Search

Although there has been a recent surge in research on drivers of poor farmer wellbeing and mental health, there is still a limited understanding of the state of wellbeing in farming communities around the world and how it can be best supported. This special issue seeks to extend our knowledge of how a combination of different stressors can challenge the wellbeing of farmers, farming families and farm workers, as well as how negative impacts can be unevenly distributed between different individuals. We advance the state of the art in research on farmer wellbeing, illustrating how social, economic and environmental policy drivers combine to create multiple points of stress, which are experienced differently by different individuals (e.g., age, gender). We move beyond an exploration of stressors towards a consideration of how landscapes of support for farmer wellbeing, and packages of support interventions, can improve the social resilience of farming communities. To be effective, these landscapes of support need to be accessible, well-funded, joined-up, and adaptable to evolving crises. This special issue explores farmer wellbeing in the context of global agricultural transitions, which are demanding new ways of farming (e.g., digitalisation, net zero, economic restructuring), and in light of shock events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, in four countries—Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and the US. In exploring the impacts of future shock events and agricultural transitions on wellbeing, the issue concludes with a call to move beyond broad compilations of stressors and interventions and towards nuanced investigations of why and how poor farmer wellbeing occurs and how it can be best supported in specific contexts. The research from these four countries has wide relevance across European countries (similarity in farming systems, noting some differences), but a key message from the issue is that stressors on farmer wellbeing can be highly context-dependent according to place-based social, environmental, economic and political issues. Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC): ES/W001535/1

Communities, scientists, policy-makers and industries are requiring farmers to address environmental and wellbeing challenges in their on-farm management, transitioning away from a productivity dominated focus towards a multi-faceted system focus that includes environmental and social values. This paper analyses how Miraka Ltd., an Aotearoa-New Zealand indigenous owned and operated milk company, has taken on the role of institutional entrepreneur to enable and support change towards a multi-faceted system amongst its supply farmers. Observations and interviews were carried out to: (i) identify farmers’ changes in practices, beliefs and values over the last ten years; and (ii) identify how Miraka functions as an indigenous entrepreneur in the agricultural sector. Findings show that interviewees were initially guided by business and family-oriented values, beliefs and practices, but in response to the institutional entrepreneurship by Miraka, approximately half of the interviewees changed these values, beliefs and practices, by internalising people and environmental values. The main strategies employed by Miraka were mobilisation of material resources such as incentives and awards, creation of a rationale addressing environmental and social concerns in the dairy sector, and proactive connection with new actors. The research shows an indigenous owned small-medium enterprise can make changes in values, beliefs and practices amongst its supply farmers, but requires a stronger shared base of values to contribute to a wider economic change. The discussion connects these findings to wider literature on diverse economies and indigenous entrepreneurship to identify to what extent an indigenous small-medium enterprise can contribute to a system change.

Participatory extension programmes (PEPs) are a popular policy tool to stimulate the uptake of climate change mitigation practices on a farm level. Given the public investment in PEPs, reliable evaluation is important. However, few studies evaluate climate change PEPs. Moreover, the evaluations conducted so far do not correctly account for potential spatial effects, such as the influence of neighbouring farms on PEP participation. Therefore, this paper estimates the impact of PEP participation on the uptake of a climate change mitigation practice and soil management, and identifies the importance of spatial effects on PEP participation. A spatial propensity score matching method is applied to a dataset from Scotland, consisting of 134 PEP and 184 control farmers. The results show that PEP participation facilitates the uptake of soil management practices and that spatial dependence exists in farmers’ decision‐making, indicating the need for the inclusion of spatial factors. This study contributes to the current literature by combining spatial econometric analysis and propensity score matching to conduct a quantitative evaluation of a climate change PEP. The evaluation methodology provides decision‐makers with reliable insights into the potential contribution of PEPs towards climate change mitigation targets.

Historically the dominant farming culture in Western developed countries, such as Scotland and New Zealand, has been based on maximising food production and maintaining the family business. However, this culture of production and family is under pressure from societal calls to increase the uptake of environmental practices in farm management. The pressure is leading farmers to adopt environmental practices, which causes a clash with the beliefs and values underlying the culture of production and family business. This clash is problematic, as it might form a barrier to sustained environmental change, for which not only practice change is required, but also a change in beliefs and values guiding the farming culture. This study explores the clash using an institutional perspective to: i) analyse how farmer practices, beliefs and values change due to external pressure to adopt environmental practices; ii) identify mechanisms via which this change unfolds; and iii) understand the role of participatory extension programmes in this change. An institutional perspective enables this study to move beyond the role of individual's attitudes and behaviours in adoption of environmental practices, towards considering how farmers' practices, beliefs and values together constitute the culture of farming, and how these are shaped by societal and institutional mechanisms. Twenty Scottish and 52 New Zealand farmers participated in qualitative, open-ended interviews and were observed during discussion groups or advisory meetings. Our findings show that all farmers are guided by a ‘business’, ‘lifestyle’ and/or ‘learning’ logic. The institutional clash influenced practices underlying the business logic to change from being purely based on maximising productivity, to including environmental aspects. However, no change in values was observed. Participatory extension programmes influenced practices, beliefs and values underlying the learning logic (changing from a ‘linear’ to ‘multi-actor’ logic) and thus can help facilitate more effective practice change by providing support via micro-mechanisms and enabling dynamics. The study contributes to current literature by introducing a new lens for understanding change induced by participatory extension programmes and by providing change agents, such as extensionists, with more in-depth knowledge about the main logics guiding the culture of farming, and the mechanisms by which farmer practices, beliefs and values may change. The in depth-knowledge will help to communicate, frame and organise extension initiatives.

Agriculture is a major source of global greenhouse gas emissions and therefore effective policy interventions are required in order to mitigate these emissions. One form of intervention used within the agricultural sector is participatory extension programmes (PEPs). PEPs are advisory programmes based on voluntary participation where farmers, researchers, and rural experts collectively learn by sharing information and experiences. To evaluate the contribution of these programmes towards more climate friendly farming, this paper conducts an ex-post evaluation of a PEP focused on the voluntary uptake of on-farm emissions mitigation practices in the UK. We use a mixed-methods approach to understand both the adoption of new practices and a range of human-social outcomes such as social learning, resilience and improved decision-making. We find that participants in the PEP show a higher level of practice adoption compared to non-participants. However, the evaluation of the human-social indicators shows that the change cannot always be attributed to PEP participation. The paper contributes to the current literature by conducting the first evaluation on a climate change PEP in a developed country and by developing and applying an effective evaluation framework for climate change PEPs, in order to achieve an understanding of the change achieved by PEPs.

Purpose: Participatory extension programmes are widely used to promote change in the agricultural sector, and an important question is how best to measure the effectiveness of such programmes after implementation. This study seeks to understand the current state of practice through a review of ex post evaluations of participatory extension programmes.Design/Methodology/Approach: A systematic literature review of the peer reviewed literature was undertaken to analyse the evaluations based on: i) year of publication; ii) location of the study; iii) programme delivery; iv) evaluation methods; v) outcome variables; and vi) inclusion of evaluation in initial programme design.Findings: The review finds that almost all studies use an experimental or quasi-experimental research design (i.e. using a control group or counterfactual), but some studies do not account for endogeneity or selection bias. Furthermore, only a small number of the evaluations were planned as part of the original programme design, which causes difficulties in obtaining robust counterfactuals. The review also finds that relatively few evaluations, approximately 20 percent, measure the programme impact on environmental outcomes and only 15 percent of the evaluations have been undertaken for programmes in developed countries.Practical implication: Limitations with current evaluation practice are identified, and recommendations are provided for improving practice, including better treatment of endogeneity, and the complementary use of qualitative data. Theoretical implication: The review provides a contribution to the debate about the use of quantitative versus qualitative evaluation methods, by addressing the use of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods in a complementary way. Originality/Value: Despite their widespread implementation, this is the first systematic literature review for published evaluations of participatory extension programmes in the agricultural sector.

The uptake of actions to mitigate climate change at the household level might crowd out subsequent policy at the national level, which is problematic because national policy often has a larger mitigation potential than individual household measures. This study analyses crowding out between the uptake of low-cost actions and the support for national climate change policy in the agricultural sector. In the experimental set-up, survey respondents were primed to think about the implementation of low-cost mitigation practices and subsequently asked to express support for national mitigation policy. The results show a crowding-out effect between individual mitigation measures and support for national policy. Individuals with high levels of worry show a stronger crowding out effect. This study contributes to building understanding of when and why crowding out occurs in order to help frame and communicate future climate change policy.

Although the link between agriculture and diffuse water pollution has been understood for decades, there is still a need to implement effective measures to address this issue. In countries with light-touch regulation, such as New Zealand and Australia, most efforts to promote environmental management practices have relied on voluntary initiatives such as participatory research and extension programmes; the success of which is largely dependent on farmers’ willingness and ability to adopt these practices. Increased understanding of the factors influencing farmer decision-making in this area would aid the promotion of effective advisory services. This study provides insights from 52 qualitative interviews with farmers and from observations of nine farmer meetings and field days. We qualitatively identify factors that influence farmer decision-making regarding the voluntary uptake of water quality practices and develop a typology for categorising farmers according to the factors that influence their decision-making. We find that in light-touch regulated countries certainty around policy and also around the effectiveness of practices is essential, particularly for farmers who delay action until compelled to act due to succession or regulation. The contribution of this paper is threefold: (i) it identifies factors influencing decision-making around the uptake of water quality practices in a light-touch regulated country; (ii) it develops a typology of different farmer types; and (iii) it provides recommendations on policy approaches for countries with light-touch regulation, which has potential relevance for any countries facing changes regarding their agricultural policy, such as post-Brexit policy in the UK.

Climate change is already having a significant impact on agriculture through greater weather variability and the increasing frequency of extreme events. International policy is rightly focused on adapting and transforming agricultural and food production systems to reduce vulnerability. But agriculture also has a role in terms of climate change mitigation. The agricultural sector accounts for approximately a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, including related emissions from land-use change and deforestation. Farmers and land managers have a significant role to play because emissions reduction measures can be taken to increase soil carbon sequestration, manage fertilizer application, and improve ruminant nutrition and waste. There is also potential to improve overall productivity in some systems, thereby reducing emissions per unit of product. The global significance of such actions should not be underestimated. Existing research shows that some of these measures are low cost relative to the costs of reducing emissions in other sectors such as energy or heavy industry. Some measures are apparently cost-negative or win–win, in that they have the potential to reduce emissions and save production costs. However, the mitigation potential is also hindered by the biophysical complexity of agricultural systems and institutional and behavioral barriers limiting the adoption of these measures in developed and developing countries. This includes formal agreement on how agricultural mitigation should be treated in national obligations, commitments or targets, and the nature of policy incentives that can be deployed in different farming systems and along food chains beyond the farm gate. These challenges also overlap growing concern about global food security, which highlights additional stressors, including demographic change, natural resource scarcity, and economic convergence in consumption preferences, particularly for livestock products. The focus on reducing emissions through modified food consumption and reduced waste is a recent agenda that is proving more controversial than dealing with emissions related to production.