Open access publications in the SLU publication database

Abstract

This deliverable D2.1 of the LIFT project presents the conceptual framework on farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches across the supply chain. The framework combines behavioural theories on individual decision‐making with drivers and methodological considerations related to economic decision‐making. Furthermore, deliverable D2.1 presents a systematic map of previous literature related to farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches. The purpose of D2.1 is to guide data collection through the LIFT survey to farmers and interview studies in WP (workpackage) 2 of LIFT.

The theoretical part of the framework departs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) for understanding individual decision‐making, extended by integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Furthermore, the framework distinguishes between endogenous, as well as exogenous factors such as: (i) motivational factors; (ii) farmers’ self‐identity; (iii) farm characteristics; (iv) supply‐chain characteristics; (v) institutional conditions (including policy framework); and (vi) consumers’ preferences and demands. Factors serve to identify the main drivers of farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches, and to enable comparison of different dimensions of up‐take across territories. The decision to implement the up‐take of ecological approaches is approached across four different dimensions, according to their: (i) timing; (ii) intensity/extensity; (iii) size of change, and (iv) type of practices adopted. These dimensions are important since the factors that affect the decision to adopt have been found to differ across them. The deliverable continues by presenting a systematic map of previous literature related to farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches. Two methodological approaches for understanding the drivers of farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches are suggested: psychometric methodology and qualitative interviews, using the means‐end chain and laddering approach. The deliverable ends by concluding on implications for the LIFT farmers’ survey.