Decision-Making in Agriculture: Why do Farmers Decide to Adopt a New Practice?

Current rates of environmental degradation demand changes to the way in which food is produced. Transforming agricultural production requires both the development and the adoption of new practices that facilitate high yields at least environmental cost. Many beneficial practices have already been developed and their limited adoption now constrains their potential to deliver sustainable agriculture. Greater understanding is needed of why farmers decide to adopt or reject different practices. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) has been used in an agricultural context to examine adoption. The TAM posits that perceptions of a practice’s usefulness (PU) and its ease of use (PEOU) drive its adoption. In this thesis, the TAM was first revised such that adoption was considered as being composed of five stages to reflect the preparatory and trial phases that precede the full-scale adoption of agricultural practices. An empirical study was then conducted to investigate farmers’ attitudes in the Southern Ontario region towards agrominerals and cover cropping – two practices that show promise in maintaining soil health at low environmental cost. PU and PEOU were found to be significant drivers of the adoption of agrominerals. However, PEOU did not have a significant direct effect on farmers’ decisions to continue using cover crops. A longitudinal study that applies the revised TAM is needed to ascertain whether it is effective in explaining the adoption process, particularly in the latter stages of adoption when PEOU appears to be of less importance and PU alone appears to largely drive farmers’ decision-making. The concern participants showed for the potential environmental impacts of agriculture highly varied with those showing greater concern reporting greater intentions of adopting agrominerals. Socio-economic and agro-ecological factors were found not to be correlated to adoption. This study demonstrated the need to increase knowledge sharing between farmers and scientists to facilitate the transition towards sustainable agricultural production

A comparison of the costs of delivering conservation through land sharing and land sparing

Globally, drastic biodiversity declines and the worsening climate crisis demand overhaul of existing land use policies which have failed to reconcile food production and environmental conservation. In Europe, most existing policies compensate farmers to voluntarily implement land-sharing measures, commonly referred to as wildlife-friendly farming, which seeks to deliver conservation benefits on the farmed land through agri-environment schemes (AES) offering a fixed price per hectare. Investment into sharing has continued despite the accumulation of evidence showing that, for the same amount of lost food production, substantially more would be delivered for conservation and climate change mitigation with the contrasting approach of land sparing, where high-yield farming allows large areas to be spared elsewhere in the landscape as (semi-)natural habitat. Following Brexit, the UK has the opportunity to rethink this approach; but until now policy decisions have had to be made without estimates of the relative taxpayer costs of using sharing and sparing to deliver target conservation outcomes. Addressing this critical research gap was the primary aim of this thesis, as follows. In this thesis, I sought to uncover the taxpayer and food production costs of delivering meaningful conservation outcomes with land sharing and sparing. First, I conducted a novel comparison of the costs of monitoring sharing and sparing schemes for compliance and effectiveness. Monitoring is a fundamental, though often overlooked, taxpayer cost. In terms of effectiveness monitoring, I found current monitoring levels to be insufficient to precisely determine the effects on wild species of sharing schemes; in contrast, the same effort could deliver relatively precise estimates of the much larger effects of sparing. Furthermore, turning to compliance monitoring, I found the cost-effectiveness of existing English AES could be vastly improved with more compliance monitoring; however, this may be politically unpopular with farmers. It is therefore notable that I also found relatively less money was wasted when monitoring sparing at a sub-optimal rate compared to sharing. Second, I used a discrete choice experiment involving 118 arable farmers to establish their willingness to accept (WTA) payment to participate in sharing and sparing schemes that delivered the same biodiversity and carbon outcomes. I found that all but the most farmland-tolerant outcomes were delivered at less taxpayer expense with sparing. Third, combining this assessment of farmer WTA with knowledge of how much schemes must be monitored, I compared the taxpayer costs of delivering the same environmental outcomes with fixed-price sharing and sparing schemes which paid all recruits at the WTA of the least-willing farmer required in the scheme to deliver the target outcome. I found that sparing delivered the same outcomes at less than half the taxpayer cost of sharing; and, importantly, sparing saw only 79% of the food production lost under sharing. Fourth, I examined the distribution of farmer stated WTA, finding that variation in responses was mostly driven by factors other than lost gross margin. Given marked inter-farmer variation in their stated WTA, variable-price schemes, which pay farmers their stated WTA rather than the rate required by the least-willing participant, offered savings to both sharing and sparing schemes. However, even under variable pricing, sharing was not cheaper than sparing in delivering our more farmland-sensitive outcomes. Finally, I examined whether a land-purchase strategy, where the government purchases land and then contracts organisations to manage and create habitat on it, would deliver sparing at less expense than a farm-subsidy approach. I found land purchase was more cost effective than the farm-subsidy approach if long timeframes, low discount rates and large budgets were considered; however the impacts on farming communities of largescale ownership changes warrant further consideration. To conclude, I found overwhelming evidence for UK arable farming that land sparing can deliver biodiversity and carbon outcomes at substantially lower cost than land sharing both in terms of taxpayer costs and lost food production. The relative costs of sharing would increase even more with consideration of species that do not tolerate farmland, in a country with a shorter history of agriculture where fewer habitat specialists have gone extinct compared the UK, and if the production required elsewhere to compensate greater volume of food production lost under sharing was taken into account. Furthermore, the effects of sharing may be near-impossible to precisely determine with current monitoring efforts and continued sub-optimal compliance monitoring would increase the costs of sharing-like options relatively more than the more sparing-like options of existing AES. Whilst variable pricing and land purchase may further reduce the costs of sparing, the costs of delivering meaningful environmental outcomes are most substantially reduced by pursuing a land-sparing, rather than land-sharing, approach. This work is of considerable significance to the UK government, given that prevailing land-sharing policy approaches can at best deliver less than half the environmental outcomes delivered by the same budget spent on land sparing.Cambridge Trust; Hughes Hal

Comparing the cost-effectiveness of delivering environmental benefits through subsidies to farmers vs land purchase

Action to address biodiversity declines and climate change must be taken on farmland which covers half of all habitable land on Earth. European governments have predominantly invested in agri-environment schemes (AES) which pay farmers to change their management to the benefit of the environment. We conducted the first UK-based comparison of the cost-effectiveness of this approach with an alternative strategy of land purchase where organisations are contracted to manage government-owned land for nature. We took a novel approach to estimating the costs of paying farmers in an AES to create and manage habitat using results from a choice experiment conducted amongst 118 arable farmers in England. We estimated the costs of land purchase, and its subsequent management, based on the literature. Given equal annual spend, we estimated the benefit delivered by each strategy for a suite of environmental outcomes (bullfinches, lapwings, yellowhammers and climate mitigation) and explored how relative cost-effectiveness varied with budget, discount rate and timescale. We found AES were more cost-effective if budgets for environmental policies do not increase and where the environmental outcome is expected to decline rapidly without action in the next 50 years. However, if budgets were to increase considerably to reflect the scale of the biodiversity and climate crises, land purchase would deliver more biodiversity and climate mitigation in the longer term. The cost-effectiveness of the land-purchase strategy was sensitive to fluctuations in land prices which presents a challenge to policymaking which also must consider the impacts on farming communities of large-scale changes in land ownership.LC was funded by a Cambridge International and Hughes Hall Scholarship. AB was supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Merit Award

Data from: Urban development, land sharing and land sparing: the importance of considering restoration

1. At present, there is limited knowledge of how best to reconcile urban development with biodiversity conservation, and in particular whether populations of wild species would be greater under low-density housing (with larger gardens), or high-density housing (allowing more area to be left as undeveloped green spaces). The land sharing/sparing framework – originally developed in the context of farming – can be applied to address this question. 2. We sampled the abundance of trees in the city of Cambridge, UK, along a gradient of human density. We designed different scenarios of urban growth to accommodate the human population predicted in 2031. For each scenario, we projected the future city-wide tree population size and quantified its carbon sequestration potential. We also considered, for the first time in an urban sharing-sparing context, the implications of habitat restoration on degraded urban green space. 3. We found that the density of most native and non-native tree species is presently highest in areas of low human density, compared to both higher-density areas and green space (which is largely maintained with few trees). However, restoring woodland in green spaces would lead to far greater densities of native trees than on any existing land use. Hence provided >2% of green space is restored, native tree population sizes would be larger if urban growth followed a land-sparing approach. Likewise, carbon sequestration would be maximised under land sparing coupled with restoration, but even so only a maximum of 2.5% of the city’s annual greenhouse gas emissions could be offset. 4. Whilst both tree populations and carbon storage thus appear to benefit from land-sparing development, the risk that this might widen the existing disconnect between people and nature must also be addressed – perhaps through a combination of adding housing in low density areas while ensuring these are in close proximity to high-quality green space. 5. Synthesis and applications. In regions which have already been cleared of intact habitat, a combination of land-sparing urban development with the restoration of green space could accommodate urban population growth whilst dramatically improving the existing status of local tree populations. Where cities are expanding into intact habitat, the merits of urban development by land sparing may be even more pronounced. Studies in such regions are urgently needed

Sotrovimab therapy elicits antiviral activities against Omicron BQ.1.1 and XBB.1.5 in sera of immunocompromised patients [letter]

International audienc