IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/agrhuv/v40y2023i3d10.1007_s10460-023-10426-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are fencelines sites of engagement or avoidance in farmer adoption of alternative practices?

Author

Listed:
  • Kate Sherren

    (Dalhousie University)

  • H. M. Tuihedur Rahman

    (University of Saskatchewan)

  • Brooke McWherter

    (Dalhousie University)

  • Seonaid MacDonell

    (Dalhousie University)

Abstract

Understanding what factors can positively or negatively affect farmers’ decisions to adopt new practices is of particular importance to agricultural researchers and practitioners. Few studies in adoption research have examined the role that fenceline neighbours can play in influencing the decisions of their neighbours to adopt new practices, especially in North America. Prior research on adoption suggests that there are spatial effects that exist in adoption decisions, such as the uptake of new farming practices. For example, previous qualitative research with farmers has suggested that fenceline neighbours are influential but can have both positive and negative effects on adoption decisions. A standardized way of understanding fenceline neighbour influences is lacking. Our study presents a novel question set to examine fenceline neighbour dynamics and discusses its application in a survey examining the alternative practice adoption of adaptive multi-paddock grazing (AMP) by Canadian beef farmers. Our study highlights both the utility of our question set and how our question set can be used to provide new insights into local farmer social dynamics (e.g., how farmers engage with their neighbours and what factors influence engagement) and their influence on decisions to adopt. Specifically, our results identified two types of fenceline neighbour behaviors—engagers, and avoiders—and AMP farmers were more likely to be involved in engaged behaviors. Overall, we provide a question set that can be further integrated with trust, risk, and normative theoretical lenses to examine the role of fenceline neighbour dynamics in agricultural adoption and other contexts and call for more landholder research that examines neighbour-to-neighbour effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Kate Sherren & H. M. Tuihedur Rahman & Brooke McWherter & Seonaid MacDonell, 2023. "Are fencelines sites of engagement or avoidance in farmer adoption of alternative practices?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1359-1365, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:agrhuv:v:40:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10426-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10460-023-10426-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10460-023-10426-6
    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/s10460-023-10426-6?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. Wollni, Meike & Andersson, Camilla, 2014. "Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adoption: Evidence from Honduras," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 120-128.
    2. Carolyn Mann & Kate Sherren, 2018. "Holistic Management and Adaptive Grazing: A Trainers’ View," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    4. Rob Sharkie, 2005. "Precariousness under the new psychological contract: the effect on trust and the willingness to converse and share knowledge," Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 37-44, March.
    5. Hannah Gosnell & Kerry Grimm & Bruce E. Goldstein, 2020. "A half century of Holistic Management: what does the evidence reveal?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 37(3), pages 849-867, September.
    6. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mekuria, Mulugetta, 2008. "Assessing the influence of neighborhood effects on the adoption of improved agricultural technologies in developing agriculture," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Holloway, Garth & Shankar, Bhavani & Rahman, Sanzidur, 2002. "Bayesian spatial probit estimation: a primer and an application to HYV rice adoption," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 383-402, November.
    8. 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.
    9. Tomaš Simin, Mirela & Janković, Dejan, 2014. "Applicability Of Diffusion Of Innovation Theory In Organic Agriculture," Economics of Agriculture, Institute of Agricultural Economics, vol. 61(2), pages 1-13, 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. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    2. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    3. Tamini, Lota D., 2011. "A nonparametric analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: A case study of Québec," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1363-1374, May.
    4. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    5. Han, Guang & Arbuckle, J. Gordon & Grudens-Schuck, Nancy, 2021. "Motivations, goals, and benefits associated with organic grain farming by producers in Iowa, U.S," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    6. Sebastian Neuenfeldt & Alexander Gocht & Thomas Heckelei & Klaus Mittenzwei & Pavel Ciaian, 2021. "Using Aggregated Farm Location Information to Predict Regional Structural Change of Farm Specialisation, Size and Exit/Entry in Norway Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, July.
    7. Tessema, Yohannis Mulu & Asafu-Adjaye, John & Kassie, Menale & Mallawaarachchi, Thilak, 2016. "Do neighbours matter in technology adoption? The case of conservation tillage in northwest Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(3).
    8. Silveira Santos, Luís & Proença, Isabel, 2019. "The inversion of the spatial lag operator in binary choice models: Fast computation and a closed formula approximation," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 74-102.
    9. Gilles Allaire & Eric Cahuzac & Michel Simioni, 2009. "Contractualisation et diffusion spatiale des mesures agro-environnementales herbagères," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 90(1), pages 23-50.
    10. Vroege, Willemijn & Meraner, Manuela & Polman, Nico & Storm, Hugo & Heijman, Wim & Finger, Robert, 2020. "Beyond the single farm – A spatial econometric analysis of spill-overs in farm diversification in the Netherlands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Dongyang Xiao & Haipeng Niu & Liangxin Fan & Suxia Zhao & Hongxuan Yan, 2019. "Farmers’ Satisfaction and its Influencing Factors in the Policy of Economic Compensation for Cultivated Land Protection: A Case Study in Chengdu, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    12. Doris Läpple & Garth Holloway & Donald J Lacombe & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2017. "Sustainable technology adoption: a spatial analysis of the Irish Dairy Sector," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 810-835.
    13. Balezentis, Tomas & Ribasauskiene, Erika & Morkunas, Mangirdas & Volkov, Artiom & Streimikiene, Dalia & Toma, Pierluigi, 2020. "Young farmers’ support under the Common Agricultural Policy and sustainability of rural regions: Evidence from Lithuania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    14. Min Liu & Taiyang Zhong & Xiao Lyu, 2024. "Spatial Spillover Effects of “New Farmers” on Diffusion of Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Evidence from China," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-25, January.
    15. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Novo, Paula, 2018. "Effects of awareness on farmers’ compliance with diffuse pollution mitigation measures: A conditional process modelling," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 36-45.
    16. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    18. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    19. Tisorn Songsermsawas & Kathy Baylis & Ashwini Chhatre & Hope Michelson, 2014. "Can Peers Improve Agricultural Productivity?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4958, CESifo.
    20. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).

    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:40:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s10460-023-10426-6. 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.