Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-564cf476b6-lwxm7 Total loading time: 0.26 Render date: 2021-06-21T11:46:42.765Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 March 2007

G. Edwards-Jones
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, University of Wales Bangor, Deiniol Road, Bangor, LL57 2UW, UK
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Get access

Abstract

Decisions made by farmers may have large influences beyond the farm boundary, and for this reason they are often of interest to Government and the public. The process of adoption of new technologies and policies has received considerable academic attention over many years, and this has highlighted the rôle of social influences in decision-making. In addition a range of purely economic-based models of farmer decision-making have been developed in order to predict potential changes in agriculture and land use under future policy and market scenarios. Since the 1990s these traditional approaches to understanding decision-making have been supplemented by an increasing input from psychology. As a result of this work it is clear that farmers' decisions are influenced by a range of factors which may be grouped under six headings: socio-demographics of the farmer, psychological make up of the farmer, the characteristics of the farm household, structure of the farm business, the wider social milieu and the characteristics of the innovation to be adopted. This paper presents a short review of the quantitative methods that seek to integrate insights from economics and social science within theoretical frameworks derived from psychology. Suggestions for further work include more empirical study in farmer decision-making related to animal health and welfare, the rôle of the farmers' own health status in decision-making and the formal integration of economic and psychological variables in simulation models.

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Science , Volume 82 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 783 - 790
Copyright
Copyright © British Society of Animal Science 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 50: 179211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AgraCeas, . 2003. Mid-term evaluation of the Rural Development Plan for Wales. Final Report for Welsh European Office. November 2003. Accessible via www.wefo.wales.gov.ukGoogle Scholar
Attonaty, J. M., Chatelin, M. H. and Garcia, F. 1999. Interactive simulation modeling in farm decision-making. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 22: 157170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J.Edwards-Jones, G. and Arey, D. 2005. Attitudes to farm animal welfare: Factor Structure and Personality Correlates in Farmers and Agriculture Students. Journal of Individual Differences 26: 107120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, E. J., Deary, I. J. and Willock, J. 2001. Personality and intelligence as predictors of economic behaviour in Scottish farmers. European Journal of Personality 15: S123S127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, E. J., Willock, J., Deary, I. J., Gibson, G. J., Dent, J. B., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., Grieve, R. and Sutherland, A. 1998a. Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. 1. Linear modelling. Agricultural Systems 58: 203224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, E. J., Willock, J., Deary, I. J., Gibson, G. J., Dent, J. B., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., Sutherland, A. 1998b. Empirical models of farmer behaviour using psychological, social and economic variables. 2. Non-linear modelling. Agricultural Systems 58: 225241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beedell, J. and Rehman, T. 2000. Using social-psychology models to understand farmers' conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 117127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, B. J. L., Kiel, L. D. and Elliott, E. 2002. Adaptive agents, intelligence and emergent human organization: Capturing complexity through agent based modelling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99: 71877188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bharwani, S., Bithell, M., Downing, T. E., New, M., Washington, R. and Ziervogel, G. 2005. Multi-agent modelling of climate outlooks and food security on a community garden scheme in Limpopo, South Africa. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 21832194.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boivin, X., Lensink, J., Tallet, C. and Veissier, I. 2003. Stockmanship and farm animal welfare. Animal Welfare 12: 479492.Google Scholar
Boulanger, S., Gilman, A., Deaville, J. 1999 Farmers' stress survey. Institute of Rural Health, Powys.Google Scholar
Bowler, I. 1979 Government and agriculture: a spatial perspective. Longman, London.Google Scholar
Brotherton, I. 1989. Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some observations from theory. Journal of Rural Studies 5: 299304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brotherton, I. 1991. What limits participation in ESAs?. Journal of Environmental Management 32: 241249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, R. J. F. 2004. Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20: 359371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, S. and Tait, J. 1991. Differences in the attitudes of farmers and conservationists and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management 32: 281294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castella, J. C., Boissau, S., Trung, T. N. and Quang, D. D. 2005. Agrarian transition and lowland-upland interactions in mountain areas in northern Vietnam: application of a multi-agent model. Agricultural Systems 86: 312332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R. 1992 Revised NEO personality inventory and NEO five-factor inventory: professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, Odessa FL.Google Scholar
Dent, J. B., Edwards-Jones, G. and McGregor, M. J. 1995. Simulation of ecological, social and economic factors in agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems 49: 337351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, A., Chakien, S. 1993 The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, San Diego.Google ScholarPubMed
Edwards-Jones, G. 1993. Knowledge-based systems for crop protection: theory and practice. Crop Protection 12: 565578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Deary, I., Willock, J. 1998a. Modelling farmer decision-making: what can psychology do for agricultural policy assessment models? Etudes et Reserches sur les Systemes Agraires et le Development 31: 153173.Google Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., Dent, J. B., Morgan, O., McGregor, M. J. 1998b Incorporating farm household decision-making within whole farm models. In Understanding options for agricultural production (ed. Tsuji, G.) pp. 347365. Kluwer Academic Press, Amsterdam.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards-Jones, G., McGregor, M. J. 1994 The necessity, theory and reality of developing models of farm households. In Rural and farming systems analysis – European perspectives (ed. Dent, J. B. and McGregor, M. J.) pp. 338352. CAB, Wallingford, UK.Google Scholar
Feuillette, S., Bousquet, F. and Le Goulven, P. 2003. SINUSE: a multi agent model to negotiate water demand management on a free access water table. Environmental Modelling and Software 18: 413427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. 1975 Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour. introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wiley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
Frewer, L. J., Kole, A.van de Kroon, S. M. A. and De Lauere, C. 2005. Consumer attitudes towards the development of animal-friendly husbandry systems. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18: 345367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelcich, S. 2005. The human dimensions of co-management in Chilean coastal fisheries. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Gelcich, S., Edwards-Jones, G. and Kaiser, M. J. 2005. Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers with respect to comanagement and conservation of marine resources. Conservation Biology 19: 865875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerin, L. J. and Guerin, T. F. 1994. Constraints to the adoption of innovations in agricultural research and environmental management: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 34: 549571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawton, K., Simkin, S., Malmberg, A., Fagg, J. and Harriss, L. 1998. Suicide and stress in farmers. TSO, London.Google Scholar
Heleski, C. R. and Zanella, A. J. 2006. Animal science student attitudes to farm animal welfare. Anthrozoos 19: 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hounsome, B. 2006. Investigating the relationship between farmer health and farm income. Ph.D. thesis, University of Wales, Bangor.Google Scholar
Jones, G. E. 1963. The diffusion of agricultural innovations. Journal of Agricultural Economics 15: 387409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lensink, B. J., Veissier, I. and Florand, L. 2001. The farmers' influence on calves' behaviour, health and production of a veal unit. Animal Science 72: 105116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynne, G. D., Casey, C. F., Hodges, A. and Rahmani, M. 1995. Conservation technology adoption decisions and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology 16: 581598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGregor, M., Willock, J. and Deary, I. 1995. Farmer stress. Farm Management 9: 5765.Google Scholar
Mathijs, E. 2003. Social capital and farmers' willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on Agriculture 32: 1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C. and Potter, C. 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11: 5163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moxey, A. P., White, B. O'Callaghan, J. R. 1995. The economic component of NELUP. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 38: 2134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neupane, R. P., Sharma, K. R. and Thapa, G. B. 2002. Adoption of agroforestry in the hills of Nepal: a logistic regression analysis. Agricultural Systems 72: 177196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nkonya, E., Schroeder, T. and Norman, D. 1997. Factors affecting adoption of improved maize seed and fertiliser in northern Tanzania. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, R. D. and Scheifer, G. W. 1980. Agricultural sector programming models: a review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 7: 229264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, M., May, R. M. and Sigmund, K 1995. The arithmetics of mutual help. Scientific American 06: 5055.Google ScholarPubMed
Nowak, M. and Sigmund, K. 1993. Tit for tat in heterogeneous populations. Nature 355: 250253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, C. and Gasson, R. 1988. Farmer participation in voluntary land diversion schemes: some predictions from a survey. Journal of Rural Studies 4: 365375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, E. A., Kaiser, M. J., Edwards-Jones, G. 2005. Variation in fisher's attitudes within an inshore fishery: implications for management. Environmental Conservation 32: 213225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. The Free Press, New York.Google ScholarPubMed
Sheikh, A. D., Rehman, T. and Yates, C. M. 2003. Logit models for identifying the factors that influence the uptake of new ‘no-tillage’ technologies by farmers in the rice-wheat and cotton-wheat farming systems of Pakistan's Punjab. Agricultural Systems 75: 7995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solano, C., Leon, H., Perez, E. and Herrero, M. 2003. The role of personal information sources on the decision-making process of Costa Rican dairy farmers. Agricultural Systems 76: 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanslembrouck, I.Van Huylenbroeck, G. and Verbeke, W. 2002. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 489511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willock, J., Deary, I., Edwards-Jones, G., McGregor, M. J., Sutherland, A., Dent, J. B., Gibson, G., Morgan, O. and Grieve, R. 1999a. The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision-making: business and environmentally oriented behaviour in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50: 286303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willock, J., Deary, I. J., McGregor, M. J., Sutherland, A., Edwards-Jones, G., Morgan, O., Dent, J. B., Grieve, R., Gibson, G. and Austin, E. 1999b. Farmers' attitudes, objectives, behaviours and personality traits. The Edinburgh study of decision making on farms. Journal of Vocational Behaviour 54: 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, G. A. 1997. Factors influencing farmer participation in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 50: 6793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, M. T. and Moss, J. E. 2002. Farmer decision-making with conflicting goals: a recursive strategic programming analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics 53: 82100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zubair, M. and Garforth, C. 2006. Farm level planting in Pakistan: the role of farmers' perceptions and attitudes. Agroforestry Systems 66: 217229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
186
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Modelling farmer decision-making: concepts, progress and challenges
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *