Amongst the different stakeholders involved in the collective action for agri- environmental public goods, the role and the attitude of farmers is particularly relevant, since farmers may be considered the most relevant decision makers to influence when managing positive and negative externalities from agriculture.
As discussed in chapter 2, mainstream policies have strongly focused on the external drivers – financial and regulatory – for pushing farmers to increase the protection and/or the provision of public goods. Collective initiatives, on the opposite, for their nature, shade the lights also on additional factors and call for a deeper understanding of the dynamics of policy intervention for public goods provision. Moreover, it is increasingly recognised that the effectiveness of policy intervention is also influenced by the internal drivers, namely by farmers’ attitudes, motivations and norms.
Thus, understanding the reasons and the behaviours of farmers and how advice can help influence behavioural change is therefore crucial, since only through this understating is possible to incite voluntary environmental action (Blackstock et al., 2010).
The analysis of these drivers have been traditionally analysed through the theories of behaviours, especially through the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviours’ (TpB) and through the ‘Theory of Reasoned Action’ (TORA). These theories provide a conceptual framework for exploring farmers’ attitudes and intentions (Garforth et al., 2006). On the basis of these theories, DEFRA (2008, p. 5) developed a framework where it is highlighted that the intention of a farmer to adopt a particular behaviour is a function of both internal and external factors.
Internal factors are related to farmers’ attitudes, of social factors and of past behaviours. External factors may be defined (OECD, 2012b, p. 41) as ‘monetary and effort factors which are stimulated by traditional market-based policy interventions’. Several kinds of policies aim to alter behaviour by lowering the financial cost of desirable behaviour or discourage undesirable behaviour. Traditionally, these kinds of policy instruments (subsidies, taxes, tax relief) are the main policy instruments to incite or discourage behavioural change.
As showed in figure 3.2, while external factors (government intervention) may incentive farmers to undertake the desired action, also internal factors such as habits and cognition (emotions, personal capacity and biases) and social norms are very relevant. This approach, based on behavioural economics, stresses the importance of developing a common framework that bridges economics, sociology and psychology and that allows jointly addressing the internal and external drivers that affect farmers’ behaviours. As highlighted by DEFRA (2008), this integrated approach, by looking beyond the traditional approach of regulation and market-based instruments, provide a
46
more comprehensive framework that address motivational issues, social dynamics and information barriers. Thus, while traditional intervention (government intervention and market-based instruments) have operated mainly on external factors, this approach acknowledges the importance of two additional dimensions:
- Social norms, since individual choices are also influenced by observation, social
learning, group dynamics and social expectations (Social Market Foundation, 2008). This is particularly true in case of management of Common Pool Resources, where people usually are prepared to act if others do it as well. - Attitudes, since farmers’ behaviours are strongly related to the personal and
professional capacity, as well as to the personal values, emotions and biases.
Figure 3.2 – Factors affecting farmers’ behaviours
Source: Adapted from OECD (2012a) and SMF (2008)
Thus, this approach involves a broader conceptualisation of behaviours, where farmers’ decision making is not based only on a cost-benefits analysis (the approach usually undertaken by mainstream policies for public goods, see chapter 2), but it also influenced by a wide range of other social and personal factors. As underlined in a recent study carried out by the Social Market Foundation (2008): ‘…people, it turns out, often aren’t actually at all “rational” in their behaviours and decisions … they are just as likely to do what they have always done, what impulse tells them to do or what their neighbours or friends generally do … they are often well aware that their own actions aren’t in their best interests’.
Moreover, the increased complexity of this framework calls for multiple interventions at multiple levels, since these interventions should influence both personal factors (intentions and attitudes) and social norms. As suggested by DEFRA (2008, p. 7), different approaches are needed to address internal and external barriers and social factors. Regulatory and market-based instruments are usually focused on external factors that make desirable behaviours easier or cheaper and less desirable behaviours harder or more expensive. On the opposite, internal barriers are usually addressed
47
through communication, advice and other engagement options that influence attitudes and social norms.
In the framework of the present research, the internal barriers are particularly relevant, since the willingness of farmers to participate into collective action for agri- environmental public goods is strongly related to monetary and non-monetary benefits deriving from the participation, but also to other dimensions that help to reinforce behaviours, shape attitudes and derive social capital. As put it by Garforth et
al. (2006): ‘it is widely recognised that farmers’ business and land management
decision are influenced by factors other than profit, including perception of risk, attitudes (including attitudes towards new technology, government and the future of the agricultural sector), issues of family life cycles and succession, and the opinions of other farmers and of the professionals with whom they interact. As rural economic and land use policy itself become less focused on production and productivity, it is essential that policy analysis and appraisal is informed by models that reflect this wider range of factors which influence farmers’ decisions’.
With specific reference to agri-environmental public goods, Defrancesco et al. (2008) show that the main factors that influence the adoption of agri-environmental measures are: farmer’s future in the business and the relationship with neighbouring farmers and their opinions on environmentally friendly practices. The study suggests that farmers’ attitudes and beliefs, as well as local behavioural influences, should be taken more into account when designing and communicating agri-environmental measures.
The participation of farmers in collective initiatives is highly influenced by the individual motivation of farmers but also by the presence of a bottom-up culture of cooperation in rural areas, which may result in community-of-interest based approaches. As emphasised by DEFRA (2008, p. 17), this is particularly true when collective action are related to public goods and CPRs, where ‘a process of common- value identification and deliberative group choice can establish a consensus and rules that should govern resource use. In this way, people in situations of collective choice get involved to minimise some element of risk through mutual self-restraint (and monitoring) to produce a stable equilibrium. Fostering a ‘culture of cooperation’ is achievable - where willing parties have been proven to come together to tackle environmental problems’.
As will be further discussed in next section, this culture of cooperation, trust and reciprocity amongst farmers and more generally amongst rural stakeholders may be defined through the concept of social capital, a key pre-requisite for successful collective action for public goods provision.
48