The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?

Abstract

Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices (EFFPs) are tools aimed at providing ecosystem services or mitigating the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture. A large literature has explored the factors affecting the adoption of EFFPs by farmers. However, opposite effects of several factors on uptake have often emerged. We carried out a qualitative meta-analysis of the literature seeking to identify some geographical and temporal trends that can provide a rationale to explain these opposite results. To reach this goal, we analysed the literature and classified the following factors affecting farmers’ behaviour according to the theory of reasoned action and planned behaviour: farm, farmer, informational, and social factors. Our perspective in exploring the existing literature shows that the geographical context and the temporal period under analysis, considered as different adopters’ cohorts, can explain most of the opposite effects. For example, while the different effects of farm structural factors show specific geographical patterns, those of the management and economic factors follow temporal trends. The impact of some farmers’ socio-demographical characteristics and some social factors can be explained in terms of both geographical context and time. The broad trends we found cast light on the importance of further research adopting the same methodological approach in different geographical contexts and under a temporal perspective.

Determinants of adoption of agri-environmental practices by maize producers organised in cooperatives in the Centre region of Cameroon

“…Hence the cost of production can be easily absorbed by the total costs. This finding corroborates those of Mwangi and Kariuki (2015); Malesse (2018); Mozzato et al (2018) which cast more light on the importance of large farm size i.e. positive effect of large farm size on adoption of environmentally friendly family practices.…”

“…Further studies (e.g. Richer et al, 2005;Mitchell, 2006;Pruneau et al, 2006;Michaud et al, 2009;Mwangi and Kariuki, 2015;Dhraief et al, 2018;Malesse, 2018;Mozzato et al, 2018;Abdoulaye et al, 2019;Kpadenou et al, 2019) indicated the influence of additional explanatory variables on the adoption of agri-environmental practices in several countries of the world (Ethiopia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Canada, etc). These are the gender, age, education level, marital status, perception of environmental degradation, unrecognition of benefits of proposed practices, cost of implementing the practice, lack of credit possibilities, land area, labour type, time allocated for implementing the practice, farm income, sources of income, agricultural training, technical and professional support.…”

Knowledge, Attitude, and Practices on Tomato Leaf Miner, Tuta absoluta on Tomato and Potential Demand for Integrated Pest Management among Smallholder Farmers in Kenya and Uganda

“…Besides, the knowledge, attitude, and practice with regard to tomato infesting pests were also considered as important factors that affect the potential adoption of IPM technologies. Social capital and network captured using the number of people that can be relied on, group membership, confidence in agricultural extension, and location were also considered [25][26][27][28][29].…”

Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region

“…In their review, [34] observe that a farmer's education level and discipline, as well as his or her age, are relevant factors that allow us to explain not only social capital, but also the possibility of earning income from other, off-farm activities. Internet use can be associated with enlarging one's business model to include opportunities to increase the provision of ecosystem services; it also associates with collecting information about implementation, and therefore with a farm's ability to reduce its transaction costs [49].…”