IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aare08/6002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices

Author

Listed:
  • Greiner, Romy
  • Miller, Owen
  • Patterson, Louisa

Abstract

The onus on landholders in relation to environmental performance is ever increasing. One tool for achieving environmental improvements is the design and promotion of region-specific ‘best management practices’ (BMPs). These are conservation practices aimed at reducing diffuse source pollution from agricultural lands and thus improving end-of-catchment water quality. A suite of grazing BMPs were developed for the Burdekin Dry Tropics region in a consultative fashion but without explicit consideration of knowledge of adoption processes. It is known from the literature that farmers’ goals and risk perceptions in particular influence adoption decisions. This paper utilises the data from an earlier grazier survey to explore to what extent grazier motivations and risk perceptions influence the adoption of BMPs. The results demonstrate clear correlations between both motivations and risk attitudes, and the adoption of recommended BMPs, with specific preferences for different BMPs. We conclude that a sound understanding of landholders’ motivations and risk attitudes is required—in a regional, industry and environmental context—to tailor programmes aimed at improving regional environmental performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aare08:6002
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.6002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/6002/files/cp08gr28.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.6002?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marra, Michele & Pannell, David J. & Abadi Ghadim, Amir, 2003. "The economics of risk, uncertainty and learning in the adoption of new agricultural technologies: where are we on the learning curve?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 75(2-3), pages 215-234.
    2. Lien, Gudbrand & Brian Hardaker, J. & Flaten, Ola, 2007. "Risk and economic sustainability of crop farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(2), pages 541-552, May.
    3. Hayley H. Chouinard & Tobias Paterson & Philip R. Wandschneider & Adrienne M. Ohler, 2008. "Will Farmers Trade Profits for Stewardship? Heterogeneous Motivations for Farm Practice Selection," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 66-82.
    4. Gudbrand Lien & Ola Flaten & Anne Moxnes Jervell & Martha Ebbesvik & Matthias Koesling & Paul Steinar Valle, 2006. "Management and Risk Characteristics of Part-Time and Full-Time Farmers in Norway," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 111-131.
    5. Beal, Diana J., 1996. "Emerging Issues in Risk Management in Farm Firms," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(03), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Gudbrand Lien & Ola Flaten & Anne Moxnes Jervell & Martha Ebbesvik & Matthias Koesling & Paul Steinar Valle, 2006. "Management and Risk Characteristics of Part-Time and Full-Time Farmers in Norway," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(1), pages 111-131.
    7. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell & Michael P. Burton, 2005. "Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 1-9, July.
    8. Abadi Ghadim, Amir K. & Pannell, David J., 1999. "A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 21(2), pages 145-154, October.
    9. Fausti, Scott W. & Gillespie, Jeffrey M., 2006. "Measuring risk attitude of agricultural producers using a mail survey: how consistent are the methods?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 50(2), pages 1-18, June.
    10. Austin, E.J & Willock, J & Deary, I.J & Gibson, G.J & Dent, J.B & Edwards-Jones, G & Morgan, O & Grieve, R & Sutherland, A, 1998. "Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. Part I: linear modelling," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 203-224, October.
    11. Maybery, Darryl & Crase, Lin & Gullifer, Chris, 2005. "Categorising farming values as economic, conservation and lifestyle," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 59-72, February.
    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. Greiner, Romy & Patterson, Louisa & Miller, Owen, 2009. "Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 99(2-3), pages 86-104, February.
    2. Pannell, David J. & Pardey, Philip G. & Hurley, Terrence M., 2020. "Private Incentives for Sustainable Agriculture: Principals and Evidence for Sustainable Agricultural Change," Working Papers 304700, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    3. Canales Medina, Elizabeth & Bergtold, Jason S. & Williams, Jeffery R., 2017. "Modeling the factors affecting farmers’ timing of adoption of in-field conservation cropping practices," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258558, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Abdulla, Majd, 2009. "The impact of ownership on Iowa land owners' decisions to adopt conservation practices," ISU General Staff Papers 200901010800001913, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. BLAZY Jean-Marc & CARPENTIER Alain & THOMAS Alban, 2008. "An ex ante adoption model of low input innovations applied to banana growers in the French West Indies," LERNA Working Papers 08.32.276, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    6. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    7. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    8. Chouinard, Hayley H. & Wandschneider, Philip R. & Paterson, Tobias, 2016. "Inferences from sparse data: An integrated, meta-utility approach to conservation research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 71-78.
    9. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    10. Bishu, Kinfe & O'Reilly, Seamus & Lahiff, Edward & Steiner, Bodo, 2016. "Cattle farmers’ perceptions of risk and risk management strategies," MPRA Paper 74954, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Senthold Asseng & David Pannell, 2013. "Adapting dryland agriculture to climate change: Farming implications and research and development needs in Western Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 167-181, May.
    12. Javad Torkamani & Shahrokh Shajari, 2008. "Adoption of New Irrigation Technology Under Production Risk," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 22(2), pages 229-237, February.
    13. Dru Montri & Kimberly Chung & Bridget Behe, 2021. "Farmer perspectives on farmers markets in low-income urban areas: a case study in three Michigan cities," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 1-14, February.
    14. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    15. Pannell, David J., 2004. "Effectively communicating economics to policy makers," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 48(3), pages 1-21.
    16. Clarke, Hamish & Trafford, Guy & Woodford, Keith, 2014. "An evaluation of the viability of two ‘AMS’ farm systems in Central Canterbury," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187493, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    17. Maria & Irham & Slamet Hartono & Lestari Rahayu Waluyati, 2022. "The effect of environmental awareness on motivation in adopting farming conservation techniques in the various agro-ecological zones: a case study in critical land of Java Island, Indonesia," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1878-1896, February.
    18. Mohamed Ghali & Maha Ben Jaballah & Nejla Ben Arfa & Annie Sigwalt, 2022. "Analysis of factors that influence adoption of agroecological practices in viticulture," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 103(3), pages 179-209, September.
    19. Ridier, Aude & Chaib, Karim & Roussy, Caroline, 2012. "The adoption of innovative cropping systems under price and production risks: a dynamic model of crop rotation choice," Working Papers 207985, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    20. Xiaoping Li & Yan Yan & Liuyang Yao, 2020. "‘Get a Fish’ vs. ‘Get a Fishing Skill’: Farmers’ Preferred Compensation Methods to Control Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(7), pages 1-13, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Farm Management; Risk and Uncertainty;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:aare08:6002. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.html .

    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.