Innovation, Cooperation, and the Perceived Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Agriculture Practices

Abstract

ABSTRACT. A central goal of most sustainable agriculture programs is to encourage growers to adopt practices that jointly provide economic, environmental, and social benefits. Using surveys of outreach professionals and wine grape growers, we quantify the perceived costs and benefits of sustainable viticulture practices recommended by sustainability outreach and certification programs. We argue that the mix of environmental benefits, economic benefits, and economic costs determine whether or not a particular practice involves decisions about innovation or cooperation. Decision making is also affected by the overall level of knowledge regarding different practices, and we show that knowledge gaps are an increasing function of cost and a decreasing function of benefits. How different practices are related to innovation and cooperation has important implications for the design of sustainability outreach programs. Cooperation, innovation, and knowledge gaps are issues that are likely to be relevant for the resilience and sustainability of many different types of social-ecological systems.

Innovation, cooperation, and the structure of three regional sustainable agriculture networks in California

“…Because farmers operate in markets and ecosystems, strict independence is never realized, but it may be a reasonable approximation for some farmmanagement decisions (Drummond and Goodwin 2010). In this context networks serve primarily to transfer information about the innovation's benefit/cost ratio and thus can be considered a form of social learning (Lubell et al 2011;Hoffman et al 2015).…”

“…To address these issues, agricultural systems must catalyze the diffusion of innovations such us new farm management practices (Saltiel et al 1994;Baumgart-Getz et al 2012), cooperation to address common-pool resource problems such as groundwater management (Agrawal 2001;Dietz et al 2002;Henry and Dietz 2011), and boundary-spanning across different specialized components of food systems Hoffman et al 2015). Viticulture is a particularly useful example because it is a highly innovative and economically viable industry that is increasingly experimenting with sustainability programs, policies, and practices (Warner 2007a;Lubell et al 2011). While our analysis identifies some of the general processes that we expect are important in agroecology systems, it is also important to consider more comparative research given regional differences in cropping systems, agroecological, and social contexts.…”

An experiment in strengthening the networks of remote communities in the face of environmental change: leveraging spatially distributed environmental memory

“…On the other hand, external bridging links are useful for accessing locally unavailable information about sustainable natural resource management (Bodin and Crona 2009;Demiryurek 2010;Isaac et al 2007;Isaac and Matous 2017;Newig et al 2010;Newman and Dale 2007). BBoundary-spanning individuals^(i.e., individuals who connect different networks) and external links to outreach professionals are known to contribute to the innovativeness of agricultural systems (Klerkx et al 2010;Lubell et al 2011). Bridging ties across distinctive groups can diffuse insular land management techniques by exposing network members to different practices (Cadger et al 2016;Klerkx and Leeuwis 2008;Klerkx and Leeuwis 2009;Newman and Dale 2005).…”

Strategic Management of Agribusiness: Determinants and Trends

“…From the perspective of agribusiness, Lubell et al (2011) suggested that cooperation, innovation, and knowledge gaps are likely to be relevant for the resilience and sustainability of numerous types of socioecological systems. Rankin et al (2011) determined that strong management pressures have a substantial relationship with the level of an agribusiness's sustainability initiatives.…”

“…Häni, Pintér, and Herren (2007) indicated that successful short-and longterm adaptation to endogenous and exogenous, biotic and abiotic, and social and economic forces requires access to information and indicators on the current situation as well as possible future trends in the ecological, social, and economic domains of sustainability. Lubell, Hillis, and Hoffman (2011) reported that a central goal of most sustainable agriculture programmes is to encourage growers to adopt practices that jointly provide economic, ecological, and social benefits.…”