Agric. Econ. - Czech, 2026, 72(9):571-583 | DOI: 10.17221/374/2024-AGRICECON

Qualitative meta-analysis of barriers and drivers of agroecological transitionReview

Laura Sanchez Mata, Melania Salazar-Ordóñez, Julio Berbel, Macario Rodríguez-Entrena
Weare-Water, Environmental and Agricultural Resources Economics Research Group, University of Córdoba, Córdoba, Spain

The agri-food sector contributes to climate change but also has substantial mitigation potential. Agroecology is increasingly recognised as a viable pathway for transforming agri-food systems, but its success depends partly on understanding the factors influencing farmers' pro-environmental behaviour. This study aims to identify and classify these factors as barriers or drivers through a qualitative meta-analysis based on a structured systematic literature review of studies conducted in the European Union. The results indicated that personal knowledge and capabilities dominated the evidence. Particularly advanced age and income-related constraints were the clearest barriers, whereas larger farm size, higher schooling level and agricultural training were the most consistent drivers. Subsidies, off-farm income, technical advice, family labour, environmental attitude and innovativeness show positive but less consistent effects. The findings indicate that policies supporting the agroecological transition should strengthen farmers' financial stability, training and capacity to adopt agroecological land management practices, particularly among older and structurally constrained farmers.

Keywords: adoption barriers; adoption drivers; agroecology; agroecological land management practices; qualitative meta-analysis

Received: October 3, 2024; Revised: May 5, 2026; Accepted: May 7, 2026; Prepublished online: September 18, 2026; Published: September 30, 2026  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Sanchez Mata L, Salazar-Ordóñez M, Berbel J, Rodríguez-Entrena M. Qualitative meta-analysis of barriers and drivers of agroecological transition. Agricultural Economics. 2026;72(9):571-583. doi: 10.17221/374/2024-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 file374-2024_AE_ESM.pdf

    File size: 335.94 kB

    References

    1. Barreiro-Hurlé J., Espinosa-Goded M., Dupraz P. (2008): Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption in two agri-environmental schemes. In: 107th EAAE Seminar: Modelling of Agricultural and Rural Development Policies. Sevilla, Jan 29-Feb 1, 2008.
    2. Bartolini F., Vergamini D. (2019): Understanding the spatial agglomeration of participation in agri-environmental schemes: The case of the Tuscany region. Sustainability, 11: 2753. Go to original source...
    3. Beltrán-Esteve M., Picazo-Tadeo A.J., Reig-Martínez E. (2012): What makes a citrus farmer go organic? Empirical evidence from Spanish citrus farming. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 10: 901-910. Go to original source...
    4. Benjamini Y., Hochberg Y. (1995): Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57: 289-300. Go to original source...
    5. Borenstein M., Hedges L.V., Higgins J.P.T., Rothstein H.R. (2009): Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 251-255. Go to original source...
    6. Burke J., Running K. (2019): Role identities and pro-environmental behavior among farmers. Human Ecology Review, 25: 3-22. Go to original source...
    7. Defrancesco E., Gatto P., Runge F., Trestini S. (2008): Factors affecting farmers participation in agri-environmental measures: A northern Italian perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59: 114-131. Go to original source...
    8. Dinis I., Ortolani L., Bocci R., Brites C. (2015): Organic agriculture values and practices in Portugal and Italy. Agricultural Systems, 136: 39-45. Go to original source...
    9. Ducos G., Dupraz P., Bonnieux F. (2009): Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52: 669-687. Go to original source...
    10. Duru M., Therond O., Fares M.H. (2015): Designing agroecological transitions: A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35: 1237-1257. Go to original source...
    11. EC (2005): Agri-environmental measures: Overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. Brussels, European Commission Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/document/download/866a00c8-5a8d-431a-a14f-413be7bcb446_en?filename=report-agri-environ-measures-an-overview_2005_en.pdf
    12. EC (2021): The common agricultural policy at a glance. Brussels, European Commission. Available at https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/common-agricultural-policy/cap-overview/cap-glance_en
    13. Espinosa-Goded M., Barreiro-Hurlé J., Ruto E. (2010): What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61: 259-273. Go to original source...
    14. European Parliament (2025): Direct payments - Fact sheet on the EU. Sheet 109. Brussels, European Parliament. Available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/109/direct-payments
    15. European Union (2018): Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Products and Repealing Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007. Available at https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/848/oj/eng
    16. FAO (2018): The 10 Elements of Agroecology. Rome, FAO. Available at https://openknowledge.fao.org/handle/20.500.14283/i9037en
    17. Finizola e Silva M., Van Schoubroeck S., Cools J., Van Passel S. (2024): A systematic review identifying the drivers and barriers to the adoption of climate-smart agriculture by smallholder farmers in Africa. Frontiers in Environmental Economics, 3: 1356335. Go to original source...
    18. Gemtou M., Kakkavou K., Anastasiou E., Fountas S., Pedersen S.M., Isakhanyan G., Erekalo K.T., Pazos-Vidal S. (2024): Farmers' transition to climate-smart agriculture: A systematic review of the decision-making factors affecting adoption. Sustainability, 16: 2828. Go to original source...
    19. Giovanopoulou E., Nastis S.A., Papanagiotou E. (2011): Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes. Ecological Economics, 70: 2175-2180. Go to original source...
    20. Goldman D., Hansmann R., Činčera J., Radović V., Teleąienė A., Balľekienė A., Vávra J. (2020): Education for environmental citizenship and responsible environmental behaviour. In: Hadjichambis A.C., Reis P., Paraskeva-Hadjichambi D., Činčera J., Boeve-de Pauw J., Gericke N., Knippels M.C. (eds): Conceptualizing Environmental Citizenship for 21st Century Education. Cham, Springer: 115-137. Go to original source...
    21. Guo Q., Ola O., Benjamin E.O. (2020): Determinants of the adoption of sustainable intensification in southern African farming systems: A meta-analysis. Sustainability, 12: 3276. Go to original source...
    22. Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A. (2019): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Ed. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 117-204. Go to original source...
    23. Hines J.M., Hungerford H.R., Tomera A.N. (1987): Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Environmental Education, 18: 1-8. Go to original source...
    24. Koricheva J., Gurevitch J. (2013): Place of meta-analysis among other methods of research. In: Koricheva J., Gurevitch J., Mengersen K. (eds): Handbook of Meta-Analysis in Ecology and Evolution. Princeton, Princeton University Press: 3-13. Go to original source...
    25. Läpple D., Rensburg T.V. (2011): Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption? Ecological Economics, 70: 1406-1414. Go to original source...
    26. Lienhoop N., Brouwer R. (2015): Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers' contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy, 42: 568-577. Go to original source...
    27. Light R., Smith P. (1971): Accumulating evidence: Procedures for resolving contradictions among different research studies. Harvard Educational Review, 41: 429-471. Go to original source...
    28. Linares Quero A., Iragui Yoldi U., Gava O., Schwarz G., Povellato A., Astrain C. (2022): Assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020 in supporting agroecological transitions: A comparative study of 15 cases across Europe. Sustainability, 14: 9261. Go to original source...
    29. Liu F., Chang-Richards A., Wang K.I., Dirks K.N. (2023): Effects of climate change on health and wellbeing: A systematic review. Sustainable Development, 31: 2067-2090. Go to original source...
    30. Malá Z., Malý M. (2013): The determinants of adopting organic farming practices: A case study in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics - Czech, 59: 19-28. Go to original source...
    31. Massaro M., Dumay J., Guthrie J. (2016): On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29: 767-801. Go to original source...
    32. McKenzie J.E., Brennan S.E. (2023): Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A. (eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. London, Cochrane.
    33. Micha E., Areal F.J., Tranter R.B., Bailey A.P. (2015): Uptake of agri-environmental schemes in the Less-Favoured Areas of Greece: The role of corruption and farmers' responses to the financial crisis. Land Use Policy, 48: 144-157. Go to original source...
    34. Milliet E., Plancherel C., Roulin A., Butera F. (2023): The effect of collaboration on farmers' pro-environmental behaviors - A systematic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 93: 102223. Go to original source...
    35. Mishra P., Singh P.P., Singh S.K., Verma H. (2019): Sustainable agriculture and benefits of organic farming to special emphasis on PGPR. In: Kumar A., Singh A.K., Choudhary K.K. (eds): Role of Plant Growth Promoting Microorganisms in Sustainable Agriculture and Nanotechnology. Cambridge, Woodhead Publishing: 75-87. Go to original source...
    36. Mozzato D., Gatto P., Defrancesco E., Bortolini L., Pirotti F., Pisani E., Sartori L. (2018): The role of factors affecting the adoption of environmentally friendly farming practices: Can geographical context and time explain the differences emerging from literature? Sustainability, 10: 3101. Go to original source...
    37. Polman N.B.P., Slangen L.H.G. (2008): Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: The role of trust and social capital. NJAS: Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences, 55: 413-430. Go to original source...
    38. Rodríguez-Entrena M., Arriaza M. (2013): Adoption of conservation agriculture in olive groves: Evidences from southern Spain. Land Use Policy, 34: 294-300. Go to original source...
    39. Röös E., Mayer A., Erb K.H., Kalt G., Kaufmann L., Matej S., Theurl M.C., Lauk C., Muller A., Ferguson S., Hart R., Smith P. (2021): Report on Participatory Scenario Development of Agro-ecological Farming Systems. UNISECO. Available at https://zenodo.org/records/5576228
    40. Ruto E., Garrod G. (2009): Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: A choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52: 631-647. Go to original source...
    41. Sardaro R., Faccilongo N., Contò F., La Sala P. (2021): Adaptation actions to cope with climate change: Evidence from farmers' preferences on an agrobiodiversity conservation programme in the Mediterranean area. Sustainability, 13: 5977. Go to original source...
    42. Schulz N., Breustedt G., Latacz-Lohmann U. (2014): Assessing farmers' willingness to accept 'Greening': Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 65: 26-48. Go to original source...
    43. Steg L., Bolderdijk J.W., Keizer K., Perlaviciute G. (2014): An integrated framework for encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: The role of values, situational factors and goals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38: 104-115. Go to original source...
    44. Stern P.C. (2000): New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56: 407-424. Go to original source...
    45. Sulemana I., James Jr H.S. (2014): Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices. Ecological Economics, 98: 49-61. Go to original source...
    46. Unay-Gailhard İ., Bojnec ©. (2016): Sustainable participation behaviour in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 138: 47-58. Go to original source...
    47. Van Eck N.J., Waltman L. (2022): VOSviewer (version 1.6.18) [Software]. Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University. Available at https://www.vosviewer.com/
    48. VanVoorhis C.R.W., Morgan B.L. (2007): Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3: 43-50. Go to original source...
    49. Wezel A., Casagrande M., Celette F., Vian J.F., Ferrer A., Peigné J. (2014): Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34: 1-20. Go to original source...
    50. Whitmarsh L. (2009): Behavioural responses to climate change: Asymmetry of intentions and impacts. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29: 13-23. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the 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