Farmers’ attitudes about farming and the environment: A survey of conventional and organic farmers

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics (Impact Factor: 1.25). 01/1996; 9(2):123-143. DOI: 10.1007/BF03055298

ABSTRACT Farmers have been characterized as people whose ties to the land have given them a deep awareness of natural cycles, appreciation
for natural beauty and sense of responsibility as stewards. At the same time, their relationship to the land has been characterized
as more utilitarian than that of others who are less directly dependent on its bounty. This paper explores this tension by
comparing the attitudes and beliefs of a group of conventional farmers to those of a group of organic farmers. It was found
that while both groups reject the idea that a farmer’s role is to conquer nature, organic farmers were significantly more
supportive of the notion that humans should live in harmony with nature. Organic farmers also reported a greater awareness
of and appreciation for nature in their relationship with the land. Both groups view independence as a main benefit of farming
and a lack of financial reward as its main drawback. Overall, conventional farmers report more stress in their lives although
they also view themselves in a caretaker role for the land more than do the organic farmers. In contrast, organic farmers
report more satisfaction with their lives, a greater concern for living ethically, and a stronger perception of community.
Finally, both groups are willing to have their rights limited (organic farmers somewhat more so) but they do not trust the
government to do so.

Download full-text


Available from: Raymond K De Young, Dec 30, 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Social scientists have long examined the changing role of the individual, and the influence of individualism in social and economic arrangements as well as behavioral decisions. With respect to co-operative behavior among farmers, however, the ideology of individualism has been little theorized in terms of its relationship to the longstanding virtue of independence. This paper explores this relationship by combining analysis of historical literature on the agricultural cooperative movement with the accounts of contemporary English farmers. I show that the virtue of independence is deployed to justify a variety of cooperative (formal and informal) and non-cooperative practices and that, despite apparently alternative interpretations, independence is most often conflated with individualistic premises. That conflation, I argue, leads farmers to see their neighbors as natural competitors: as those from whom which independence must be sought. This has the effect of masking the structural dependencies which farmers face (such as lenders and large purchasers) and limits the alternatives available to them to realize a view of independence that is maintained, rather than opposed, by interdependent collective action. Thus perceived, individualism is an ideological doctrine that succeeds by appealing to the virtue of independence, while simultaneously denying its actual realization.
    Agriculture and Human Values 03/2015; 32(1). DOI:10.1007/s10460-014-9520-8 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Farmers are key players in actions to halt biodiversity loss from farmland. However, if farmers are to sustain biodiversity, they must first be adequately informed about biodiversity and understand its drivers. Measuring biodiversity at the farm scale is difficult because of the structural complexity of many farms, and because different aspects of diversity can be considered desirable, e.g. species richness or rarity. In this study we examined 19 grassland farms in Central Switzerland, and sampled plants, earthworms, spiders and bees using a stratified sampling design. We considered several metrics of species diversity, but found two particularly useful at farm scale: average richness (area-weighted) and farm uniqueness in terms of species identity. Average richness reflects the expected species richness in a random sample taken on the farm, and farm uniqueness is the contribution of a farm to the total species richness of all farms under study. Average richness and farm uniqueness are complementary and reflect different aspects of biodiversity. We demonstrate how combining these metrics enables tailored recommendations for enhancing species diversity on the farm.
    Environmental Science & Policy 08/2014; 41:52–62. DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2014.04.012 · 3.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In agricultural landscapes farmers have a large impact on biodiversity through the management decisions they apply to their land. Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity and its different values influence their willingness to apply biodiversity friendly farming practices. The results of a discourse-based, deliberative biodiversity valuation are presented in this paper. Organic and conventional farmers' perceptions of the different values of biodiversity were analyzed across three European countries. Focus group methodology was used to explore how farmers perceive biodiversity and how they assess its values. Our results suggest that farmers' perceptions of biodiversity are strongly embedded in their everyday lives and linked to farming practices. Besides recognizing the importance of species and habitat diversity, farmers also acknowledge wider landscape processes and attach value to the complexity of ecological systems. Organic farmers tended to have a more complex and philosophical approach to biodiversity and they were relatively homogeneous in this aspect, while conventional farmers showed larger heterogeneity. Ethical and social values were important for all farmers. Economic value was more dominant in the conventional focus groups. The discourse based deliberative valuation method is worth applying in relation to biodiversity for two reasons. First, this method is able to reflect the heterogeneity of non-scientist participants and the context in which they are embedded, which both have a great impact on the results of the valuation. Second, deliberation upon the importance of biodiversity makes possible to understand the competing perceptions of biodiversity and to include different value aspects in the valuation process. The policy oriented consequence of the research can be drawn from the observation that farmers have a strong acknowledgement of ethical and social biodiversity values. This suggests that soft policy tools could also foster biodiversity sensitive farming methods, complementary to mainstream monetary incentives. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    Land Use Policy 07/2013; 35:318-328. DOI:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005 · 3.13 Impact Factor