| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Manevska Tasevska, Gordana, et al.
(författare)
-
Strukturomvandling och effektivitet i det svenska jordbruket
- 2015
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Denna studie undersöker hur det svenska lantbrukets struktur har utvecklats jämfört med ett antal konkurrentländer (Danmark, Finland, Tyskland och Storbritannien) samt hur stukturvariabler såsom företagsstorlek, specialisering, och entreprenörsverksamhet påverkar lantbrukets effektivitet. Resultaten visar att strukturomvandlingen har gått långsammare än i konkurrentländerna, även om utvecklingsdynamiken skiljer sig påtagligt mellan olika regioner och produktionsgrenar. Snabbast har strukturen förändrats för mjölk- och grisföretag, som också är de mest effektiva. Dessutom visar resultaten att hög specialisering ökar effektiviteten för grisgårdar och att ökad gårdsstorlek och entreprenörsaktiviteter ökar effektiviteten för alla produktionsgrenar.
|
|
| 3. |
- Basnet, Shyam Kumar, et al.
(författare)
-
Explaining the Process for Conversion to Organic Dairy Farming in Sweden: An Alternative Modelling Approach
- 2018
-
Ingår i: German journal of agricultural economics. - 2191-4028. ; 67, s. 14-30
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To date, the process of conversion to organic farming has been analysed as a choice between only two alternatives, conventional versus organic farming. However, the conversion process in the EU is a twotier decision, which brings the possibility of a nested structure between mixed and organic farming. In the context of Sweden, where the conversion investment is flexible, we attempted to identify economic determinants of the organic conversion process. For that purpose, we applied the nested Logit random utility maximisation (NLRUM) model to data from the Swedish farm accounting data network for 2002-2012. The analysis showed that milk prices, milk yield and environmental support payments play a significant role in the organic conversion process. As expected, a decrease in conventional milk prices would induce conventional farms to convert to organic production. The scale of conversion to organic farming was more pronounced among dairy farms located in regions with higher environmental support payments, and in regions endowed with more pasture land and leys.
|
|
| 4. |
- Carlsson, Cecilia, et al.
(författare)
-
Svenska nötköttsproducenter kan minska sina kostnader
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Policy brief / AgriFood Economics Centre.
-
Annan publikation (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Den svenska nötköttsproduktionen minskar och lönsamheten är låg. I denna studie undersöker vi hur mycket svenska nötköttsproducenter skulle kunna minska sina kostnader och hur olika egenskaper hos gårdarna påverkar effektiviteten i produktionen. Resultaten visar att: Svenska nötköttsproducenter kan minska sina rörliga kostnader med cirka 25 % i genomsnitt. Störst besparingar kan göras för foder, energi och djurhantering. Gårdar med god tillgång till bete är generellt mer effektiva. Beteshållning kan kräva en ökad arbetsinsats men denna kostnad vägs upp av lägre foderkostnader. Stora gårdar, mätt i ekonomiska termer, och specialiserade gårdar har större möjligheter till förbättringar än genomsnittet.
|
|
| 5. |
- Coopmans, Isabeau, et al.
(författare)
-
Understanding farm generational renewal and its influencing factors in Europe
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of Rural Studies. - : Elsevier. - 0743-0167 .- 1873-1392. ; 86, s. 398-409
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Understanding the complex process of generational renewal (GR) in agriculture is essential for supporting the continuation of farming. This paper demonstrates how multiple factors, simultaneously and through their mutual interactions, influence GR and related individual decision-making processes. Results originated from 155 indepth interviews performed on 85 farms in eleven European regions, and were triangulated with the literature. Our analysis, combining inductive and deductive approaches, revealed three conceptual phases (successor identity formation, farm succession process, and farm development) and fourteen factors important to understand GR. We elaborate how these factors interact, hence exert their impact on (one of) the phases in a complex and variable way. Implications highlight potential pitfalls and opportunities for attracting people into agriculture. Although policy-makers should be aware of their limited ability to affect GR by targeting the first phase, we propose some ideas that would complement current existing measures acting on the third phase.
|
|
| 6. |
- Ha, Thi Thanh Mai, et al.
(författare)
-
Heterogeneity in farmers’ stage of behavioural change in intercropping adoption: an application of the Transtheoretical Model
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Agricultural and Food Economics. - 2193-7532. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Despite its potential economic and environmental benefits, intercropping adoption remains limited in Europe. Drawing upon the Transtheoretical Model, this paper views adoption decision as stages of behavioural change. The paper aims to investigate socioeconomic, behavioural, and policy factors associated with stage of change in intercropping adoption in Sweden. Exploratory factor analysis and generalized ordered logit regression were performed on data from a nation-wide farmer survey conducted in 2021 with 388 usable replies. Results show that farmers with better knowledge of intercropping, a higher evaluation of financial benefits and ease of intercropping, and ley growers were more likely to progress to higher stages of the adoption process. Farmers who have higher perceived seed separation costs, a lower education level, and are older tend to remain at lower stages. Perceived environmental benefits of intercropping, household income, and instrumental values of farming could turn non-adopters into either potential adopters or actual adopters. We found no significant association between policy support and stage of change in intercropping adoption. Policy implications aimed at fostering intercropping adoption were discussed.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Hansson, Helena, et al.
(författare)
-
D5.3 Resilience assessment of current farming systems across the European Union
- 2019
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- For improving sustainability and resilience of EU farming system, the current state needs to be assessed, before being able to move on to future scenarios. Assessing sustainability and resilience of farming systems is a multi-faceted research challenge in terms of the scientific domains and scales of integration (farm, household, farming system level) that need to be covered. Hence, in SURE-Farm, multiple approaches are used to evaluate current sustainability and resilience and its underlying structures and drivers. To maintain consistency across the different approaches, all approaches are connected to a resilience framework which was developed for the unique purposes of SURE-Farm. The resilience framework follows five steps: 1) the farming system (resilience of what?), 2) challenges (resilience to what?), 3) functions (resilience for what purpose?), 4) resilience capacities, 5) resilience attributes (what enhances resilience?). The framework was operationalized in 11 case studies across the EU. Applied approaches differ in disciplinary orientation and the farming system process they focus on. Three approaches focus on risk management: 1) a farm survey with a main focus on risk management and risk management strategies, 2) interviews on farmers’ learning capacity and networks of influence, and 3) Focus Groups on risk management. Two approaches address farm demographics: 4) interviews on farm demographics, and 5) AgriPoliS Focus Group workshops on structural change of farming systems from a (farm) demographics perspective. One approach applied so far addresses governance: 6) the Resilience Assessment Tool that evaluates how policies and legislation support resilience of farming systems. Two methods address agricultural production and delivery of public and private goods: 7) the Framework of Participatory Impact Assessment for sustainable and resilient farming systems (FoPIA-SURE-Farm), aiming to integrate multiple perspectives at farming system level, and 8) the Ecosystem Services assessment that evaluates the delivery of public and private goods. In a few case studies, additional methods were applied. Specifically, in the Italian case study, additional statistical approaches were used to increase the support for risk management options (Appendix A and Appendix B). Results of the different methods were compared and synthesized per step of the resilience framework. Synthesized results were used to determine the position of the farming system in the adaptive cycle, i.e. in the exploitation, conservation, release, or reorganization phase. Dependent on the current phase of the farming system, strategies for improving sustainability and resilience were developed. Results were synthesized around the three aspects characterizing the SURE-Farm framework, i.e. (i) it studies resilience at the farming system level, (ii) considers three resilience capacities, and (iii) assesses resilience in the context of the (changing) functions of the system. (i) Many actors are part of the farming system. However, resilience-enhancing strategies are mostly defined at the farm level. In each farming system multiple actors are considered to be part of the system, such as consultants, neighbors, local selling networks and nature organizations. The number of different farming system actors beyond the focal farmers varies between 4 (in French beef and Italian hazelnut systems) and 14 (large-scale arable systems in the UK). These large numbers of actors illustrate the relevance of looking at farming system level rather than at farm level. It also suggests that discussions about resilience and future strategies need to embrace all of these actors. (ii) At system level there is a low perceived capacity to transform. Yet, most systems appear to be at the start of a period in which (incremental) transformation is required. At system level, the capacity to transform is perceived to be relatively low, except in the Romanian mixed farming system. The latter may reflect a combination of ample room to grow and a relatively stable environment (especially when compared to the past 30 to 50 years). The relatively low capacity to transform in the majority of systems is not in line with the suggestion that most systems are at the start of (incremental) transformation, or, at least, reached a situation in which they can no longer grow. Further growth is only deemed possible in the Belgium dairy, Italian hazelnut, Polish fruit and Romanian mixed farming systems. (iii) System functions score well with regard to the delivery of high-quality and safe food but face problems with quality of rural life and protecting biodiversity. Resilience capacities can only be understood in the context of the functions to be delivered by a farming system. We find that across all systems required functions are a mix of private and public goods. With regard to the capacity to deliver private goods, all systems perform well with respect to high-quality and safe food. Viability of farm income is regarded moderate or low in the livestock systems in Belgium (dairy), France (beef) and Sweden (broilers), and the fruit farming system in Poland. Across all functions, attention is especially needed for the delivery of public goods. More specifically the quality of rural life and infrastructure are frequently classified as being important, but currently performing bad. Despite the concerns about the delivery of public goods, many future strategies still focus on improving the delivery of private goods. Suggestions in the area of public goods include among others the implementation of conservation farming in the UK arable system, improved water management in the Italian hazelnut system, and introduction of technologies which reduce the use of herbicides in Polish fruit systems. It is questionable whether these are sufficient to address the need to improve the maintenance of natural resources, biodiversity and attractiveness of rural areas. With regard to the changing of functions over time, we did not find evidence for this in our farming systems.
|
|
| 9. |
- Hansson, Helena, et al.
(författare)
-
Drivers of farmers' up-take of ecological approaches - a conceptual framework with a behavioural focus
- 2019
-
Rapport (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)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.
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
