Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2024, 70(8):383-394 | DOI: 10.17221/46/2024-AGRICECON

The impact of environmental attitudes of farmers on efficiency in the agricultural sector in the European UnionOriginal Paper

Lukasz Kryszak ORCID...1
1 Department of Macroeconomics and Agricultural Economics, Institute of Economics, Poznan University of Economics and Business, Poznan, Poland

The aim of this paper is to investigate whether the more pro-environmental attitudes of farmers influence the technical efficiency of agricultural sectors in EU regions (NUTS-2). To answer this, I employed data envelopment analysis (DEA) for efficiency analysis combined with the double bootstrapped truncated regression to investigate the relationship between environmental attitudes and technical efficiency. I found that this relationship is positive, i.e. pro-environmental attitudes were related to greater efficiency. An increase in the environmental attitude variable by one standard deviation led to an improvement in efficiency of 2.8–6 p.p. The higher share of farmers with formal training also proved to be a positive and significant determinant of efficiency. The share of arable land on which conventional tillage was used, and soil erosion proved to be significant but negative determinants of efficiency. Policymakers should present to farmers the environmental benefits of agricultural policy but should also highlight that greater environmental awareness translates into a more efficient operation.

Keywords: agricultural policy; data envelopment analysis; farmers’ identity; sustainable development; truncated regression

Received: February 6, 2024; Revised: July 9, 2024; Accepted: July 18, 2024; Published: August 30, 2024  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Kryszak L. The impact of environmental attitudes of farmers on efficiency in the agricultural sector in the European Union. Agric. Econ. - Czech. 2024;70(8):383-394. doi: 10.17221/46/2024-AGRICECON.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    Supplementary files:

    Download file46-2024-AGRICECON_ESM.pdf

    File size: 279.85 kB

    References

    1. Ajzen I. (1991): The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50: 179-211. Go to original source...
    2. Badunenko O., Tauchmann H. (2019): Simar and Wilson two-stage efficiency analysis for Stata. The Stata Journal, 19: 950-988. Go to original source...
    3. Banker R.D., Charnes A., Cooper W.W. (1984): Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30: 1078-1092. Go to original source...
    4. Bartkowski B., Bartke S. (2018): Leverage points for governing agricultural soils: A review of empirical studies of European farmers' decision-making. Sustainability, 10: 3179. Go to original source...
    5. Bogetoft P., Otto L. (2011): Benchmarking with DEA, SFA, and R. New York, Springer: 352. Go to original source...
    6. Brown C., Kovács E., Herzon I., Villamayor-Tomas S., Albizua A., Galanaki A., Grammatikopoulou I., McCracken D., Olsson J.A., Zinngrebe Y. (2021): Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy, 101: 105136. Go to original source...
    7. Busari M.A., Kukal S.S., Kaur A., Bhatt R., Dulazi A.A. (2015): Conservation tillage impacts on soil, crop and the environment. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 3: 119-129. Go to original source...
    8. Calvet C., Le Coent P., Napoleone C., Quetier F. (2019): Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France. Ecological Economics, 163: 113-125. Go to original source...
    9. Cullen P., Ryan M., O'Donoghue C., Hynes S., Sheridan H. (2020): Impact of farmer self-identity and attitudes on participation in agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy, 95: 104660. Go to original source...
    10. Daxini A., O'Donoghue C., Ryan M., Buckley C., Barnes A.P., Daly K. (2018): Which factors influence farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning? Journal of Environmental Management, 224: 350-360. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    11. Doran E.M.B., Zia A., Hurley S.E., Tsai Y., Koliba C., Adair C., Schattman R.E., Rizoo D.M., Méndez V.E. (2020): Social-psychological determinants of farmer intention to adopt nutrient best management practices: Implications for resilient adaptation to climate change. Journal of Environmental Management, 276: 111304. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    12. Drescher M., Hannay J., Feick R.D., Caldwell W. (2024): Social psychological factors drive farmers' adoption of environmental best management practices. Journal of Environmental Management, 350: 119491. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
    13. Eurostat (2023): The Eurostat Database. Available at https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/main/data/database (accessed Aug 1, 2023). Go to original source...
    14. EVS (2022): European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017). GESIS, Cologne. ZA7500 Data file Version 5.0.0 [Dataset]. Available at https://doi.org/10.4232/1.13897 (accessed July 1, 2023). Go to original source...
    15. Grzelak A., Kryszak £. (2023): Development vs efficiency of Polish farms-trade-off or synergy effects? Economics and Environment, 84: 287-304. Go to original source...
    16. Howley P. (2015): The happy farmer: The effect of nonpecuniary benefits on behavior. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97: 1072-1086. Go to original source...
    17. Kryszak £., Herzfeld T. (2021): One or many European models of agriculture? How heterogeneity influences income creation among farms in the European Union. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 67: 445-456. Go to original source...
    18. Laepple D., Kelley H. (2015): Spatial dependence in the adoption of organic drystock farming in Ireland. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 42: 315-337. Go to original source...
    19. Ma S., Swinton S.M., Lupi F., Jolejole-Foreman C. (2012): Farmers' willingness to participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63: 604-626. Go to original source...
    20. Mase A.S., Gramig B.M., Prokopy L.S. (2017): Climate change beliefs, risk perceptions, and adaptation behavior among Midwestern U.S. crop farmers. Climate Risk Management, 15: 8-17. Go to original source...
    21. McCann L., Gedikoglu H., Broz B., Lory J., Massey R. (2015): Effects of observability and complexity on farmers' adoption of environmental practices. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58: 1346-1362. Go to original source...
    22. Salas-Velasco M. (2020): Measuring and explaining the production efficiency of Spanish universities using a non-parametric approach and a bootstrapped-truncated regression. Scientometrics, 122: 825-846. Go to original source...
    23. Schaub S., Ghazoul J., Huber R., Zhang W., Sander A., Rees C., Banerjee S., Finger R. (2023): The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes: A systematic review. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74: 617-660. Go to original source...
    24. Simar L., Wilson P.W. (2007): Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of Econometrics, 136: 31-64. Go to original source...
    25. Thomas F., Midler E., Lefebvre M., Engel S. (2019): Greening the common agricultural policy: A behavioural perspective and lab-in-the-field experiment in Germany. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 46: 367-392. Go to original source...
    26. Thompson B., Leduc G., Manevska-Tasevska G., Toma L., Hansson H. (2023): Farmers' adoption of ecological practices: A systematic literature map. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75: 84-107. Go to original source...
    27. Torres M.A.O., Kallas Z., Herrera S.I.O., Guesmi B. (2019): Is technical efficiency affected by farmers' preference for mitigation and adaptation actions against climate change? A case study in Northwest Mexico. Sustainability, 11: 3291. Go to original source...
    28. Tosakana N.S.P., van Tassell L.W., Wulfhorst J.D., Boll J., Mahler R., Brooks E.S., Kane S. (2010): Determinants of the adoption of conservation practices by farmers in the Northwest Wheat and Range Region. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 65: 404-412. Go to original source...
    29. Ulrich-Schad J.D., García de Jalón S., Babin N., Pape A., Prokopy L.S. (2017): Measuring and understanding agricultural Producers' adoption of nutrient Best management practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 72: 506-518. Go to original source...
    30. Wang Y., Schaub S., Wuepper D., Finger R. (2023): Culture and agricultural biodiversity conservation. Food Policy, 120: 102482. Go to original source...
    31. Ward P.S., Bell A.R., Parkhurst G.M., Droppelmann K., Mapemba L. (2016): Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 222: 67-79. Go to original source...
    32. Wuepper D. (2020): Does culture affect soil erosion? Empirical evidence from Europe. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 47: 619-653. Go to original source...
    33. Zemo K.H., Termansen M. (2022): Environmental identity economics: An application to farmers' pro-environmental investment behaviour. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 49: 331-358. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content