zuo, Alec & Loch, Adam, 2015. "Watering the farm: Comparing organic and conventional irrigation water use in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 78-85.
    15. Wheeler, Sarah Ann & Marning, Angelika, 2019. "Turning water into wine: Exploring water security perceptions and adaptation behaviour amongst conventional, organic and biodynamic grape growers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 528-537.
    16. Jaeck Mélanie & Lifran Robert & Stahn Hubert, 2014. "Emergence of Organic Farming under Imperfect Competition: Economic Conditions and Policy Instruments," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 95-108, January.
    17. Anugu Amarender Reddy & Indrek Melts & Geetha Mohan & Ch Radhika Rani & Vaishnavi Pawar & Vikas Singh & Manesh Choubey & Trupti Vashishtha & A Suresh & Madhusudan Bhattarai, 2022. "Economic Impact of Organic Agriculture: Evidence from a Pan-India Survey," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-22, November.
    18. Läpple, Doris & Rensburg, Tom Van, 2011. "Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1406-1414, May.
    19. Marsy Asindu & Emily Ouma & Gabriel Elepu & Diego Naziri, 2020. "Farmer Demand and Willingness-To-Pay for Sweetpotato Silage-Based Diet as Pig Feed in Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-16, August.
    20. Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Ernest Reig-Martínez, 2012. "What makes a citrus farmer go organic? Empirical evidence from Spanish citrus farming," Working Papers 1205, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.

    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:18:p:8196-:d:1481814. 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.