Mixed farmers' perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Standard

Mixed farmers' perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. / Rosa-Schleich, Julia; Loos, Jacqueline; Ferrante, Marco et al.
in: Ecological Economics, Jahrgang 220, 108174, 01.06.2024.

Publikation: Beiträge in ZeitschriftenZeitschriftenaufsätzeForschungbegutachtet

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Rosa-Schleich J, Loos J, Ferrante M, Mußhoff O, Tscharntke T. Mixed farmers' perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming. Ecological Economics. 2024 Jun 1;220:108174. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174

Bibtex

@article{343cdbbfb753491c92263365f58fe52e,
title = "Mixed farmers' perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming",
abstract = "Diversified Farming (DF) practices are strategies to support biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Despite the potential ecological benefits of DF practices, their acceptance among farmers remains limited. Therefore, understanding farmer's perceptions is essential for effective policy decision-making and applicable agri-environmental policies. We conducted structured face-to-face interviews with 145 farmers in Lower Saxony to estimate the ecological-economic performance of DF practices based on farmers' perceived changes in yield, variable costs, and gross margin of cereal production. Farmers expected diversified crop rotation to increase gross margin (20%), while reduced tillage, direct seeding and flower strips would decrease it (58%, 61% and 13%). Cover crops were expected to provide ecological benefits with only slightly reduced profit (1%). Farm soil fertility was positively related to the perceived gross margin, while farmers' risk attitude and the number of DF practices applied showed no significant influence. Farmers working on mixed farms, i.e., integrating livestock and crops, expected lower variable costs than farmers working on arable farms. Our findings highlight that DF practices can be valued differently, with the greatest benefits seen in improved crop rotation. The acceptance of DF practices that farmers perceive as negative, such as reduced tillage and direct seeding, would require adapted agri-environmental incentives.",
keywords = "Agroecology, Conservation agriculture, Diversified farming practices, Gross margin, Profitability, Sustainable agriculture, Ecosystems Research, Biology",
author = "Julia Rosa-Schleich and Jacqueline Loos and Marco Ferrante and Oliver Mu{\ss}hoff and Teja Tscharntke",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023",
year = "2024",
month = jun,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174",
language = "English",
volume = "220",
journal = "Ecological Economics",
issn = "0921-8009",
publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mixed farmers' perception of the ecological-economic performance of diversified farming

AU - Rosa-Schleich, Julia

AU - Loos, Jacqueline

AU - Ferrante, Marco

AU - Mußhoff, Oliver

AU - Tscharntke, Teja

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023

PY - 2024/6/1

Y1 - 2024/6/1

N2 - Diversified Farming (DF) practices are strategies to support biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Despite the potential ecological benefits of DF practices, their acceptance among farmers remains limited. Therefore, understanding farmer's perceptions is essential for effective policy decision-making and applicable agri-environmental policies. We conducted structured face-to-face interviews with 145 farmers in Lower Saxony to estimate the ecological-economic performance of DF practices based on farmers' perceived changes in yield, variable costs, and gross margin of cereal production. Farmers expected diversified crop rotation to increase gross margin (20%), while reduced tillage, direct seeding and flower strips would decrease it (58%, 61% and 13%). Cover crops were expected to provide ecological benefits with only slightly reduced profit (1%). Farm soil fertility was positively related to the perceived gross margin, while farmers' risk attitude and the number of DF practices applied showed no significant influence. Farmers working on mixed farms, i.e., integrating livestock and crops, expected lower variable costs than farmers working on arable farms. Our findings highlight that DF practices can be valued differently, with the greatest benefits seen in improved crop rotation. The acceptance of DF practices that farmers perceive as negative, such as reduced tillage and direct seeding, would require adapted agri-environmental incentives.

AB - Diversified Farming (DF) practices are strategies to support biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Despite the potential ecological benefits of DF practices, their acceptance among farmers remains limited. Therefore, understanding farmer's perceptions is essential for effective policy decision-making and applicable agri-environmental policies. We conducted structured face-to-face interviews with 145 farmers in Lower Saxony to estimate the ecological-economic performance of DF practices based on farmers' perceived changes in yield, variable costs, and gross margin of cereal production. Farmers expected diversified crop rotation to increase gross margin (20%), while reduced tillage, direct seeding and flower strips would decrease it (58%, 61% and 13%). Cover crops were expected to provide ecological benefits with only slightly reduced profit (1%). Farm soil fertility was positively related to the perceived gross margin, while farmers' risk attitude and the number of DF practices applied showed no significant influence. Farmers working on mixed farms, i.e., integrating livestock and crops, expected lower variable costs than farmers working on arable farms. Our findings highlight that DF practices can be valued differently, with the greatest benefits seen in improved crop rotation. The acceptance of DF practices that farmers perceive as negative, such as reduced tillage and direct seeding, would require adapted agri-environmental incentives.

KW - Agroecology

KW - Conservation agriculture

KW - Diversified farming practices

KW - Gross margin

KW - Profitability

KW - Sustainable agriculture

KW - Ecosystems Research

KW - Biology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85188703245&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/2243f232-e1d9-3f0d-a984-329db9f392cd/

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108174

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:85188703245

VL - 220

JO - Ecological Economics

JF - Ecological Economics

SN - 0921-8009

M1 - 108174

ER -

DOI

Zuletzt angesehen

Publikationen

  1. Wettbewerbsrecht, europäisches, Funktion
  2. Entrepreneurship
  3. Comedy in Serie : medienwissenschaftliche Perspektiven auf ein TV-Format
  4. Die projekt- und transferorientierte Ausbildung (PETRA) aus personalwirtschaftlicher Sicht
  5. Kontinuität und Innovation in der frühen deutschen Europarechtswissenschaft
  6. Leitwerte als Basis für Markenwerte: Ein Markenidentitätsmodell für Kulturorginsationen
  7. Aufwand und Ertrag
  8. Richard M. Meyer und der Scherer-Preis
  9. Bilder und Worte
  10. Ein theoretischer Universalschlüssel?
  11. Civil Society Responses to the HIV/AIDS Crisis
  12. Generative KI wie ChatGPT und Learning Analytics im Zusammenspiel: Ein ko-kreatives Anwendungsszenario zur Entwicklung didaktischer Lernmaterialien.
  13. Wer die Wahl hat, hat die Qual
  14. Verändertes Lernen - verbesserte Leistungen? Zur Entwicklung von Schülerfähigkeiten bei SINUS-Transfer
  15. Resonanz erfahren – mit der Welt in Beziehung stehen
  16. Demokratie bedarf der Empathie der Erzieher
  17. Kultur der Betäubung
  18. Sustainable lifestyles
  19. Außenwirtschaft in Zeiten der Globalisierung - Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der statistischen Messung
  20. VwGO §107 [Entscheidung durch Urteil]
  21. Vorabentscheidungsverfahren, Begriff des Gerichts
  22. Dynamische Unternehmensnetzwerke : Ansätze zur Organisation und Steuerung wandlungsfähiger Strukturen von Netzwerken der Unternehmen
  23. § 31 Windenergie Offshore
  24. Wie können mündliche Sprachprozesse für das Schreiben genutzt werden?
  25. Sound und Textil als interaktives Gestaltungsmaterial
  26. Bildung für eine nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland: vom Projekt zur Struktur?
  27. Mechthild Rumpf, Ute Gerhard, Mechtild M. Jansen (Hrsg.): Facetten islamischer Welten
  28. Art Déco in Deutschland
  29. Die Umsatzsteuerhaftung nach § 25d UStG
  30. Kulinarisches Kino
  31. Fühlen Denken Sprechen
  32. Beech forests as a joint natural heritage of Europe - a synthesis
  33. Vollstes Verständnis