Home Motivations for farmers’ participation in agri-environmental scheme in the EU, literature review
Article Open Access

Motivations for farmers’ participation in agri-environmental scheme in the EU, literature review

  • Szilárd Podruzsik EMAIL logo and Imre Fertő
Published/Copyright: November 20, 2024
Download Article (PDF)
Open Agriculture
From the journal Open Agriculture Volume 9 Issue 1

Abstract

Agri-environmental schemes (AESs) play a pivotal role in aligning agricultural practices with environmental objectives, promoting sustainable land management, and conserving biodiversity. This article presents a comprehensive synthesis of recent advancements in AES research within the European Union context, focusing on ecological, economic, and socio-political dimensions. Through a systematic review of literature published since 2013, we identify emerging trends, gaps, and research priorities, providing novel insights into AES effectiveness. We examine the factors that influence participation in AES such as biodiversity, habitat fragmentation, and agricultural ecosystem services. We also explore the economic factors influencing farmer participation, including financial incentives, income stability, and cost–benefit analysis. Furthermore, we investigate the socio-political dimensions of AES, including institutional frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and the role of trust in programme implementation. Key findings highlight the need for adaptive management strategies, incentive structures aligned with environmental objectives, and inclusive governance mechanisms to enhance AES effectiveness. Our research underscores the importance of context-specific approaches that account for farm characteristics, socio-economic factors, and institutional arrangements. Practical implications for policymakers, practitioners, and stakeholders are discussed, emphasizing the importance of evidence-based policymaking and iterative learning in promoting sustainable agriculture and environmental conservation.

Keywords: agri-environmental scheme; farmers; EU

1 Introduction

Agri-environmental schemes (AESs) aim to harmonize agricultural production with environmental goals by integrating sustainability into agricultural practices. These schemes have emerged as practical and effective approaches for governments worldwide focused on ensuring sustainable land management and the preservation of biodiversity [1,2,3,4]. In the European Union (EU), AESs are crucial for promoting sustainable agriculture, safeguarding the environment, and ensuring food security.

AESs have become increasingly central to the EU strategy for promoting sustainable agriculture. Embedded within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), AESs encourage farmers to adopt practices that mitigate environmental impacts, enhance biodiversity, and contribute to broader climate goals. These schemes have been rebranded as Agri-Environment-Climate Measures to reflect their expanded scope in addressing climate change.

The growing emphasis on AESs is a response to the environmental challenges posed by conventional agricultural practices, including biodiversity loss, soil degradation, and greenhouse gas emissions. AESs offer a mechanism for addressing these challenges by incentivizing farmers to engage in practices that align agricultural production with environmental stewardship. However, the uptake of AESs varies significantly across the EU, influenced by a complex interplay of ecological, economic, and socio-political factors.

In the past 10 years, there has been an increase in research focusing on AESs, reflecting a growing interest in understanding the factors that influence farmer participation. While earlier studies primarily investigated the environmental impacts of AESs on biodiversity and habitat, recent research has broadened to encompass the various factors that motivate or hinder farmers’ participation in these schemes. This expanding body of literature offers valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders aiming to enhance the adoption of AESs among farmers. Previous research has provided comprehensive examinations of the factors influencing the implementation of sustainable management practices both within and outside of the EU [5,6].

While the ecological impacts of AESs have been extensively studied, demonstrating benefits such as enhanced biodiversity, reduced habitat fragmentation, and improved ecosystem services [7,8], understanding the factors that influence farmer participation remains crucial. The success of AES in achieving environmental goals ultimately depends on the willingness of farmers to adopt these practices. Therefore, recent research has increasingly focused on the motivations, barriers, and determinants of farmer participation in AES.

Previous research has emphasized the economic variables that impact farmers’ involvement in AES [9,10]. Monetary rewards serve as a motivating factor for engagement, but they must align with environmental goals to be effective. Analyses have evaluated the cost–benefit ratio of AES, specifically regarding income stability, farm size, and the influence of subsidies on farmers’ decision-making [11]. This literature helps policymakers understand the economic motivations and limitations of farmers, enabling the formulation of incentive systems that balance economic feasibility with environmental sustainability [12].

The socio-political aspects of AESs have also been examined, focusing on institutional frameworks, stakeholder engagement, and the influence of trust on farmer participation [13]. Researchers have emphasized the significance of inclusive and participatory governance structures in encouraging farmers to adopt AES by addressing socio-cultural contexts. Social science research has demonstrated the influence of peer networks, trust, and policy instruments on farmers’ behaviour and decisions to participate in agricultural schemes [14,15,16].

Despite extensive research on AES, the literature is often fragmented, with studies focusing on disparate aspects of farmer participation and acceptance. Some research has concentrated on economic incentives, while others have examined socio-political contexts influencing farmer decisions. This fragmentation reveals the need for a comprehensive synthesis that brings together these diverse perspectives, identifies common trends, and highlights gaps that require further investigation.

The present article aims to fill this gap by systematically reviewing recent literature on the factors influencing farmer participation in AES within the EU. By synthesizing findings across economic, socio-political, and environmental dimensions, this review contributes to a deeper understanding of the determinants of AES adoption and provides insights for enhancing the design and implementation of these schemes to improve participation rates.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the methodology used for the systematic review, Section 3 presents the findings categorized by key themes, and Section 4 discusses the implications for policy and future research, and the final part of the study draws conclusions.

2 Methodology

As defined by the European Environment Agency, “Agri-environmental schemes are government programmes designed to help farmers manage their land in an environmentally friendly way. Agri-environment schemes are important for the conservation of high nature value farmland, for improving genetic diversity and for protecting agro-ecosystems.” Protecting the environment, combating climate change, and preserving biodiversity are all ways of improving the condition of agricultural land and disseminating good practices [7,17,18].

We focused on publications in scientific journals that highlight the acceptance of AES in EU member states. To ensure a thorough and unbiased analysis, we employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology [19], a recognized framework for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This approach enhances transparency and reproducibility by providing a structured process for literature search, study selection, data extraction, and synthesis.

Our systematic review began with a comprehensive literature search using electronic databases such as Web of Science, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. We utilized specific keywords including “Agri-Environmental Scheme,” “EU,” and “acceptance” to identify relevant studies. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles published in English between 2013 and 2023 to capture recent developments in the field.

The main research question of the reviewed papers was to identify the factors that determine the participation of EU farmers in AES. To gain a comprehensive understanding of AES, their purpose, and their general functioning, we initially used broad keywords such as “Agri-Environmental Scheme.” This allowed us to capture a general picture of agri-environmental programmes within the EU context.

We then narrowed down the number of items by selecting studies focused on EU Member States to ensure regional relevance. Recognizing that not all studies exclusively address the motivations behind farmers’ acceptance of environmental practices, we further refined our search with the following keywords: “Agri-Environmental Scheme and EU,” “Agri-Environmental Scheme and EU and acceptance,” and “Agri-Environmental Scheme and EU farmer acceptance.”

Although keywords are frequently used, they can sometimes be irrelevant to the aim of the research if not appropriately contextualized. Therefore, we applied additional exclusions at the beginning of the systematic search. We required that the primary keywords appear in the title, abstract, or author keywords to ensure the studies’ direct relevance. The search was restricted to peer-reviewed reviews, research articles, and empirical studies. Non-academic sources such as patents, books, theses, and conference proceedings were excluded to maintain the quality and reliability of the evidence base.

The initial search resulted in a large number of articles. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts were screened based on predefined inclusion criteria: studies must investigate factors influencing farmers’ acceptance of AES in EU countries and provide empirical data through quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research. Studies focusing solely on environmental impacts without addressing farmer acceptance were excluded.

During the full-text review, we applied additional exclusion criteria to ensure relevance and quality. Studies lacking methodological rigour, not providing sufficient data on acceptance factors, or not focusing on EU member states were excluded. The final selection comprised studies that met all inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

Figure 1 PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Wohllebe et al. [19].
Figure 1

PRISMA flow diagram. Source: Wohllebe et al. [19].

Data extraction was standardized using a coding framework developed specifically for this review, which included various elements: study characteristics such as author(s), year of publication, country or region within the EU, and study objectives; methodological approach encompassing research design (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods), data collection methods (surveys, interviews, case studies), and sample size; AES characteristics detailing the type of scheme, environmental objectives, incentive structures, duration, and administrative processes; factors influencing acceptance, covering economic factors (financial incentives, cost–benefit perceptions), social factors (peer influence, community norms), psychological factors (attitudes, beliefs, values), and institutional factors (policy support, trust in authorities); and key findings, which provided a summary of results related to farmer acceptance, identified barriers and motivators, and recommendations offered by the study.

Qualitative data were compiled through thematic analysis. We identified recurring themes and patterns by coding significant statements and grouping them into categories that reflect the factors influencing AES acceptance. This process involved iterative reading and coding to ensure that all relevant data were captured and accurately represented.

The synthesis of extracted data involved aggregating quantitative findings using descriptive statistics where applicable and integrating qualitative insights to provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting farmer acceptance. We identified common trends, such as the importance of financial incentives, the role of environmental attitudes, and the impact of bureaucratic complexity on participation decisions.

Our literature search intentionally focused on the keyword “acceptance” to delve into the key aspects of how AESs are perceived and received by farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders. While terms like “adoption,” “uptake,” and “implementation” are commonly used to discuss the practical engagement with AES, “acceptance” captures a broader, more conceptual understanding of the willingness and readiness of individuals and communities to engage with these schemes. This focus is crucial for exploring the underlying factors that influence the success of AES, including psychological, social, and cultural dimensions that may not be fully addressed when concentrating solely on practical implementation.

Regarding terminology, the use of “Agri-Environmental Scheme” remains a well-established term within EU agricultural policy and academic research. While we acknowledge that terms such as “measure” or “practice” are also prevalent, our use of “scheme” maintains consistency with much of the existing literature and policy documents. Although the latest CAP refers to these initiatives as “agri-environmental-climate measures,” the term “Agri-Environmental Scheme” continues to be widely used and recognized, allowing us to capture a broad range of studies, including those that span different CAP periods.

Our focused approach was designed to provide an in-depth analysis of the conceptual factors affecting AES acceptance among EU farmers. By concentrating on “acceptance,” we aimed to highlight the psychological and socio-cultural elements that underpin farmers’ engagement with AES, offering valuable insights that might be overlooked in studies emphasizing practical adoption or implementation. This deliberate choice of keywords was guided by the specific objectives of our research and the desire to explore the nuanced dimensions of farmers’ willingness to participate in AES.

While our approach may not encompass every study using alternative terminology, it effectively captures the relevant literature needed to address our main research question. We believe that this methodology provides a focused and meaningful contribution to understanding the factors influencing EU farmers’ participation in AES.

We acknowledge that relying solely on “acceptance” as a keyword may have resulted in the omission of some relevant studies that use terms like “adoption,” “motivation,” or “attitude.” To mitigate this limitation, we conducted supplementary searches using these additional keywords when initial results were insufficient. However, our primary focus remained on studies explicitly addressing “acceptance” to maintain the specificity of our research question.

3 Results

3.1 Different perspectives

The studies published within the past decade can be categorized into three distinct groups. The initial set of studies has a primary emphasis on ecology. Subjects pertaining to conservation biology, such as the biological efficacy of agri-environmental programmes, as well as the impacts of habitat fragmentation and edge effects on different terrestrial species, are discussed [8]. Additionally, there are studies that focus on enhancing the fertility and productivity of agricultural land, which is crucial for supporting the growth and development of living organisms. Multiple studies have demonstrated alterations in the diversity of species and the benefits they offer to agriculture and its development [20,21].

Several studies differentiate between the environmental factors of voluntary participation and the economic consequences. The second significant category of studies comprises economic studies. Examining the acceptance of agri-environmental linkages on farm income stability is a key area of research due to the significant challenge it poses to farms [22]. The papers that specifically examine the evolving characteristics of farms or farmers or the societal effects of programmes in the last 10 years are significant. A significant portion of the research focuses on the possibility of implementing outcome-based agri-environmental payments [23,24,25,26].

The third category of studies focuses on the socio-political aspects. The involvement of farms and their farmers is influenced by their specific characteristics. The acceptance of environmental management practices by farmers is primarily influenced by economic and structural factors. Ecological studies primarily examine matters pertaining to conservation biology, whereas the economic approach focuses on assessing the economic consequences of agricultural activity, considering the prevailing market conditions [27].

3.2 Theoretical frameworks

Approximately 50% of the studies analysed conducted concurrent investigations in multiple EU member states, while the remaining 50% concentrated on a single EU country. Approximately 33% of the published studies consisted of structured literature reviews. Roughly 66% of them employed a methodological approach to measure the underlying attributes that contribute to farmers’ involvement in AESs. Over 50% of these studies employed an econometric approach to examine their hypotheses. The majority of the models employed cross-sectional data, while approximately one-third of them utilized panel data for their analyses. In the subsequent studies, the authors employ alternative qualitative methods to corroborate the findings of the research. The reviewed studies are grounded in various theories, including consumer preference theory, participation theory, decision theory, relational theory, reasoned action and planned behaviour theory, difference-in-difference theory, cooperation theory, utility theory, and experimental theory. The studies differ in terms of sample size, ranging from a few hundred to fifty thousand participants.

Extensive research is conducted on the topic of cost–benefit analysis. The financial incentives for participating in an AES are analysed due to the potential negative consequences it may have on farmers. The consequences are influenced by the utilization of land resources. Hence, the expense of engaging in such a programme is a crucial factor. Furthermore, various other endeavours, such as implementing a contractual agreement that includes incentives for meeting specific goals, which in turn leads to additional financial rewards for farmers on their own property, significantly enhance farmers’ trust and assurance. The conditions established by these schemes also impact the level of voluntary participation.

3.3 Drivers of AESs

In the last 10 years, numerous publications have focused on the economic and social factors that drive European farmers to engage in various AESs [27,28]. Researchers also regard landscape and farm characteristics as crucial factors for involvement in environmental programmes [29]. The subjects covered in this text include the connection between agri-environmental regulation and ecosystem services [11], the cost-effectiveness of regulation [30,12], and the economic impacts of such regulation [9,10,31]. The AES literature examines the economic and political environment in which the systems operate, as well as strategies for enhancing AESs, such as the utilization of technology and policy instruments [32].

3.4 Ecological consideration

The literature consistently emphasizes the positive ecological outcomes of AES, particularly in terms of biodiversity conservation, habitat restoration, and the enhancement of ecosystem services. Numerous studies, such as [7], demonstrate that AESs contribute significantly to the preservation of plant and animal species, especially in regions where intensive agriculture has led to significant biodiversity loss.

A notable trend in the literature is the growing recognition that AESs are most effective when implemented at a landscape scale rather than at the level of individual farms. This approach allows for greater ecological connectivity, which is crucial for the movement and survival of species across fragmented habitats [8]. Studies have shown that landscape-scale AESs can lead to more substantial and sustained biodiversity gains compared to isolated, small-scale interventions.

3.5 Economic factors

Economic considerations are central to the decision-making process of farmers when it comes to participating in AES. The literature widely acknowledges that financial incentives are a key driver of AES acceptance, but there is considerable variation in how these incentives are perceived and their effectiveness across different contexts.

The studies indicate that farmers are more inclined to engage in a certain activity if they perceive a distinct economic benefit, such as higher crop yields, lower expenses, acceptable profit margins, and enhanced farm management. In contrast, environmental concerns are regarded as insignificant [33,34,35]. Some farmers may perceive the financial incentives provided by the programme as insufficient to justify the amount of effort required. Additionally, research has revealed that approximately one-third of farmers will never engage in AES [36]. The continued involvement of the remaining farmers hinges on receiving compensation payments or a rise in their wages [37,38].

3.6 Socio-political aspects

The widespread acceptance of AESs has been extensively documented in the literature. Scientists have analysed the variables that influence farmers’ choices to engage in AES, including their socio-economic attributes, the accessibility of the technology, and the perceived advantages of participation [39]. Agri-environmental programmes are influenced by various interconnected factors, including attitudes, motivations, and social factors. Furthermore, numerous studies have provided insights into the influence of the adjacent economy [40,11].

The participation of farms and their farmers is determined by their respective characteristics. Various factors, such as the size and location of the farm, the specific activities carried out on the farm [35,41], the age and education level of the farmer, as well as their strong environmental awareness or experience in scheme management, can influence the willingness of farmers to participate in AES [42,43,44,45]. The participation of farmers in social networks can be influenced by the opinions and behaviours of their peers, as well as the presence of trusted intermediaries [46,47]. The political and institutional context, including the stability and effectiveness of the political and institutional environment, can also impact farmers’ inclination to engage in AES [15,16].

Research on environmental performance focuses specifically on the market conditions in which farms function. The findings indicate that both the internal structure and managerial resources have the potential to enhance performance and foster a greater willingness to adopt environmental best practices [48]. Table 1 summarizes the key literature findings, addressing socio-political, ecological, environmental, and economic factors.

Table 1

Synoptic table: summary of findings from the literature review

Category Type of studies Key findings Main drivers
Ecological and environmental factors

  • Conservation biology

  • Biodiversity studies

  • Habitat fragmentation

  • AES efficacy

  • Ecological impact studies

  • Landscape-scale conservation

  • Biodiversity analysis

 AES acceptance depends on

  • Contribution to biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services

  • Positive outcomes noted in habitat restoration and species preservation

  • Landscape-scale AES provide more substantial biodiversity gains than isolated schemes

  • Habitat restoration and increased ecosystem service

  • Ecological connectivity

  • Landscape management strategies

  • Biodiversity conservation

  • Ecosystem services
Economic factors

  • Econometric studies.

  • Cost–benefit analysis

  • Income stability studies

  • Financial incentives

  • Farm management

  • Economic benefits are key to AES acceptance

  • Farmers prefer AES that offer clear financial advantages

  • Financial incentives are often viewed as insufficient

  • About one-third of farmers will not accept AES

  • Economic concerns often outweigh environmental benefits

  • Continued participation depends on compensation or wage increases

  • Financial incentives

  • Income stability

  • Cost–benefit. considerations

  • Profitability

  • Economic benefit. perception

  • Incentive structures
Socio-political factors Studies on

  • Socio-economic attributes

  • Policy analysis

  • Technology adoption

  • Farmer attributes

  • Social influence

  • Policy stability

  • Socio-economic factors (farm size, farmer age, education) influence AES acceptance

  • Social networks and peer influence are significant

  • Political and institutional stability affect farmer acceptance of AES

  • Participation shaped by farm size, location, farmer education, and environmental awareness

  • Peer influence and trusted intermediaries are crucial

  • Political and institutional environments play a significant role

  • Socio-economic characteristics

  • Social networks

  • Policy and political context

  • Farmer characteristics

  • Peer networks

  • Political stability

4 Discussion

AESs have the objective of preserving the quality of agricultural land, biodiversity, and natural environmental values, while also addressing the issue of climate change [7,49,50]. Nearly 50% of the published studies focus on considering the environmental impact of agri-environment schemes, ignoring other factors that may also have an impact. One crucial aspect is the conservation of species and their habitats on agricultural land to achieve biodiversity goals. The ecological effects of AES are diverse and vary based on landscape and system characteristics, as well as the indicators being evaluated. Environmental concerns among farmers have minimal influence on their acceptance of AES. Participation in AESs is more probable in less intensive production systems; however, the payments associated with these cases are generally lower.

Extensive research demonstrates the beneficial effects of AESs on the environment, such as enhancing biodiversity, improving habitat quality, and promoting ecosystem services. Nevertheless, there are still several constraints that remain, including the absence of extended research studies and inconsistent approaches for evaluating ecological results. Future research should give priority to conducting comprehensive and long-term evaluations of the effectiveness of AESs in various farming systems and landscapes. Furthermore, investigating the efficacy of particular management strategies within AES can yield valuable knowledge for enhancing conservation endeavours.

Financial incentives play a crucial role in motivating farmers to participate in AESs. However, it is necessary to conduct rigorous cost–benefit analyses to assess the economic feasibility of these schemes. An additional investigation should prioritize the identification of optimal incentive frameworks that strike a balance between economic profitability and environmental sustainability. By investigating novel funding methods and reward systems, we can increase the involvement of farmers in AES and optimize the advantages for society.

The presence of institutional frameworks and the active involvement of stakeholders are crucial in determining the outcomes of AES. However, there are still obstacles to effectively addressing power dynamics and social inequalities during the implementation phase. Future research should further investigate the socio-political aspects of AESs, specifically examining topics such as governance frameworks, dynamics of stakeholder influence, and considerations of social fairness. Moreover, employing interdisciplinary methods that involve a wide range of stakeholders in the decision-making process can promote more comprehensive and efficient policies for agricultural and environmental sustainability.

Although current research already incorporates an interdisciplinary approach, there is a requirement to enhance the integration of ecological, economic, and socio-political perspectives. Effective collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners is crucial for jointly creating knowledge and formulating comprehensive policies for AES. Future research should prioritize the development of novel methodologies and frameworks for interdisciplinary research in AES. This includes the use of participatory approaches that involve stakeholders throughout the entire process of policy development and implementation.

The significance of contextual factors, such as farm characteristics, socio-economic status, and trust, in influencing farmer engagement in AESs is extremely important. Future research should investigate the wider socio-cultural, institutional, and policy factors that impact the implementation and results of AESs. Gaining a comprehensive understanding of the interconnections and compromises between AES and other agricultural policies is essential for incorporating environmental goals into wider agricultural policy frameworks.

Effective assessment of AESs relies heavily on robust monitoring and evaluation. However, there are still difficulties in establishing standardized indicators and methodologies. Future research should give priority to the advancement of comprehensive evaluation frameworks and data collection methods. By utilizing remote sensing technologies, citizen science initiatives, and participatory monitoring approaches, we can improve our comprehension of the impacts of AES and facilitate evidence-based policymaking.

The integration of ecological, economic, and socio-political factors is crucial for understanding the dynamics of AES acceptance. The literature increasingly recognizes that these factors do not operate in isolation; rather, they are deeply interconnected and influence one another in complex ways.

The trends and controversies identified in this review have significant implications for AES policy. Policymakers must navigate the complex interplay of ecological, economic, and socio-political factors to design AESs that are effective, equitable, and sustainable.

5 Conclusions

AESs are a crucial component of the EU’s strategy for promoting sustainable agriculture. To enhance their impact, several policy-related adjustments are recommended. Policymakers should focus on optimizing incentive structures to ensure that they are both economically feasible for farmers and aligned with environmental goals. Detailed cost–benefit analyses are needed to develop incentive mechanisms that encourage long-term participation. Additionally, the design and implementation of AESs should account for the diverse cultural and social contexts in which they operate. Recognizing regional differences, social networks, and trust can lead to more tailored and effective AES that resonate with farmers’ lived experiences and local realities. Finally, effective monitoring and evaluation frameworks are essential for assessing the success of AES. These frameworks should include standardized metrics for consistent measurement of ecological and economic impacts across various agricultural systems and regions.

While this review offers a comprehensive examination of AESs, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, much of the research reviewed focuses on short- to medium-term impacts, leaving gaps in our understanding of the long-term sustainability of AES. Second, the analysis may be limited by the availability of comparable data across different regions, which could hinder the assessment of broader trends. Additionally, the diverse socio-political contexts in which AESs operate may not be fully captured, limiting the generalizability of some findings.

Future research should focus on longitudinal studies that assess the sustained impacts of AESs on biodiversity, soil health, and farm economics. Understanding these long-term effects is essential for refining AESs and ensuring their continued relevance. Furthermore, a more integrated research approach, combining insights from ecological, economic, and socio-political perspectives, is necessary. This comprehensive understanding will help identify the factors influencing AES acceptance and effectiveness, facilitating the development of more holistic policy interventions.

  1. Funding information: This study was supported by OTKA SNN 142441 Greening and Sustainability of the Common Agricultural Policy: A Hungarian-Slovenian Comparison.

  2. Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and consented to its submission to the journal, reviewed all the results and approved the final version of the manuscript. SP: conceptualization, methodology, writing IF: supervision investigation, writing, and correcting.

  3. Conflict of interest: Authors state no conflict of interest.

  4. Data availability statement: Data sharing does not apply to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

[1] Dryzek JS, Downes D, Hunold C, Schlosberg D, Hernes H-K. Green states and social movements. Environmentalism in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, and Norway. UK: Oxford University Press; 2003 Feb. ISBN: 9780199249022. 10.1093/0199249024.001.0001.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Taylor BM, Van Grieken M. Local institutions and farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud. 2015;37:10–9. 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.011.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Rosin C. The conventions of agri-environmental practice in New Zealand: farmers, retail driven audit schemes and a new spirit of farming. GeoJournal. 2008;73:45–54. 10.1007/s10708-008-9177-1.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Robinson GM. Canada’s environmental farm plans: transatlantic perspectives on agri-environmental schemes. Geogr J. 2006;172(3):206–18. 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2006.00207.x.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Schaub S, Ghazoul J, Huber R, Zhang W, Sander A, Rees C, et al. The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers’ participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes: A systematic review. J Agric Econ. 2023;74(1):617–60. 10.1111/1477-9552.12538.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Canessa C, Ait-Sidhoum A, Wunder S, Sauer J. What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Land Use Policy. 2024;140:107094. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107094.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ. The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(4):1006–16. 10.1111/cobi.12536.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[8] Neyens T, Petrof O, Evens R. Winter agri-environment schemes and local landscape composition influence the distribution of wintering farmland birds. Glob Ecol Conserv. 2023;45:e02533. 10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02533.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Ansell D, Freudenberger D, Munro N, Gibbson P. The cost-effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation: A quantitative review. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;225:184–91. 10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.008.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Kreft C, Huber R, Wuepper D, Finger R. The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers’ adoption of climate change mitigation measures. Ecol Econ. 2021;189(6):107169. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107169.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Willamayor-Tomas S, Sagebiel J, Olschewski R. Bringing the neighbors in a choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe. Land Use Policy. 2019;84:200–15. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006.Search in Google Scholar

[12] Mannig P, Sauer J. The impact of agri-environment schemes on farm productivity: a DID-matching approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2020;47(3):1045–93. 10.1093/erae/jbz006.Search in Google Scholar

[13] Cullen P, Ryana M, O’Donoghuec C, Hynesd S, hUallacháine Ó, Sheridan D. Impact of farmer self-identity and attitudes on participation in agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy. 2020;95:104660. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104660.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Riely M, Sangster H, Smith H, Chiverrel R, Boyle J. Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures. Land Use Policy. 2018;70:635–46. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049.Search in Google Scholar

[15] Uthes S, Matzdorf B. Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Environ Manage. 2013;51(1):251–66. 10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[16] Thomas F, Midler E, Lefebvre M, Engel S. Greening the common agricultural policy: a behavioural perspective and lab-in-the field experiment in Germany. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2019 July;46(3):367–92. 10.1093/erae/jbz014.Search in Google Scholar

[17] Mills J, Gaskell P, Ingram J, Chaplin S. Understanding farmers’ motivations for providing unsubsidised environmental benefits. Land Use Policy. 2018;76:697–707. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.053.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Lefebvre M, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Blanchflower C, Colen L, Kuhfuss L, Rommel J, et al. Can economic experiments contribute to a more effective CAP?. EuroChoices. 2021;20(3):42–9. 10.1111/1746-692X.12324.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Wohllebe A, Dirrler P, Podruzsik S. Mobile apps in retail: determinants of consumer acceptance – a systematic review. Int J Interac Mob Technol. 2020;14(20):153–64. 10.3991/ijim.v14i20.18273.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Austin Z, Penic M, White PCL. Stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness and efficiency of agri-environment schemes in enhancing pollinators on farmland. Land Use Policy. 2015;47:156–62. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.003.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Image M, Gardner E, Breeze TD. Does agri-environment scheme participation in England increase pollinator populations and crop pollination services. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2022;325:107755. 10.1016/j.agee.2021.107755.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Harkness C, Areal FJ, Bihop J. Stability of farm income: The role of agricultural diversity and agri-environment scheme payments. Agric Syst. 2021;187:103009. 10.1016/j.agsy.2020.103009.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Schroeder LA, Isselstein J, Peel S. Agri-environment schemes: Farmers’ acceptance and perception of potential ‘Payment by Results’ in grassland – A case study in England. Land Use Policy. 2013;32:134–44. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.10.009.Search in Google Scholar

[24] Chaplin SP, Mills J, Chiswell H. Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England. Land Use Policy. 2021;109:105698. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105698.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Birge T, Toivonen M, Herzon I. Probing the grounds: Developing a payment-by-results agri-environment scheme in Finland. Land Use Policy. 2017;61:302–15. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.11.028.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Simpson K, Armsworth PR, Hanley N. Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions. Land Use Policy. 2023;130:106688. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106688.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Brown C, Kovacs E, Herzon I, Villamayor-Tomas S, Albizua A, Galanaki A, et al. Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy. 2020;101:105136. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Coyne L, Kendall H, Williams DJL. Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers. Land Use Policy. 2021;101:105174. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105174.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Paulus A, Hagemann N, Beckmann M. Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy. 2022;121:106320. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106320.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Udagawa C, Hodge I, Reader M. Farm level costs of agri-environment measures: the impact of entry level stewardship on cereal farm incomes. J Agric Econ. 2014;65(1):212–33. 10.1111/1477-9552.12043.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Pacini GC, Merante P, Lazzerini G, Van Passel S. Increasing the cost-effectiveness of EU agri-environment policy measures through evaluation of farm and field-level environmental and economic performance. Agric Syst. 2015;136:70–8. 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.02.004.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Sidhoum AA, Canessa C, Sauer J. Effects of agri-environment schemes on farm-level eco-efficiency measures: Empirical evidence from EU countries. J Agric Econ. 2022;74(2):551–69. 10.1111/1477-9552.12520.Search in Google Scholar

[33] Lastra-Bravo XB, Hubbard C, Garrod G, Tolón-Becerra A. What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ Sci Policy. 2015;54:1–9. 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002.Search in Google Scholar

[34] Leonhardt H, Braito M, Uehleke R. Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake. Agric Hum Values. 2021;39(1):1–16. 10.1007/s10460-021-10242-w.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[35] Wąs A, Malak-Rawlikowska A, Zavalloni M, Viaggi D, Kobus P, Sulewski P. In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland. Land Use Policy. 2021;101:105190. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105190.Search in Google Scholar

[36] McGurk E, Hynes S, Thorne F. Participation in agri-environmental schemes: A contingent valuation study of farmers in Ireland. J Environ Manage. 2020;262:11024. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110243.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[37] Dessart FJ, Rommel J, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Thomas F, Rodríguez-Entrena M, Espinosa-Goded M, et al. Farmers and the new green architecture of the EU common agricultural policy: a behavioural experiment. JRC Science for Policy Report. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union; 2021 July. 10.2760/718383.Search in Google Scholar

[38] Pagliacci F, Defrancesco E, Mozzato D, Bortolini L, Pezzuolo A, Pirotti F, et al. Drivers of farmers’ adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from northeastern Italy. Sci Total Environ. 2020;710:136345. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136345.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Burton RJF. The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: A review. J Environ Manage. 2014;135:19–26. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.12.005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[40] Gattoa P, Mozzato D, Defrancesco E. Analysing the role of factors affecting farmers’ decisions to continue withagri-environmental schemes from a temporal perspective. Environ Sci Policy. 2019;92:237–44. 10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.001.Search in Google Scholar

[41] Wilson GA, Hart K. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU Farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plann A: Econ Space. 2000;32(12):2161–85. 10.1068/a3311.Search in Google Scholar

[42] Kuhfuss L, Préget R, Thoyer S, Hanley N. Nudging farmers to sign agri-environmental contracts: the effects of a collective bonus. Eur Rev Agric Econ. 2016;43(4):609–36. 10.1093/erae/jbv031.Search in Google Scholar

[43] Defrancesco E, Gattoa P, Mozzatob D. To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy. 2018;76:460–70. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.026.Search in Google Scholar

[44] Zimmermann A, Britz W. European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy. 2016;50:214–28. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.09.019.Search in Google Scholar

[45] Cullen P, Hynes S, O’Donoghue C. More than two decades of Agri-Environment schemes: Has the profile of participating farms changed? J Environ Manage. 2021;292(2–3):112826. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112826.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[46] Burton RJF, Schwarz G. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy. 2013;30(1):628–41. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.002.Search in Google Scholar

[47] Dedeurwaerdere T, Polard A, Melindi-Ghidi P. The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Ecol Econ. 2014;119:24–38. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.025.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[48] Galliano D, Siqueira TTS. Organizational design and environmental performance: The case of French dairy farms. J Environ Manage. 2021;278(1):111408. 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111408.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[49] Crowther LI, Gilbert F. The effect of agri-environment schemes on bees on Shropshire farms. J Nat Conserv. 2020;58(4):125895. 10.1016/j.jnc.2020.125895.Search in Google Scholar

[50] Santos M, Garcês C, Cabral JA. Side effects of European eco schemes and agri-environment-climate measures on endangered species conservation: Clues from a case study in mountain vineyard landscapes. Ecol Indic. 2023;148:11015. 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110155.Search in Google Scholar
Received: 2024-05-03
Revised: 2024-10-06
Accepted: 2024-10-07
Published Online: 2024-11-20

© 2024 the author(s), published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Supplementation of P-solubilizing purple nonsulfur bacteria, Rhodopseudomonas palustris improved soil fertility, P nutrient, growth, and yield of Cucumis melo L.
  3. Yield gap variation in rice cultivation in Indonesia
  4. Effects of co-inoculation of indole-3-acetic acid- and ammonia-producing bacteria on plant growth and nutrition, soil elements, and the relationships of soil microbiomes with soil physicochemical parameters
  5. Impact of mulching and planting time on spring-wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth: A combined field experiment and empirical modeling approach
  6. Morphological diversity, correlation studies, and multiple-traits selection for yield and yield components of local cowpea varieties
  7. Participatory on-farm evaluation of new orange-fleshed sweetpotato varieties in Southern Ethiopia
  8. Yield performance and stability analysis of three cultivars of Gayo Arabica coffee across six different environments
  9. Biology of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different types of plants feeds: Potency as a pest on various agricultural plants
  10. Antidiabetic activity of methanolic extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. fruit in alloxan-induced Swiss albino diabetic mice
  11. Bioinformatics investigation of the effect of volatile and non-volatile compounds of rhizobacteria in inhibiting late embryogenesis abundant protein that induces drought tolerance
  12. Nicotinamide as a biostimulant improves soybean growth and yield
  13. Farmer’s willingness to accept the sustainable zoning-based organic farming development plan: A lesson from Sleman District, Indonesia
  14. Uncovering hidden determinants of millennial farmers’ intentions in running conservation agriculture: An application of the Norm Activation Model
  15. Mediating role of leadership and group capital between human capital component and sustainability of horticultural agribusiness institutions in Indonesia
  16. Biochar technology to increase cassava crop productivity: A study of sustainable agriculture on degraded land
  17. Effect of struvite on the growth of green beans on Mars and Moon regolith simulants
  18. UrbanAgriKG: A knowledge graph on urban agriculture and its embeddings
  19. Provision of loans and credit by cocoa buyers under non-price competition: Cocoa beans market in Ghana
  20. Effectiveness of micro-dosing of lime on selected chemical properties of soil in Banja District, North West, Ethiopia
  21. Effect of weather, nitrogen fertilizer, and biostimulators on the root size and yield components of Hordeum vulgare
  22. Effects of selected biostimulants on qualitative and quantitative parameters of nine cultivars of the genus Capsicum spp.
  23. Growth, yield, and secondary metabolite responses of three shallot cultivars at different watering intervals
  24. Design of drainage channel for effective use of land on fully mechanized sugarcane plantations: A case study at Bone Sugarcane Plantation
  25. Technical feasibility and economic benefit of combined shallot seedlings techniques in Indonesia
  26. Control of Meloidogyne javanica in banana by endophytic bacteria
  27. Comparison of important quality components of red-flesh kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis) in different locations
  28. Efficiency of rice farming in flood-prone areas of East Java, Indonesia
  29. Comparative analysis of alpine agritourism in Trentino, Tyrol, and South Tyrol: Regional variations and prospects
  30. Detection of Fusarium spp. infection in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) during postharvest storage through visible–near-infrared and shortwave–near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy
  31. Forage yield, seed, and forage qualitative traits evaluation by determining the optimal forage harvesting stage in dual-purpose cultivation in safflower varieties (Carthamus tinctorius L.)
  32. The influence of tourism on the development of urban space: Comparison in Hanoi, Danang, and Ho Chi Minh City
  33. Optimum intra-row spacing and clove size for the economical production of garlic (Allium sativum L.) in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia
  34. The role of organic rice farm income on farmer household welfare: Evidence from Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  35. Exploring innovative food in a developing country: Edible insects as a sustainable option
  36. Genotype by environment interaction and performance stability of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars grown in Dawuro zone, Southwestern Ethiopia
  37. Factors influencing green, environmentally-friendly consumer behaviour
  38. Factors affecting coffee farmers’ access to financial institutions: The case of Bandung Regency, Indonesia
  39. Morphological and yield trait-based evaluation and selection of chili (Capsicum annuum L.) genotypes suitable for both summer and winter seasons
  40. Sustainability analysis and decision-making strategy for swamp buffalo (Bubalus bubalis carabauesis) conservation in Jambi Province, Indonesia
  41. Understanding factors affecting rice purchasing decisions in Indonesia: Does rice brand matter?
  42. An implementation of an extended theory of planned behavior to investigate consumer behavior on hygiene sanitation-certified livestock food products
  43. Information technology adoption in Indonesia’s small-scale dairy farms
  44. Draft genome of a biological control agent against Bipolaris sorokiniana, the causal phytopathogen of spot blotch in wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum): Bacillus inaquosorum TSO22
  45. Assessment of the recurrent mutagenesis efficacy of sesame crosses followed by isolation and evaluation of promising genetic resources for use in future breeding programs
  46. Fostering cocoa industry resilience: A collaborative approach to managing farm gate price fluctuations in West Sulawesi, Indonesia
  47. Field investigation of component failures for selected farm machinery used in small rice farming operations
  48. Near-infrared technology in agriculture: Rapid, simultaneous, and non-destructive determination of inner quality parameters on intact coffee beans
  49. The synergistic application of sucrose and various LED light exposures to enhance the in vitro growth of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni)
  50. Weather index-based agricultural insurance for flower farmers: Willingness to pay, sales, and profitability perspectives
  51. Meta-analysis of dietary Bacillus spp. on serum biochemical and antioxidant status and egg quality of laying hens
  52. Biochemical characterization of trypsin from Indonesian skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) viscera
  53. Determination of C-factor for conventional cultivation and soil conservation technique used in hop gardens
  54. Empowering farmers: Unveiling the economic impacts of contract farming on red chilli farmers’ income in Magelang District, Indonesia
  55. Evaluating salt tolerance in fodder crops: A field experiment in the dry land
  56. Labor productivity of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) farmers in Central Java Province, Indonesia
  57. Cropping systems and production assessment in southern Myanmar: Informing strategic interventions
  58. The effect of biostimulants and red mud on the growth and yield of shallots in post-unlicensed gold mining soil
  59. Effects of dietary Adansonia digitata L. (baobab) seed meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  60. Analysis and structural characterization of the vid-pisco market
  61. Pseudomonas fluorescens SP007s enhances defense responses against the soybean bacterial pustule caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines
  62. A brief investigation on the prospective of co-composted biochar as a fertilizer for Zucchini plants cultivated in arid sandy soil
  63. Supply chain efficiency of red chilies in the production center of Sleman Indonesia based on performance measurement system
  64. Investment development path for developed economies: Is agriculture different?
  65. Power relations among actors in laying hen business in Indonesia: A MACTOR analysis
  66. High-throughput digital imaging and detection of morpho-physiological traits in tomato plants under drought
  67. Converting compression ignition engine to dual-fuel (diesel + CNG) engine and experimentally investigating its performance and emissions
  68. Structuration, risk management, and institutional dynamics in resolving palm oil conflicts
  69. Spacing strategies for enhancing drought resilience and yield in maize agriculture
  70. Composition and quality of winter annual agrestal and ruderal herbages of two different land-use types
  71. Investigating Spodoptera spp. diversity, percentage of attack, and control strategies in the West Java, Indonesia, corn cultivation
  72. Yield stability of biofertilizer treatments to soybean in the rainy season based on the GGE biplot
  73. Evaluating agricultural yield and economic implications of varied irrigation depths on maize yield in semi-arid environments, at Birfarm, Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia
  74. Chemometrics for mapping the spatial nitrate distribution on the leaf lamina of fenugreek grown under varying nitrogenous fertilizer doses
  75. Pomegranate peel ethanolic extract: A promising natural antioxidant, antimicrobial agent, and novel approach to mitigate rancidity in used edible oils
  76. Transformative learning and engagement with organic farming: Lessons learned from Indonesia
  77. Tourism in rural areas as a broader concept: Some insights from the Portuguese reality
  78. Assessment enhancing drought tolerance in henna (Lawsonia inermis L.) ecotypes through sodium nitroprusside foliar application
  79. Edible insects: A survey about perceptions regarding possible beneficial health effects and safety concerns among adult citizens from Portugal and Romania
  80. Phenological stages analysis in peach trees using electronic nose
  81. Harvest date and salicylic acid impact on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) properties under different humidity conditions
  82. Hibiscus sabdariffa L. petal biomass: A green source of nanoparticles of multifarious potential
  83. Use of different vegetation indices for the evaluation of the kinetics of the cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) growth based on multispectral images by UAV
  84. First evidence of microplastic pollution in mangrove sediments and its ingestion by coral reef fish: Case study in Biawak Island, Indonesia
  85. Physical and textural properties and sensory acceptability of wheat bread partially incorporated with unripe non-commercial banana cultivars
  86. Cereibacter sphaeroides ST16 and ST26 were used to solubilize insoluble P forms to improve P uptake, growth, and yield of rice in acidic and extreme saline soil
  87. Avocado peel by-product in cattle diets and supplementation with oregano oil and effects on production, carcass, and meat quality
  88. Optimizing inorganic blended fertilizer application for the maximum grain yield and profitability of bread wheat and food barley in Dawuro Zone, Southwest Ethiopia
  89. The acceptance of social media as a channel of communication and livestock information for sheep farmers
  90. Adaptation of rice farmers to aging in Thailand
  91. Combined use of improved maize hybrids and nitrogen application increases grain yield of maize, under natural Striga hermonthica infestation
  92. From aquatic to terrestrial: An examination of plant diversity and ecological shifts
  93. Statistical modelling of a tractor tractive performance during ploughing operation on a tropical Alfisol
  94. Participation in artisanal diamond mining and food security: A case study of Kasai Oriental in DR Congo
  95. Assessment and multi-scenario simulation of ecosystem service values in Southwest China’s mountainous and hilly region
  96. Analysis of agricultural emissions and economic growth in Europe in search of ecological balance
  97. Bacillus thuringiensis strains with high insecticidal activity against insect larvae of the orders Coleoptera and Lepidoptera
  98. Technical efficiency of sugarcane farming in East Java, Indonesia: A bootstrap data envelopment analysis
  99. Comparison between mycobiota diversity and fungi and mycotoxin contamination of maize and wheat
  100. Evaluation of cultivation technology package and corn variety based on agronomy characters and leaf green indices
  101. Exploring the association between the consumption of beverages, fast foods, sweets, fats, and oils and the risk of gastric and pancreatic cancers: Findings from case–control study
  102. Phytochemical composition and insecticidal activity of Acokanthera oblongifolia (Hochst.) Benth & Hook.f. ex B.D.Jacks. extract on life span and biological aspects of Spodoptera littoralis (Biosd.)
  103. Land use management solutions in response to climate change: Case study in the central coastal areas of Vietnam
  104. Evaluation of coffee pulp as a feed ingredient for ruminants: A meta-analysis
  105. Interannual variations of normalized difference vegetation index and potential evapotranspiration and their relationship in the Baghdad area
  106. Harnessing synthetic microbial communities with nitrogen-fixing activity to promote rice growth
  107. Agronomic and economic benefits of rice–sweetpotato rotation in lowland rice cropping systems in Uganda
  108. Response of potato tuber as an effect of the N-fertilizer and paclobutrazol application in medium altitude
  109. Bridging the gap: The role of geographic proximity in enhancing seed sustainability in Bandung District
  110. Evaluation of Abrams curve in agricultural sector using the NARDL approach
  111. Challenges and opportunities for young farmers in the implementation of the Rural Development Program 2014–2020 of the Republic of Croatia
  112. Yield stability of ten common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes at different sowing dates in Lubumbashi, South-East of DR Congo
  113. Effects of encapsulation and combining probiotics with different nitrate forms on methane emission and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics
  114. Phytochemical analysis of Bienertia sinuspersici extract and its antioxidant and antimicrobial activities
  115. Evaluation of relative drought tolerance of grapevines by leaf fluorescence parameters
  116. Yield assessment of new streak-resistant topcross maize hybrids in Benin
  117. Improvement of cocoa powder properties through ultrasonic- and microwave-assisted alkalization
  118. Potential of ecoenzymes made from nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) leaf and pulp waste as bioinsecticides for Periplaneta americana
  119. Analysis of farm performance to realize the sustainability of organic cabbage vegetable farming in Getasan Semarang, Indonesia
  120. Revealing the influences of organic amendment-derived dissolved organic matter on growth and nutrient accumulation in lettuce seedlings (Lactuca sativa L.)
  121. Identification of viruses infecting sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) in Benin
  122. Assessing the soil physical and chemical properties of long-term pomelo orchard based on tree growth
  123. Investigating access and use of digital tools for agriculture among rural farmers: A case study of Nkomazi Municipality, South Africa
  124. Does sex influence the impact of dietary vitD3 and UVB light on performance parameters and welfare indicators of broilers?
  125. Design of intelligent sprayer control for an autonomous farming drone using a multiclass support vector machine
  126. Deciphering salt-responsive NB-ARC genes in rice transcriptomic data: A bioinformatics approach with gene expression validation
  127. Review Articles
  128. Impact of nematode infestation in livestock production and the role of natural feed additives – A review
  129. Role of dietary fats in reproductive, health, and nutritional benefits in farm animals: A review
  130. Climate change and adaptive strategies on viticulture (Vitis spp.)
  131. The false tiger of almond, Monosteira unicostata (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Biology, ecology, and control methods
  132. A systematic review on potential analogy of phytobiomass and soil carbon evaluation methods: Ethiopia insights
  133. A review of storage temperature and relative humidity effects on shelf life and quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit and implications for nutrition insecurity in Ethiopia
  134. Green extraction of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) phytochemicals: Prospective strategies and roadblocks
  135. Potential influence of nitrogen fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of carrot (Dacus carota L.) in Ethiopia: Systematic review
  136. Corn silk: A promising source of antimicrobial compounds for health and wellness
  137. State and contours of research on roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) in Africa
  138. The potential of phosphorus-solubilizing purple nonsulfur bacteria in agriculture: Present and future perspectives
  139. Minor millets: Processing techniques and their nutritional and health benefits
  140. Meta-analysis of reproductive performance of improved dairy cattle under Ethiopian environmental conditions
  141. Review on enhancing the efficiency of fertilizer utilization: Strategies for optimal nutrient management
  142. The nutritional, phytochemical composition, and utilisation of different parts of maize: A comparative analysis
  143. Motivations for farmers’ participation in agri-environmental scheme in the EU, literature review
  144. Evolution of climate-smart agriculture research: A science mapping exploration and network analysis
  145. Short Communications
  146. Music enrichment improves the behavior and leukocyte profile of dairy cattle
  147. Effect of pruning height and organic fertilization on the morphological and productive characteristics of Moringa oleifera Lam. in the Peruvian dry tropics
  148. Corrigendum
  149. Corrigendum to “Bioinformatics investigation of the effect of volatile and non-volatile compounds of rhizobacteria in inhibiting late embryogenesis abundant protein that induces drought tolerance”
  150. Corrigendum to “Composition and quality of winter annual agrestal and ruderal herbages of two different land-use types”
  151. Special issue: Smart Agriculture System for Sustainable Development: Methods and Practices
  152. Construction of a sustainable model to predict the moisture content of porang powder (Amorphophallus oncophyllus) based on pointed-scan visible near-infrared spectroscopy
  153. FruitVision: A deep learning based automatic fruit grading system
  154. Energy harvesting and ANFIS modeling of a PVDF/GO-ZNO piezoelectric nanogenerator on a UAV
  155. Effects of stress hormones on digestibility and performance in cattle: A review
  156. Special Issue of The 4th International Conference on Food Science and Engineering (ICFSE) 2022 - Part II
  157. Assessment of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid profiles and ratio of omega-6/omega-3 of white eggs produced by laying hens fed diets enriched with omega-3 rich vegetable oil
  158. Special Issue on FCEM - International Web Conference on Food Choice & Eating Motivation - Part II
  159. Special Issue on FCEM – International Web Conference on Food Choice & Eating Motivation: Message from the editor
  160. Fruit and vegetable consumption: Study involving Portuguese and French consumers
  161. Knowledge about consumption of milk: Study involving consumers from two European Countries – France and Portugal
https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0379
Keywords for this article
agri-environmental scheme; farmers; EU
Creative Commons
BY 4.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Supplementation of P-solubilizing purple nonsulfur bacteria, Rhodopseudomonas palustris improved soil fertility, P nutrient, growth, and yield of Cucumis melo L.
  3. Yield gap variation in rice cultivation in Indonesia
  4. Effects of co-inoculation of indole-3-acetic acid- and ammonia-producing bacteria on plant growth and nutrition, soil elements, and the relationships of soil microbiomes with soil physicochemical parameters
  5. Impact of mulching and planting time on spring-wheat (Triticum aestivum) growth: A combined field experiment and empirical modeling approach
  6. Morphological diversity, correlation studies, and multiple-traits selection for yield and yield components of local cowpea varieties
  7. Participatory on-farm evaluation of new orange-fleshed sweetpotato varieties in Southern Ethiopia
  8. Yield performance and stability analysis of three cultivars of Gayo Arabica coffee across six different environments
  9. Biology of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on different types of plants feeds: Potency as a pest on various agricultural plants
  10. Antidiabetic activity of methanolic extract of Hibiscus sabdariffa Linn. fruit in alloxan-induced Swiss albino diabetic mice
  11. Bioinformatics investigation of the effect of volatile and non-volatile compounds of rhizobacteria in inhibiting late embryogenesis abundant protein that induces drought tolerance
  12. Nicotinamide as a biostimulant improves soybean growth and yield
  13. Farmer’s willingness to accept the sustainable zoning-based organic farming development plan: A lesson from Sleman District, Indonesia
  14. Uncovering hidden determinants of millennial farmers’ intentions in running conservation agriculture: An application of the Norm Activation Model
  15. Mediating role of leadership and group capital between human capital component and sustainability of horticultural agribusiness institutions in Indonesia
  16. Biochar technology to increase cassava crop productivity: A study of sustainable agriculture on degraded land
  17. Effect of struvite on the growth of green beans on Mars and Moon regolith simulants
  18. UrbanAgriKG: A knowledge graph on urban agriculture and its embeddings
  19. Provision of loans and credit by cocoa buyers under non-price competition: Cocoa beans market in Ghana
  20. Effectiveness of micro-dosing of lime on selected chemical properties of soil in Banja District, North West, Ethiopia
  21. Effect of weather, nitrogen fertilizer, and biostimulators on the root size and yield components of Hordeum vulgare
  22. Effects of selected biostimulants on qualitative and quantitative parameters of nine cultivars of the genus Capsicum spp.
  23. Growth, yield, and secondary metabolite responses of three shallot cultivars at different watering intervals
  24. Design of drainage channel for effective use of land on fully mechanized sugarcane plantations: A case study at Bone Sugarcane Plantation
  25. Technical feasibility and economic benefit of combined shallot seedlings techniques in Indonesia
  26. Control of Meloidogyne javanica in banana by endophytic bacteria
  27. Comparison of important quality components of red-flesh kiwifruit (Actinidia chinensis) in different locations
  28. Efficiency of rice farming in flood-prone areas of East Java, Indonesia
  29. Comparative analysis of alpine agritourism in Trentino, Tyrol, and South Tyrol: Regional variations and prospects
  30. Detection of Fusarium spp. infection in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) during postharvest storage through visible–near-infrared and shortwave–near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy
  31. Forage yield, seed, and forage qualitative traits evaluation by determining the optimal forage harvesting stage in dual-purpose cultivation in safflower varieties (Carthamus tinctorius L.)
  32. The influence of tourism on the development of urban space: Comparison in Hanoi, Danang, and Ho Chi Minh City
  33. Optimum intra-row spacing and clove size for the economical production of garlic (Allium sativum L.) in Northwestern Highlands of Ethiopia
  34. The role of organic rice farm income on farmer household welfare: Evidence from Yogyakarta, Indonesia
  35. Exploring innovative food in a developing country: Edible insects as a sustainable option
  36. Genotype by environment interaction and performance stability of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars grown in Dawuro zone, Southwestern Ethiopia
  37. Factors influencing green, environmentally-friendly consumer behaviour
  38. Factors affecting coffee farmers’ access to financial institutions: The case of Bandung Regency, Indonesia
  39. Morphological and yield trait-based evaluation and selection of chili (Capsicum annuum L.) genotypes suitable for both summer and winter seasons
  40. Sustainability analysis and decision-making strategy for swamp buffalo (Bubalus bubalis carabauesis) conservation in Jambi Province, Indonesia
  41. Understanding factors affecting rice purchasing decisions in Indonesia: Does rice brand matter?
  42. An implementation of an extended theory of planned behavior to investigate consumer behavior on hygiene sanitation-certified livestock food products
  43. Information technology adoption in Indonesia’s small-scale dairy farms
  44. Draft genome of a biological control agent against Bipolaris sorokiniana, the causal phytopathogen of spot blotch in wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum): Bacillus inaquosorum TSO22
  45. Assessment of the recurrent mutagenesis efficacy of sesame crosses followed by isolation and evaluation of promising genetic resources for use in future breeding programs
  46. Fostering cocoa industry resilience: A collaborative approach to managing farm gate price fluctuations in West Sulawesi, Indonesia
  47. Field investigation of component failures for selected farm machinery used in small rice farming operations
  48. Near-infrared technology in agriculture: Rapid, simultaneous, and non-destructive determination of inner quality parameters on intact coffee beans
  49. The synergistic application of sucrose and various LED light exposures to enhance the in vitro growth of Stevia rebaudiana (Bertoni)
  50. Weather index-based agricultural insurance for flower farmers: Willingness to pay, sales, and profitability perspectives
  51. Meta-analysis of dietary Bacillus spp. on serum biochemical and antioxidant status and egg quality of laying hens
  52. Biochemical characterization of trypsin from Indonesian skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) viscera
  53. Determination of C-factor for conventional cultivation and soil conservation technique used in hop gardens
  54. Empowering farmers: Unveiling the economic impacts of contract farming on red chilli farmers’ income in Magelang District, Indonesia
  55. Evaluating salt tolerance in fodder crops: A field experiment in the dry land
  56. Labor productivity of lowland rice (Oryza sativa L.) farmers in Central Java Province, Indonesia
  57. Cropping systems and production assessment in southern Myanmar: Informing strategic interventions
  58. The effect of biostimulants and red mud on the growth and yield of shallots in post-unlicensed gold mining soil
  59. Effects of dietary Adansonia digitata L. (baobab) seed meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics of broiler chickens: A systematic review and meta-analysis
  60. Analysis and structural characterization of the vid-pisco market
  61. Pseudomonas fluorescens SP007s enhances defense responses against the soybean bacterial pustule caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. glycines
  62. A brief investigation on the prospective of co-composted biochar as a fertilizer for Zucchini plants cultivated in arid sandy soil
  63. Supply chain efficiency of red chilies in the production center of Sleman Indonesia based on performance measurement system
  64. Investment development path for developed economies: Is agriculture different?
  65. Power relations among actors in laying hen business in Indonesia: A MACTOR analysis
  66. High-throughput digital imaging and detection of morpho-physiological traits in tomato plants under drought
  67. Converting compression ignition engine to dual-fuel (diesel + CNG) engine and experimentally investigating its performance and emissions
  68. Structuration, risk management, and institutional dynamics in resolving palm oil conflicts
  69. Spacing strategies for enhancing drought resilience and yield in maize agriculture
  70. Composition and quality of winter annual agrestal and ruderal herbages of two different land-use types
  71. Investigating Spodoptera spp. diversity, percentage of attack, and control strategies in the West Java, Indonesia, corn cultivation
  72. Yield stability of biofertilizer treatments to soybean in the rainy season based on the GGE biplot
  73. Evaluating agricultural yield and economic implications of varied irrigation depths on maize yield in semi-arid environments, at Birfarm, Upper Blue Nile, Ethiopia
  74. Chemometrics for mapping the spatial nitrate distribution on the leaf lamina of fenugreek grown under varying nitrogenous fertilizer doses
  75. Pomegranate peel ethanolic extract: A promising natural antioxidant, antimicrobial agent, and novel approach to mitigate rancidity in used edible oils
  76. Transformative learning and engagement with organic farming: Lessons learned from Indonesia
  77. Tourism in rural areas as a broader concept: Some insights from the Portuguese reality
  78. Assessment enhancing drought tolerance in henna (Lawsonia inermis L.) ecotypes through sodium nitroprusside foliar application
  79. Edible insects: A survey about perceptions regarding possible beneficial health effects and safety concerns among adult citizens from Portugal and Romania
  80. Phenological stages analysis in peach trees using electronic nose
  81. Harvest date and salicylic acid impact on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) properties under different humidity conditions
  82. Hibiscus sabdariffa L. petal biomass: A green source of nanoparticles of multifarious potential
  83. Use of different vegetation indices for the evaluation of the kinetics of the cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) growth based on multispectral images by UAV
  84. First evidence of microplastic pollution in mangrove sediments and its ingestion by coral reef fish: Case study in Biawak Island, Indonesia
  85. Physical and textural properties and sensory acceptability of wheat bread partially incorporated with unripe non-commercial banana cultivars
  86. Cereibacter sphaeroides ST16 and ST26 were used to solubilize insoluble P forms to improve P uptake, growth, and yield of rice in acidic and extreme saline soil
  87. Avocado peel by-product in cattle diets and supplementation with oregano oil and effects on production, carcass, and meat quality
  88. Optimizing inorganic blended fertilizer application for the maximum grain yield and profitability of bread wheat and food barley in Dawuro Zone, Southwest Ethiopia
  89. The acceptance of social media as a channel of communication and livestock information for sheep farmers
  90. Adaptation of rice farmers to aging in Thailand
  91. Combined use of improved maize hybrids and nitrogen application increases grain yield of maize, under natural Striga hermonthica infestation
  92. From aquatic to terrestrial: An examination of plant diversity and ecological shifts
  93. Statistical modelling of a tractor tractive performance during ploughing operation on a tropical Alfisol
  94. Participation in artisanal diamond mining and food security: A case study of Kasai Oriental in DR Congo
  95. Assessment and multi-scenario simulation of ecosystem service values in Southwest China’s mountainous and hilly region
  96. Analysis of agricultural emissions and economic growth in Europe in search of ecological balance
  97. Bacillus thuringiensis strains with high insecticidal activity against insect larvae of the orders Coleoptera and Lepidoptera
  98. Technical efficiency of sugarcane farming in East Java, Indonesia: A bootstrap data envelopment analysis
  99. Comparison between mycobiota diversity and fungi and mycotoxin contamination of maize and wheat
  100. Evaluation of cultivation technology package and corn variety based on agronomy characters and leaf green indices
  101. Exploring the association between the consumption of beverages, fast foods, sweets, fats, and oils and the risk of gastric and pancreatic cancers: Findings from case–control study
  102. Phytochemical composition and insecticidal activity of Acokanthera oblongifolia (Hochst.) Benth & Hook.f. ex B.D.Jacks. extract on life span and biological aspects of Spodoptera littoralis (Biosd.)
  103. Land use management solutions in response to climate change: Case study in the central coastal areas of Vietnam
  104. Evaluation of coffee pulp as a feed ingredient for ruminants: A meta-analysis
  105. Interannual variations of normalized difference vegetation index and potential evapotranspiration and their relationship in the Baghdad area
  106. Harnessing synthetic microbial communities with nitrogen-fixing activity to promote rice growth
  107. Agronomic and economic benefits of rice–sweetpotato rotation in lowland rice cropping systems in Uganda
  108. Response of potato tuber as an effect of the N-fertilizer and paclobutrazol application in medium altitude
  109. Bridging the gap: The role of geographic proximity in enhancing seed sustainability in Bandung District
  110. Evaluation of Abrams curve in agricultural sector using the NARDL approach
  111. Challenges and opportunities for young farmers in the implementation of the Rural Development Program 2014–2020 of the Republic of Croatia
  112. Yield stability of ten common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes at different sowing dates in Lubumbashi, South-East of DR Congo
  113. Effects of encapsulation and combining probiotics with different nitrate forms on methane emission and in vitro rumen fermentation characteristics
  114. Phytochemical analysis of Bienertia sinuspersici extract and its antioxidant and antimicrobial activities
  115. Evaluation of relative drought tolerance of grapevines by leaf fluorescence parameters
  116. Yield assessment of new streak-resistant topcross maize hybrids in Benin
  117. Improvement of cocoa powder properties through ultrasonic- and microwave-assisted alkalization
  118. Potential of ecoenzymes made from nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) leaf and pulp waste as bioinsecticides for Periplaneta americana
  119. Analysis of farm performance to realize the sustainability of organic cabbage vegetable farming in Getasan Semarang, Indonesia
  120. Revealing the influences of organic amendment-derived dissolved organic matter on growth and nutrient accumulation in lettuce seedlings (Lactuca sativa L.)
  121. Identification of viruses infecting sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas Lam.) in Benin
  122. Assessing the soil physical and chemical properties of long-term pomelo orchard based on tree growth
  123. Investigating access and use of digital tools for agriculture among rural farmers: A case study of Nkomazi Municipality, South Africa
  124. Does sex influence the impact of dietary vitD3 and UVB light on performance parameters and welfare indicators of broilers?
  125. Design of intelligent sprayer control for an autonomous farming drone using a multiclass support vector machine
  126. Deciphering salt-responsive NB-ARC genes in rice transcriptomic data: A bioinformatics approach with gene expression validation
  127. Review Articles
  128. Impact of nematode infestation in livestock production and the role of natural feed additives – A review
  129. Role of dietary fats in reproductive, health, and nutritional benefits in farm animals: A review
  130. Climate change and adaptive strategies on viticulture (Vitis spp.)
  131. The false tiger of almond, Monosteira unicostata (Hemiptera: Tingidae): Biology, ecology, and control methods
  132. A systematic review on potential analogy of phytobiomass and soil carbon evaluation methods: Ethiopia insights
  133. A review of storage temperature and relative humidity effects on shelf life and quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) fruit and implications for nutrition insecurity in Ethiopia
  134. Green extraction of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) phytochemicals: Prospective strategies and roadblocks
  135. Potential influence of nitrogen fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of carrot (Dacus carota L.) in Ethiopia: Systematic review
  136. Corn silk: A promising source of antimicrobial compounds for health and wellness
  137. State and contours of research on roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) in Africa
  138. The potential of phosphorus-solubilizing purple nonsulfur bacteria in agriculture: Present and future perspectives
  139. Minor millets: Processing techniques and their nutritional and health benefits
  140. Meta-analysis of reproductive performance of improved dairy cattle under Ethiopian environmental conditions
  141. Review on enhancing the efficiency of fertilizer utilization: Strategies for optimal nutrient management
  142. The nutritional, phytochemical composition, and utilisation of different parts of maize: A comparative analysis
  143. Motivations for farmers’ participation in agri-environmental scheme in the EU, literature review
  144. Evolution of climate-smart agriculture research: A science mapping exploration and network analysis
  145. Short Communications
  146. Music enrichment improves the behavior and leukocyte profile of dairy cattle
  147. Effect of pruning height and organic fertilization on the morphological and productive characteristics of Moringa oleifera Lam. in the Peruvian dry tropics
  148. Corrigendum
  149. Corrigendum to “Bioinformatics investigation of the effect of volatile and non-volatile compounds of rhizobacteria in inhibiting late embryogenesis abundant protein that induces drought tolerance”
  150. Corrigendum to “Composition and quality of winter annual agrestal and ruderal herbages of two different land-use types”
  151. Special issue: Smart Agriculture System for Sustainable Development: Methods and Practices
  152. Construction of a sustainable model to predict the moisture content of porang powder (Amorphophallus oncophyllus) based on pointed-scan visible near-infrared spectroscopy
  153. FruitVision: A deep learning based automatic fruit grading system
  154. Energy harvesting and ANFIS modeling of a PVDF/GO-ZNO piezoelectric nanogenerator on a UAV
  155. Effects of stress hormones on digestibility and performance in cattle: A review
  156. Special Issue of The 4th International Conference on Food Science and Engineering (ICFSE) 2022 - Part II
  157. Assessment of omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acid profiles and ratio of omega-6/omega-3 of white eggs produced by laying hens fed diets enriched with omega-3 rich vegetable oil
  158. Special Issue on FCEM - International Web Conference on Food Choice & Eating Motivation - Part II
  159. Special Issue on FCEM – International Web Conference on Food Choice & Eating Motivation: Message from the editor
  160. Fruit and vegetable consumption: Study involving Portuguese and French consumers
  161. Knowledge about consumption of milk: Study involving consumers from two European Countries – France and Portugal
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 8.10.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/opag-2022-0379/html
Scroll to top button