4.6 Article

Understanding German farmer's intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER FRANCE
DOI: 10.1007/s13593-020-00653-0

关键词

Mixed cropping adoption; Theory of planned behavior; Partial least squares structural equation modeling; Logit model

资金

  1. Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research [FKZ 031A351A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The diversification of cropping systems has the potential to contribute towards a sustainable land use while preserving biodiversity. Mixed cropping is one possibility to increase biodiversity within farming systems. However, adoption of mixed cropping systems is challenging for farmers, as the agricultural sector has evolved around pure stands over the past decades and path dependencies have emerged. Yet, little is known about farmers' motivation to adopt mixed cropping. Utilizing the theory of planned behavior as the main framework, this paper studies the psychological factors underlying farmers' intention to adopt mixed cropping based on an online survey with 172 German farmers. In addition, the most crucial adoption obstacles are assessed. Using partial least squares structural equation modeling, we show for the first time that attitude, perceived behavioral control, and injunctive as well as descriptive group norms explain over 52% of farmers' intention to adopt mixed cropping. Our results also demonstrate that perceived ecological benefits positively influence a farmer's attitude towards mixed cropping. Missing sales opportunities for mixed yields, the uneven maturing of crops, and deficient economic benefits are ranked as the most crucial obstacles for the implementation of mixed cropping. These results, which can be relevant for other European countries as well, indicate that the introduction of a voluntary agri-environmental scheme could encourage adoption and that considering positive effects of group norms within policy schemes could further increase adoption on a large scale.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据