IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v39y2022i1d10.1007_s10460-021-10239-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Delivering too much, too little or off target—possible consequences of differences in perceptions on agricultural advisory services

Author

Listed:
  • Jannica Krafft

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and Växa Sverige)

  • Jenny Höckert

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU Skara)

  • Magnus Ljung

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, SLU Skara)

  • Sara Lundberg

    (Växa Sverige)

  • Christina Lunner Kolstrup

    (Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)

Abstract

Advisory services are considered to play an important role in the development of competitiveness and sustainability in agriculture. Advisory services have been studied at policy level, structural level and within case studies, but there is still restricted knowledge about advisors’ and farmers’ view on advisory services in general. This paper presents the views of Swedish advisors and farmers on advisory services. In a survey-based study, perceptions of farm advisors and full-time farmers in commercial Swedish agriculture on advisory services were identified and statistically analysed, comparing differences between and within the groups. The results are structured around three main themes; motives for a farmer using or not using advisory services, preferred approach by the advisor and future demands on advisory services and their importance today. Possible consequences of differences in perceptions for on-farm service delivery were assessed. Similarities in perceptions on advisory services among advisors and farmers, were found in areas characterised by well-defined questions or production-related issues. Significant differences in perceptions of advisors and farmers emerged in less concrete areas and on topics connected to change, management and strategy. Consequences of discrepancies in perceptions are that advisors may deliver too much, too little or off target, especially when expectations on advisory services are not clearly expressed. A strong and proactive back-office supporting the advisors is needed to prevent these possible consequences.

Suggested Citation

  • Jannica Krafft & Jenny Höckert & Magnus Ljung & Sara Lundberg & Christina Lunner Kolstrup, 2022. "Delivering too much, too little or off target—possible consequences of differences in perceptions on agricultural advisory services," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 185-199, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10239-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-021-10239-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-021-10239-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10460-021-10239-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fielke, Simon & Taylor, Bruce & Jakku, Emma, 2020. "Digitalisation of agricultural knowledge and advice networks: A state-of-the-art review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    2. Inman, Alex & Winter, Michael & Wheeler, Rebecca & Vrain, Emilie & Lovett, Andrew & Collins, Adrian & Jones, Iwan & Johnes, Penny & Cleasby, Will, 2018. "An exploration of individual, social and material factors influencing water pollution mitigation behaviours within the farming community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 16-26.
    3. Julie Ingram, 2008. "Agronomist–farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(3), pages 405-418, September.
    4. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    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. David Christian Rose & Anna Barkemeyer & Auvikki Boon & Catherine Price & Dannielle Roche, 2023. "The old, the new, or the old made new? Everyday counter-narratives of the so-called fourth agricultural revolution," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 423-439, June.
    2. Meunier, Elliot & Smith, Pauline & Griessinger, Thibaud & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "Understanding changes in reducing pesticide use by farmers: Contribution of the behavioural sciences," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    3. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    5. Charlotte Lybaert & Lies Debruyne & Eva Kyndt & Fleur Marchand, 2021. "Competencies for Agricultural Advisors in Innovation Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. McGrath, Karen & Brown, Claire & Regan, Áine & Russell, Tomás, 2023. "Investigating narratives and trends in digital agriculture: A scoping study of social and behavioural science studies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    7. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    8. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    9. David Israel Contreras-Medina & Sergio Ernesto Medina-Cuéllar & Julia Sánchez-Gómez & Carlos Mario Rodríguez-Peralta, 2021. "Innovation of Women Farmers: A Technological Proposal for Mezcalilleras’ Sustainability in Mexico, Based on Knowledge Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-24, October.
    10. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    11. Thorsøe, Martin Hvarregaard & Noe, Egon Bjørnshave & Lamandé, Mathieu & Frelih-Larsen, Ana & Kjeldsen, Chris & Zandersen, Marianne & Schjønning, Per, 2019. "Sustainable soil management - Farmers’ perspectives on subsoil compaction and the opportunities and barriers for intervention," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 427-437.
    12. Grilli, Gianluca & Curtis, John, 2021. "An evaluation of public initiatives to change behaviours that affect water quality," Papers WP696, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    13. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    14. repec:spr:circec:v:2:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s43615-021-00110-4 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Kerstin Jantke & Martina J. Hartmann & Livia Rasche & Benjamin Blanz & Uwe A. Schneider, 2020. "Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Knowledge and Positions of German Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-13, April.
    16. Patrick Baur, 2020. "When farmers are pulled in too many directions: comparing institutional drivers of food safety and environmental sustainability in California agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(4), pages 1175-1194, December.
    17. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    18. Tao Xia & Elias G. Carayannis & Stavros Sindakis & Saloome Showkat & Nikos Kanellos, 2024. "Technology transfer for sustainable rural development: evidence from homestead withdrawal with compensation in Chengdu–Chongqing," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 303-333, February.
    19. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    20. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    21. Nesrein M. Hashem & Eman M. Hassanein & Jean-François Hocquette & Antonio Gonzalez-Bulnes & Fayrouz A. Ahmed & Youssef A. Attia & Khalid A. Asiry, 2021. "Agro-Livestock Farming System Sustainability during the COVID-19 Era: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Role of Information and Communication Technologies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, June.

    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:spr:agrhuv:v:39:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s10460-021-10239-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.