Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices

Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Analysis

Farmer identity, ethical attitudes and environmental practices Iddisah Sulemana ⁎, Harvey S. James Jr. Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 10 July 2013 Received in revised form 16 December 2013 Accepted 27 December 2013 Available online 20 January 2014 Keywords: Farmer identity Farmer types Environmental ethics Ethical decision-making

a b s t r a c t There is increasing concern for environmental degradation caused by agricultural activity. Although large-scale agribusinesses are generally implicated, farmers themselves are often seen as culpable. We investigate whether farmer identity is an important factor affecting their attitudes toward the environment and farm management and conservation practices. Identity refers to a general outlook or perspective, whereas attitudes refer to beliefs or preferences about specific things. We investigate which identities matter most for affecting how farmers view the appropriateness of specific ethical situations relating to environmental management practices. We use a social–psychological model of ethical decision-making, and data from a survey of Missouri farmers, to examine the relationship between the identity of farmers and their attitudes toward ethical issues affecting the environment. We find that a conservation identity, in contrast to a productivist one, is most closely correlated with attitudes toward ethical environmental issues, although there is also an important interaction effect with one's view about the future. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction There is increasing concern for environmental degradation caused by agricultural activity (Dohonoe, 2003). Although large-scale agribusinesses are generally implicated, individual farmers themselves are often being challenged as culpable. This is especially true if farmers are aware of problems and can take action but fail to do so (Karlsson, 2007). Moreover, culpability of farmers for environmental harm can also carry legal repercussions. For example, Scanlon (2002) argues that while the law should balance environmental damage with social benefits of new agricultural technologies, an organic farmer whose crops are contaminated with GM pollen from a neighbor's fields could, under some circumstances, bring suit against the neighbor under a claim of nuisance or trespass. This focus on farmers, in addition to large-scale agribusinesses or the agricultural food sector as a whole, is based on the belief that good environmental management and sound conservational practices are key to sustainable agricultural development and that farmers are in a better position to implement these than businesses generally. Importantly, there is growing evidence that farmers in advanced economies are becoming increasingly “conservation-oriented” (Burton and Wilson, 2006). Moreover, shifts in farmer attitudes toward “conservation-oriented thinking” are increasingly recognized as an indicator of the success of educational and policy efforts (see Wilson and Hart, 2001). To this end, some studies have investigated the role of farmers' attitudes toward best management practices for environmental conservation practices (e.g., Baumgart-Getz et al., 2012). However, what is not fully known is what drives farmers to become more ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 5733036748. E-mail address: [email protected] (I. Sulemana). 0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.011

“conservation oriented” in their attitudes and behaviors. Of the factors that could be at play, including economic incentives and innate desires for improving the environment, farmer identity might be an important factor (McGuire et al., 2012). For instance, Michel-Guillou and Moser (2006) examine differences between farmers who maintain traditional agricultural practices and farmers who adopt practices that preserve the environment. They find that social factors and public image were more important than a general concern for the environment in influencing farmers' commitment to pro-environmental actions, suggesting that identity matters to them. Sitko (2008) shows how Zambian farmers grow maize as a symbol of their identity as modern farmers, despite the country's inability to meet their food security needs. Moreover, a growing literature examines characteristics of what it means to be a good farmer (Burton, 2004; James and Hendrickson, 2010; Sutherland, 2013). In this context, relevant elements of identity include how farmers see or think about themselves and how they think or want others to see them. Farmer typologies are many and varied in the literature (Darnhofer and Walder, 2013). Some of these typologies are based on farmers' perception about themselves, while others are based on their actual farming practices. Even though these typologies have been criticized on the grounds that they do not fully capture farmer behavior and are therefore limited in their usefulness for policy formulation purposes (Guillem et al., 2012), they can give researchers and policymakers useful insights into how farmers' perceptions about themselves affect their decisions regarding farming practices. As Seabrook and Higgins (1998, p. 99) state, “the images a farmer holds about him/herself significantly affect behavior and the decisions made about the farm business.” In this paper, we examine how farmer identity and farmer types affect their attitudes toward ethically-sensitive environmental issues.

50

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

To this end we focus on the following questions: Do farmer identities matter and, if so, then what identities are most important in affecting the ethical attitudes that farmers have regarding environmental practices? Because identity is a complex concept, we focus on one specific aspect of identity: the lens or worldview they use to see themselves, others and their surrounding environment. Following James and Hendrickson (2010), we investigate three different possible identities. The first contrasts a pro-environmental or conservationist identity with a productivist identity, which are two of the most commonly examined in the agri-literature; the second considers a farmer's sense of optimism or pessimism; and the third contrasts a preference for traditional versus technological practices. Because attitudes have been shown to correlate with and/or influence actual behavior (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977; Lynne et al., 1998), farmer attitudes toward ethical environmental issues are likely to influence their actual behavior toward these issues. And since good environmental practices are crucial for sustainable agricultural development, our paper is motivated by the fact that an understanding of the relationship(s) among farmer identities and farmer ethical attitudes can help identify alternative paths for promoting sound environmental practices among farmers. 2. Background Literature 2.1. Farmer Identity and Farmer Types There is an extensive literature seeking to distinguish among different types and identities of farmers. For example, using a social survey approach and time-series census data on farmers in Scotland, Guillem et al. (2012) identify four heterogeneous farmer typologies: profit oriented farmers, multifunctionalists, traditionalists, and hobbyists. Studying farmer behaviors toward Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland, Barnes et al. (2011) develop an attitude- and values-based farmer typology that includes resistors, apathists, and multifunctionalists types. Addressing the role of farmers' beliefs and representation on their attitudes toward environmental actions, Michel-Guillou and Moser (2006) distinguish between traditional farmers and pro-environmental farmers. Some scholars focus on the motivations farmers have toward certain forms of farming. For instance, Fairweather (1999) distinguishes between committed and pragmatic, whereas Schoon and Te Grotenhuis (2000) categorize farmers into idealistically motivated and practically motivated farmers. Darnhofer et al. (2005) develop a more extensive typology that consists of committed conventional farmers, pragmatic conventional farmers, environment-conscious but not organic farmers, pragmatic organic farmers, and committed organic farmers. A complication arises in these studies when scholars use labels for farmer types that other scholars or farmers themselves define differently. For example, Burton and Wilson (2006) initially categorize farmers into four types based on “four recurring typological groups” that they identify from past studies. Traditional, or conservative productivist, who maintains cultural notions of stewardship; agribusiness person, who is dominated by the profit motive; conservationist, who focuses on environmental and life-style concerns; and entrepreneur, who focuses less on standard agriculture production and more on non-agricultural sources of income. However, the authors explain that farmers from a pilot study of 13 farmers rejected two of the terms — traditional, because they felt it was “old-fashioned”, and entrepreneur, because it portrayed a “wheeler-dealing” image that contravenes their sense of rurality and stability. Consequently, the authors arrived at the following farmer types: agricultural producer, agribusiness person, conservationist, and diversifier. These and other studies demonstrate that farmer types and identities can be varied and complex, can overlap, and will not always have clear-cut boundaries among them. Thus, Burton and Wilson (2006) show that a farmer who is of one type may also have characteristics that belong to another type. Similarly, McGuire et al. (2012) argue

that farmers can have a nesting of identities, with the most salient identity being the one that is most often enacted through a farmer's behavior and farm management practices. Our purpose is not to sort out these differing approaches to studies of farmer types and identities. Rather, it is to note that as complex and conflicting as these studies sometimes are, there seems to be a consistent demarcation between the conservationist identity and the economic or productivist identity. In other words, scholars generally recognize that there are farmers who see themselves or whom they identify as oriented toward an environmental or conservational type and farmers who seem to focus primarily on the business or economic side of agricultural activity. Therefore, in our study we consider conservationist and productivist as two important and relevant types of farmer identities. However, conservationist and productivist identities are not the only ones that might be relevant, as other identities have been considered in the literature, such as optimism versus pessimism, and a preference for technology over traditional living. For example, research has found that a sense of optimism is correlated with a number of important work and life choices, such as greater work effort, a later retirement age, the decision to marry, and tendencies to save more (Puri and Robinson, 2007), as well as entrepreneurial success (Crane and Crane, 2007). We speculate that because optimism has been found to correlate with a number of work–life considerations, whether a farmer sees him or herself and circumstances optimistically or pessimistically might also correlate with their environmental attitudes and behaviors. In addition, Wendell Berry (1997) strongly criticizes a modern, technological mindset among agricultural producers. Using the example of modern, technologically-equipped homes, Berry states: With its array of gadgets and machines, all powered by energies that are destructive of land or air or water, and connected to work, market, school, recreation, etc., by gasoline engines, the modern home is a veritable factor of waste and destruction. It is the mainstay of the economy of money. But within the economies of energy and nature, it is a catastrophe. It takes the world's goods and converts them into garbage, sewage, and noxious fumes — for none of which we have found a use. Thus, in contrast to a technological orientation, identifying with a more traditional and less technologically-oriented agriculture might also be an important identity for farmers. James and Hendrickson (2010) examine all three identities in their study to determine whether farmers of the middle – that is, farmers with annual farm sales between $100,000 and $250,000 – are better stewards and provide more important social, ecological and political benefits to society than small and large-scale farmers. Although the authors found little evidence for this, they found evidence that all three farmer identities (conservationist v. productivist, optimistic v. pessimistic, and tradition v. technology) correlate with farm size. For example, they state that “middle-scale farmers are more pessimistic and anxious about their role in the future of agriculture” (p. 571). Moreover, large-scale farmers tend to be more productivist, prefer technology over tradition and be more optimistic than small-scale farmers. Since farm size is recognized as important for environmental reasons, such as the adoption of conservation practices (see Amsalu and de Graaff, 2007; Jara-Rojas et al., 2012), then it follows that other farmer identities might affect environmental ethics. Hence, we focus our study on the conservationist v. productivist, optimist v. pessimist, and technological v, traditional farmer identities. 2.2. Identity, Attitudes, and Behavior Identity and attitudes are related, but they are distinct constructs. A person's identity defines who they are, how they view themselves, how they view the world around them, and how they think as well as want others to perceive them. Identity therefore embraces their general

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

perspective or outlook on life and themselves. Although identity is personally constructed, it can be, and often is, affected by one's social environment. An attitude, in contrast, is an expression, belief, opinion, evaluation or preference of favor or disfavor regarding a relatively specific person, event, place or thing. Thus, one can view himself as a farmer (his identity), and then favor, say, the genetic modification of plants and crops (his attitude). Similarly, one can view himself as a conservationist (his identity) and then disfavor large-scale monocropping farming practices (his attitude). There is a growing consensus within the literature that attitudes affect behavior (e.g. Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977; Andrews et al., 2009; Best, 2010; Lynne et al., 1998; Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008; Terry et al., 1999). Based on a study of the effect of environmental concern on the probability of adoption of organic farming, Best (2010) tests the relationship between environmental attitudes and environmental behavior and finds that attitudes directly affect behavior and indirectly affect behavior by their effect on how a person perceives a decision situation. Ajzen and Fishbein's (1977) theory of planned behavior shows that there are several determinants of behavior, of which attitudes are one part. Nigbur et al. (2010) argue that one shortcoming of the theory of planned behavior is that it based on an individualistic view of human behavior that does not explicitly incorporate the role of identity. The authors therefore expand the theory of planned behavior by taking into account social and self-identity and find that self-identity is positively and significantly correlated with intentions to recycle and engage in recycling behavior. The authors conclude that identity can influence behavior, a finding previously identified by Terry et al. (1999). Andrews et al. (2009) study how self-identity (ethnic, national and political) could relate to attitudes toward teaching of history among British students. Their results show that attitudes are related to traditional/conservative and multicultural/liberal factors. They find that national identity is strongly correlated with attitudes toward history, and conclude that self-identity is likely to influence students' attitudes toward the teaching of history. Michaelidou and Hassan (2008) explore the extent health consciousness, food safety concern, and ethical selfidentity can predict attitude and purchase intention of organic produce. They find that ethical self-identity is a good predictor of intention to purchase organic food. As a corollary, the authors assert that ethical self-identity also affects attitude and subsequent consumption choices. In other words, ethical self-identity is associated with both attitudes and behavior.

51

apply to the decisions of farmers because the farming environment has become increasingly industrial, market-oriented, and business-like. To this end, James and Hendrickson (2008) develop a model of ethical decision-making of farmers and show that the ethical judgments of farmers are affected by the frequency with which they observe others engaging in unethical practices as well as the economic pressures farmers face. This suggests that the decisions farmers make regarding environmental practices that can be considered unethical might be affected not only by the moral disposition of farmers but also by social as well as economic considerations. Using a survey of Missouri crop and livestock producers, Cardoso and James (2012) investigate how a farmer's ethical framework affects their decision to undertake what the authors describe as “controversial farming practices.” These practices include the decision to use chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, to plant genetically modified (GM) crops, and to dehorn cattle instead of raising polled cattle breeds. The authors find evidence that a large number of farmers would choose an agricultural policy reflecting principles based on rights over one that is based on principles of utilitarianism or justice. Moreover, they find that only farm and farmer characteristics affect a farmer's decision to plant GM crops, while only a farmer's ethical framework affects their decision to use polled cattle. In contrast, the authors find that the decision to use farm chemicals includes a combination of ethical considerations and farm and farmer characteristics, suggesting that farmers might imbue ethical significant to decisions that have an environmental impact. 2.4. Summary The literature identifies a number of different types of farmers and identities of people generally. The literature also shows that there is a connection among identity, attitudes and behavior. Ethical attitudes and perspectives affect judgments about activities that have ethical significance, although such judgments are also affected by social as well as economic considerations. Unfortunately, there is very little research connecting specific identities to specific ethical attitudes, and even less focusing directly on farmers. Since many environmental practices and issues are ethical in nature (Thompson, 1995), we posit that specific identities of farmers will correlate with specific ethical attitudes that farmers have regarding certain environmental issues. Therefore, we seek to determine whether and, if so, what identities matter for farmers in affecting their attitudes toward environmental issues, especially those that have ethical implications.

2.3. Ethical Decision-making and Ethical Behavior 3. Conceptual Framework There is an extensive literature on ethical attitudes, ethical behavior and decision-making in the broader field of business. Ford and Richardson (1994) provide a comprehensive review of the literature on factors that influence ethical beliefs and decision-making. These factors are categorized into individual and situational factors. The individual factors are those related to the individual decision maker and include nationality, religion, sex, age, education, employment, and personality. Situational variables include reference groups, rewards and sanctions, codes of conduct, type of ethical conflict, organization effects, industry, and business competitiveness. A more recent review of the empirical literature on ethical decision-making is contained in O'Fallon and Butterfield (2005) in which the authors summarize and critique 174 articles published on ethical decision-making in top journals between 1996 and 2003. In spite of an extensive literature on ethical attitudes in business generally, there is a general dearth of research on the ethical attitudes, judgments and behavior of farmers. As Cardoso and James (2012, p. 378) state, “Very little research exists examining the ethical frameworks of farmers and the extent to which ethical perspectives vary among farmers and affect the decisions they make.” We follow their argument that insights derived from research on business ethics ought to

In order to link farmer identities to their attitudes toward ethicallysensitive environmental issues, we need a model of how identity is related to ethical attitudes generally. Jones (1991, p. 367) defines an ethical decision, as “a decision that is both legal and morally acceptable to the larger community… an unethical decision is either illegal or morally unacceptable to the larger community.” Several models exist explaining ethical decision-making. Examples include Ferrell and Gresham's (1985) contingency framework for ethical decision making in marketing, Hunt and Vitell's (1986) descriptive general theory of marketing ethics, and Jones's (1991) issue contingent model, among others. We follow Cardoso and James' (2012) adaptation of Trevino's (1986) person–situation interactionist model to investigate how a farmer's ethical attitudes toward some environmental issues relate with how they see or perceive themselves (i.e. their identity). The reason, as both Bartlett (2003) and Cardoso and James (2012) contend, is that Trevino's model is the most utilized and cited model for ethical decision-making and, at least compared with other models, it is a relatively simple model to utilize empirically. Trevino (1986) proposed that an individual's ethical judgment is determined by their level of cognitive moral development, individual

52

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

We use data from a 2006 survey of Missouri farmers.2 Three thousand (3000) Missouri farmers were randomly selected from a population of all active farmers in the State of Missouri (USA) to participate in the survey. Respondents were farmers with 2005 farm sales exceeding $10,000. With a response rate of 23.5%, some of the respondents were retired or just a landowner not actively producing agricultural products. We consider only respondents who were active agricultural producers at the time for which we have complete data, resulting in a sample size of 500. Even though the study took place in 2005, it remains contemporarily relevant because very little research links farmer identity to ethical attitudes of farmers regarding environmental management practices. Therefore, insights identified here can provide direction for future research efforts. Farming practices such as using chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, planting genetically modified (GM) crops, and so forth, have environmental implications (Cardoso and James, 2012). The dataset contains ethical scenarios that have implications for the environment. These scenarios were supplied to the respondent as decisions an agricultural producer might face. Respondents were then asked to indicate to what degree (based on a Likert scale from 1 to 7) they believe the activity is acceptable (= 1) or unacceptable (= 7). We consider

three specific scenarios: “A farmer applies a pesticide in windy conditions in order to keep to a production schedule” (windy ethic); “A farmer disposes of pesticide containers without rinsing them as required by law” (disposing ethic); and “A farmer continues using an herbicide even though traces of it have begun to show up in wells in his community” (herbicide ethic). If a respondent indicated a 6 or 7 for the scenario, then we indicated that the “ethic” of the person equals one, zero otherwise (e.g., “windy ethic” equals 1 if farmer indicated a 6 or 7 to the question of applying pesticides in windy conditions). Since these scenarios are activities that are either illegal or generally unacceptable in a larger community (Jones, 1991), we define them as illustrative of unethical situations. Further, we assume that a farmer who thinks these scenarios are unethical will tend to have favorable attitudes toward these activities and look at environmental management and conservation practices more favorably, whereas a farmer who thinks these scenarios are acceptable is more likely to have unfavorable attitudes toward the environment. We present variable descriptions and summary statistics for these and other variables in Table 1. Because we are interested in investigating how a farmer's identity affects their attitudes toward environmental situations that can be considered ethical or unethical, we need to describe their farmer identity types. We recognize the difficulty in adequately specifying identities, which can be complex and multifaceted. To this end we focus on one specific aspect of identity — the general worldview or outlook farmers have about themselves. We consider three general identity types: conservationist versus productivist, optimistic versus pessimistic, and technologically-oriented versus tradition-focused. First, respondents were presented with two statements, and asked to indicate which one comes closer to their views: “Protecting the environment should be given top priority, even if economic growth and jobs suffer somewhat” versus “Economic growth and job creation should be given top priority, even if the environment suffers somewhat.” If a farmer chose protecting the environment over economic growth and job creation, we identify this farmer as a “conservationist,” whereas a farmer who chose economic growth and job creation over the environment is identified as a “productivist.”3 Second, respondents were asked to indicate which statement comes closer to their views: “Humanity has a bleak future” versus “Humanity has a bright future.” We designate farmers who chose the former as “Pessimist” and “Optimist” for the latter. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate which of the following statements comes closer to their views: “We should emphasize new technology more than tradition” versus “We should emphasize tradition more than new technology.” Accordingly, we identify those who favored the former statement as “tech farmers” and those who favored the latter as “traditional.” Although not ideal, these indicators can proxy for farmer identity. The reason is because they represent general views about the environment, the future and technology, rather than preferences for or against specific issues or practices, such as applying pesticides in windy conditions or rinsing pesticide containers as prescribed by law. These latter examples are attitudes because of the relatively specific nature of the problem described. It is the general nature of the conservationist/ productivist, optimist/pessimist and tradition/technology indicators that suggests they measure or reflect a farmer's identity. Consistent with our modification of the Trevino (1986) model, we control for farm and farmer characteristics. Farm characteristics we consider include the sales the farmer made in 2005, and whether they raised farm animals. Farmer characteristics include age, gender, highest level of education attained, respondent's satisfaction with their household finances, whether they felt they had free choice control over

1 While we follow Cardoso and James' (2012) adaption of the Trevino model, our adaptation differs slightly from theirs. Cardoso and James discuss farming practices that are considered “controversial,” while we consider farming practices that can be tagged as ethical or unethical. 2 A more detailed description of the data is available in James and Hendrickson (2008).

3 We utilized these labels based on the literature reviewed above. For instance, MichelGuillou and Moser (2006) will classify the “conservationist” as “pro-environmental” and the “productivist” a “traditional” farmer. Burton and Wilson (2006) will respectively call these farmers a “conservationist” and an “agricultural producer”.

characteristics and the specific contexts of the ethical dilemma individuals face. The cognition aspect of Trevino's model is premised on Lawrence Kohlberg's (1984) model of cognitive moral development, which maps stages in how individuals determine whether a situation is right or wrong. Although Trevino's person–situation interactionist model helps to understand ethical behavior, Cardoso and James (2012) show that the model can also be used to understand the ethical attitudes and judgments of farmers in addition to their actual ethical behaviors.1 Thus, we consider how cognitive elements, a farmer's personal characteristics and situational factors affect the ethical attitudes that farmers have regarding environmental issues. We do not have measures of cognitive moral development. However, we are interested in whether a farmer's identity affects ethical attitudes regarding environmental issues. Scholars have shown that there are “consistent relationships that have been found between levels of moral reasoning and identity” (Marcia, 1988, p. 212). Therefore, we hypothesize that identity functions in a way similar to that of one's cognitive moral development (Trevino, 1986) and the ethical frameworks they use (Cardoso and James, 2012) in affecting ethical attitudes. To this end, conceptually our model is represented as follows: Ethical Attitudes ¼ f ðFarmer Identity; Farmer and Farm CharacteristicsÞ: Because ours is an exploratory study and because we are interested in understanding which identities matter in affecting ethical attitudes toward environmental issues, we do not make specific theoretical hypotheses regarding identities that should matter. However, we might expect that a farmer who has a “conservationist” identity will have more favorable ethical attitudes toward environmental management and conservation practices than one who sees him or herself as a “productivist.” Moreover, based on the Berry quote provided above, we might expect that a farmer who identifies him or herself as a traditionalist will have better environmental ethical attitudes than a farmer who prefers technology over tradition. 4. Data and Methods

Table 1 Variable definitions and summary statistics. Variable

Mean

S.D.

Binary variable equal to 1 if respondent indicated this statement was unacceptable (response was 6 or 7 on 7-point Likert scale): “A farmer applies a pesticide in windy conditions in order to keep to a production schedule;” zero otherwise Binary variable equal to 1 if respondent indicated this statement was unacceptable (response was 6 or 7 on 7-point Likert scale): “A farmer disposes of pesticide containers without rinsing them as require by law;” 0 otherwise Binary variable equal to 1 if respondent indicated this statement was unacceptable (response was 6 or 7 on 7-point Likert scale): “A farmer continues using an herbicide, even though traces of it have begun to show up in wells in his community;” zero otherwise

0.54

0.50

0.62

0.49

0.75

0.45

0.32

0.47

0.42

0.49

Optimist Pessimist Tech Traditional

Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “Protecting the environment should be given top priority, even if economic growth and jobs suffer somewhat;” 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “Economic growth and job creation should be given top priority, even if the environment suffers somewhat;” 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “Humanity has a bright future;” 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “Humanity has a bleak future;” 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “We should emphasize new technology more than tradition;” 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if responded “We should emphasize tradition more than new technology;” 0 otherwise

0.48 0.21 0.51 0.21

0.50 0.41 0.50 0.41

Control variables Control over life Satisfied with finances Farm sales Male Age Category College education Raises animals Active in church

How much freedom of choice and control you feel you have over the way your life turns out 1 (None at all) to 10 (a great deal) Satisfaction with your household's financial situation 1 (Extremely dissatisfied) to 10 (Extremely satisfied) Total farm sales in 2005 excluding government farm program payments Dummy equal 1 if Male; 0 otherwise Respondent's age category: 1 b 35, 2 = 35–44, 3 = 45–54, 4 = 55–64, 5 = 65 and older Dummy equal 1 if highest level of education is college or more; 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent raised at least one of hogs, beef, dairy, goats, or poultry; 0 otherwise Dummy variable equal to 1 if respondent attended church at least once a month; 0 otherwise.

7.85 6.55 2.58 0.94 3.51 0.37 0.77 0.63

2.02 2.41 1.42 0.23 1.15 0.48 0.42 0.48

Disposing ethic Herbicide ethic

Farmer identity Conservationist Productivist

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

Description

Dependent variables Windy ethic

53

54

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

Table 2 Correlation matrix. Variable

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(1) Windy ethic (2) Disposing ethic (3) Herbicide ethic (4) Conservationist (5) Productivist (6) Optimist (7) Pessimist (8) Technological (9) Traditional (10) Control over life (11) Satisfied w/finances (12) Farm sales (13) Male (14) Age category (15) College education (16) Raises animals (17) Active in church

1.00 0.31 0.30 0.14 −0.14 −0.02 0.08 0.07 −0.09 0.13 0.07 −0.05 −0.07 0.12 −0.02 0.07 0.04

1.00 0.29 0.11 0.00 −0.02 0.09 0.10 −0.05 0.03 0.00 0.06 −0.03 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.06

1.00 0.25 −0.17 −0.06 0.11 0.07 −0.04 0.10 0.01 −0.02 −0.02 −0.01 0.00 0.10 0.01

1.00 −0.58 −0.09 −0.03 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.02 −0.12 −0.09 0.01 −0.04 0.05 −0.07

1.00 0.26 −0.03 0.14 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.12 0.00 0.09 −0.08 0.05

1.00 −0.50 0.25 −0.13 0.20 0.18 0.09 0.10 −0.11 0.09 −0.07 0.05

1.00 −0.06 0.18 −0.09 −0.12 0.01 −0.05 0.04 −0.03 0.04 −0.02

1.00 −0.54 0.11 0.03 −0.07 0.05 −0.09 0.18 −0.07 0.01

1.00 −0.06 −0.05 −0.07 −0.04 0.03 −0.15 0.12 −0.01

1.00 0.50 0.07 0.04 −0.01 −0.03 0.07 0.12

1.00 0.03 0.07 0.18 0.02 0.11 0.14

1.00 0.06 −0.19 0.07 −0.22 0.04

1.00 −0.06 0.06 −0.06 0.01

1.00 −0.06 0.09 0.02

1.00 −0.10 0.00

1.00 0.00

1.00

Note: Bold indicates significant at 10% or better.

what happens in their life, as well as if they are active in church (attend church at least once or twice a month). To empirically test the effect of farmer identity on their attitudes toward the ethical situations relating to the environment discussed above, we specify the following econometric model: ′

′

EA ¼ α þ X β þ Z γ þ ε; where EA is a vector of the ethical attitudes of a farmer for the environmental management and conservation practices defined above, X is a vector of farmer identities, Z is a vector of control variables (farm and farmer characteristics), α is the intercept, β and γ are vectors of parameters to be estimated; and ε is the idiosyncratic error term. Because our dependent variable is binary, we estimate a probit model for each environmental scenario. 5. Results Table 1 presents the variable descriptions and summary statistics of the data. For each of the three ethical scenarios described, more than half of the respondents thought they were unethical (indicating either 6 or 7). In particular, 54% of respondents thought it is unethical for a farmer to apply pesticides in windy conditions in order to keep to a production schedule; about 62% of the respondents perceived a farmer disposing of pesticide containers without rinsing them as required by law to be unethical; and 75% of them perceived as unethical a situation in

which a farmer continues using an herbicide even though traces of it have begun to show up in the wells in his community. Thus, while there appears to be variation among farmers regarding how inappropriate each of the three practices is, it also appears that farmers generally perceive it most unethical to continue using an herbicide found in community water wells. With regard to identity, farmers were more likely to identify themselves as productivist (42%) than as conservationist (32%); as optimistic (48%) than as pessimistic (21%); and preferring technology (51%) more than tradition (21%). Other characteristics of the respondents are as follows: 94% of respondents were male, about 37% of them had at least a college education, 77% raised farm animals, and 63% of them attended church at least once a month. We present a matrix of Pearson's correlations among the variables in Table 2. The results show that conservationists, pessimists, and favoring technology over tradition are positively correlated with having the attitude that each environmental scenario is unethical. In contrast, productivists, optimists, and traditionalist tend to be more accepting of the presented scenarios, although statistical significance is found in only two of the three cases for pessimists and once for traditionalists. Thus, there appears to be some pattern connecting farmer identity to their attitudes toward ethically-sensitive environmental issues. Table 2 also indicates that control over life is positively and significantly correlated with herbicide ethic and windy ethic. Being satisfied with one's finances is positively correlated with the ethics measures, but only significant for windy ethic. There is no significant correlation between the

Table 3 Percent of farmers by identity who perceive each ethical scenario as unethical.

Conservationist Productivist Don't know Chi-sq stat (df = 2) Optimist Pessimist Don't know Chi-sq stat (df = 2) Technological Traditional Don't know Chi-sq stat (df = 2)

N

Windy ethic

Disposing ethic

Herbicide ethic

Environmental ethic

171 229 115

63.7 45.4 55.7 13.41⁎ 52.7 60.9 51.1 2.85 56.8 45.3 57.1 4.89

70.2 62.0 53.9 7.98⁎ 61.1 70.4 60.6 3.45 66.9 57.3 59.7 4.00

88.9 64.2 69.6 31.97⁎ 69.8 82.6 73.0 6.75⁎ 75.9 69.2 70.6 2.39

50.9 28.8 31.3 22.44⁎ 32.1 45.2 35.8 5.96⁎ 38.8 31.6 36.1 1.85

262 115 137 278 117 119

Note: Percentages are relative to the number who identify as each type. For example, of the 171 who identify as conservationist, 63.7% considered it unethical to apply pesticides in windy conditions in order to keep to a schedule (i.e., were coded as windy ethic = 1). Environmental ethic is a binary variable equal to 1 if each of the three individual ethics equal 1. Chi-square tests the hypothesis that the number of respondents who indicate each scenario is unethical is independent of identity type. ⁎ Indicates significance at 5% or better in a two-tailed test.

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

ethics measures on the one hand and farm sales, gender (male), college education, and active in church on the other hand. Age category is positively and significantly correlated with windy ethic, whereas raising animals is positively and significantly correlated with the herbicide and windy ethics. Table 3 presents the percent of respondents for each identity grouping for whom the windy ethic, herbicide ethic or disposing ethic variables are equal to one (i.e., who believe the variable represents an unethical practice). Although there are fewer farmers who identify themselves as conservationists than as productivists, the data show that a higher percentage of conservationists believe that it is unethical to apply pesticides in windy conditions in order to keep to a schedule, to dispose of pesticide containers without properly rinsing them, and to continue using an herbicide after traces of the chemical are found in water wells. A chi-square test of the hypothesis that the belief that these actions are unethical is independent of whether farmers consider themselves as conservationist or as productivists is rejected for each

55

ethical scenario, suggesting that identity matters. Interestingly, a higher percentage of farmers who are pessimistic than who are optimistic consider these actions as unethical, although overall the differences are not statistically significant, except in the case of the herbicide ethic. Considering the technological versus traditional perspective, we find that a greater percentage of farmers who identify with the belief that we should emphasize technology over tradition consider the three scenarios as unethical, although none of these differences are statistically significant. In addition, Table 3 reveals a pattern also observed in Table 1, which is that the percent of farmers who believe the case is inappropriate increases from windy ethic to disposing ethic to herbicide ethic. The latter case, continuing to use an herbicide that shows up in local water supplies, generally has the highest percent of farmers believing the action in unethical in each farmer identity type. Because all three ethical scenarios pertain to a practice that has environmental implications, we combine them to form a composite

Table 4 Probit results showing effects of farmer identity on windy ethic. Variable

Model 1

Conservationist

0.146 (0.155) [0.055] −0.363⁎⁎ (0.145) [−0.136]

Productivist

Optimist

Model 2

Technological

Traditional

Satisfied with finances

Farm sales

Male

Age category

College education

Raises animals

Active in church

Intercept

Pseudo-R2 Likelihood-ratio (df) % Correctly pred Average density

Model 4

0.005 (0.140) [0.002] −0.328⁎⁎ (0.166) [−0.125] 0.079⁎⁎ (0.033) [0.030] −0.003 (0.028) [−0.001] −0.036 (0.042) [−0.014] −0.411 (0.260) [−0.157] 0.126⁎⁎ (0.052) [0.048] −0.097 (0.121) [−0.037] 0.117 (0.141) [0.045] 0.056 (0.120) [0.021] −0.472 (0.426) [−0.180] 0.065 24.75 (10)⁎⁎⁎ 61.6 0.381

0.147 (0.161) [0.055] −0.373⁎⁎ (0.156) [−0.138] 0.138 (0.147) [0.051] 0.285⁎ (0.170) [0.106] 0.026 (0.151) [0.010] −0.319⁎ (0.175) [−0.118] 0.082⁎⁎ (0.034) [0.030] −0.004 (0.029) [−0.001] −0.024 (0.043) [−0.009] −0.288 (0.261) [−0.107] 0.139⁎⁎⁎ (0.053) [0.052] −0.076 (0.122) [−0.028] 0.095 (0.143) [0.035] 0.084 (0.121) [0.031] −0.711 (0.439) [−0.264] 0.108 42.08 (14)⁎⁎⁎ 66.1 0.371

0.028 (0.137) [0.011] 0.182 (0.163) [0.070]

Pessimist

Control over life

Model 3

0.087⁎⁎ (0.034) [0.033] −0.005 (0.028) [−0.002] −0.015 (0.043) [−0.006] −0.265 (0.060) [−0.099] 0.132⁎⁎ (0.053) [0.050] −0.025 (0.120) [−0.009] 0.094 (0.143) [0.035] 0.082 (0.121) [0.031] −0.712⁎ (0.426) [−0.267] 0.089 34.37 (10)⁎⁎⁎ 64.6 0.375

0.082⁎⁎ (0.033) [0.031] −0.0002 (0.028) [−0.00008] −0.031 (0.042) [−0.012] −0.368 (0.259) [−0.141] 0.120⁎⁎ (0.052) [0.046] −0.044 (0.119) [−0.017] 0.114 (0.141) [0.044] 0.056 (0.119) [0.022] −0.679 (0.420) [−0.261] 0.054 20.59 (10)⁎⁎ 60.2 0.384

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Slopes are in brackets, calculated by multiplying the coefficient by the average density. N = 500. ⁎ Significant at 10%. ⁎⁎ Significant at 5%. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at 1%.

56

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

Table 5 Probit results showing effects of farmer identity on disposing ethic. Variable Conservationist

Productivist

Model 1

Model 2

Optimist

Technological

Traditional

Satisfied with finances

Farm sales

Male

Age category

College education

Raises animals

Active in church

Intercept

Pseudo-R2 Likelihood-ratio (df) % Correctly pred Average density

Model 4

0.180 (0.141) [0.067] −0.072 (0.166) [−0.027] 0.022 (0.034) [0.008] −0.023 (0.029) [−0.009] 0.063 (0.043) [0.023] −0.274 (0.261) [−0.102] 0.107⁎⁎ (0.053) [0.040] −0.036 (0.122) [−0.013] 0.099 (0.143) [0.037] 0.153 (0.120) [0.057] −0.216 (0.429) [−0.080] 0.032 11.96 (10) 59.1 0.372

0.426⁎⁎⁎ (0.162) [0.155] 0.137 (0.156) [0.050] −0.040 (0.147) [−0.015] 0.228 (0.172) [0.083] 0.116 (0.151) [0.042] −0.174 (0.174) [−0.064] 0.024 (0.034) [0.009] −0.023 (0.029) [−0.008] 0.074⁎ (0.044) [0.027] −0.217 (0.267) [−0.079] 0.106⁎⁎ (0.053) [0.039] −0.028 (0.123) [−0.010] 0.081 (0.144) [0.030] 0.181 (0.122) [0.066] −0.476 (0.441) [−0.174] 0.06 22.85 (14)⁎⁎⁎ 62.1 0.365

0.007 (0.138) [0.003] 0.228 (0.167) [0.085]

Pessimist

Control over life

Model 3

0.433⁎⁎⁎ (0.157) [0.160] 0.126 (0.144) [0.046]

0.025 (0.034) [0.009] −0.027 (0.029) [−0.010] 0.080⁎ (0.044) [0.030] −0.212 (0.265) [−0.078] 0.105⁎⁎ (0.053) [0.039] 0.012 (0.121) [0.004] 0.085 (0.143) [0.031] 0.173 (0.121) [0.064] −0.441 (0.429) [−0.163] 0.046 17.08 (10)⁎ 60.4 0.369

0.030 (0.034) [0.011] −0.020 (0.029) [−0.007] 0.065 (0.043) [0.024] −0.246 (0.262) [−0.092] 0.097⁎ (0.053) [0.036] 0.013 (0.120) [0.005] 0.078 (0.143) [0.029] 0.150 (0.120) [0.056] −0.269 (0.423) [−0.100] 0.030 11.00 (10) 58.1 0.373

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Slopes are in brackets, calculated by multiplying the coefficient by the average density. N = 500. ⁎ Significant at 10%. ⁎⁎ Significant at 5%. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at 1%.

construct we label “environmental ethic”. Specifically, we create a binary variable equal to 1 if the value of each of the three ethical scenarios (windy ethic, disposing ethic, or herbicide ethic) equaled one. As shown in Table 3, we find that half of farmers who consider themselves as conservationist consider it unethical to engage in each of the three specified scenarios, in contrast to fewer than 30% of productivists and slightly more than 30% of farmers who identify with neither of these worldviews. This difference is statistically significant. Stated differently, fully half of farmers who identify themselves as conservationists believe that at least one of the three presented scenarios is appropriate, while more than 70% of farmers who consider themselves as productivist do not believe that all three of our environmental scenarios is ethically inappropriate. We also find that a larger percentage of pessimistic farmers than optimistic farmers consider all three scenarios as unethical, as well as more technologically-oriented farmers than farmers preferring tradition. However, these differences are statistically significant only in the case of comparing pessimistic with optimistic farmers.

Overall, we can conclude that the conservationist relative to productivist identity appears to matter most in affecting ethical attitudes toward farming practices that have ethical implications. In order to determine whether the relationship between farmer identity and ethical attitudes holds after controlling for other factors that might affect ethical attitudes, we perform and present a variety of probit analyses. These probit results are presented in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7.4 We start by testing each pair of farmer identities separately (as models 1, 2 and 3), and then we run a model that encompasses all six farmer identities (model 4). In all the models, the excluded group for each pair of farmer identities is respondents who indicated “don't know” to the identity question. The figures presented in brackets are

4 Based on an anonymous reviewer's recommendation, we estimated these models without the demographic characteristics (gender, age, and education), raises animals, and active in church. No significant changes occurred to the results.

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

57

Table 6 Probit results showing effects of farmer identity on herbicide ethic. Variable

Model 1

Conservationist

0.716⁎⁎⁎ (0.181) [0.216] −0.194 (0.150) [−0.058]

Productivist

Model 2

Pessimist

Technological

Traditional

Satisfied with finances

Farm sales

Male

Age category

College education

Raises animals

Active in church

Intercept

Pseudo-R2 Likelihood-ratio (df) % Correctly pred Average density

Model 4

0.024 (0.151) [0.008] −0.147 (0.175) [−0.047] 0.095⁎⁎⁎ (0.035) [0.030] −0.027 (0.030) [−0.009] −0.025 (0.045) [−0.008] −0.176 (0.277) [−0.056] −0.023 (0.056) [−0.007] −0.042 (0.129) [−0.013] 0.315⁎⁎ (0.147) [0.101] −0.007 (0.128) [−0.002] 0.172 (0.451) [0.055] 0.046 15.93 (10) 60.8 0.320

0.748⁎⁎⁎ (0.188) [0.221] −0.144 (0.163) [−0.043] −0.073 (0.161) [−0.022] 0.362⁎ (0.195) [0.107] 0.015 (0.166) [0.004] −0.248 (0.190) [−0.073] 0.106⁎⁎⁎ (0.037) [0.031] −0.027 (0.032) [−0.008] −0.001 (0.047) [−0.003] −0.006 (0.291) [−0.002] −0.031 (0.059) [−0.009] −0.030 (0.134) [−0.009] 0.297⁎ (0.152) [0.088] 0.031 (0.133) [0.009] −0.249 (0.476) [−0.074] 0.157 56.95 (14)⁎⁎⁎ 70.2 0.296

−0.146 (0.146) [−0.046] 0.300 (0.183) [0.095]

Optimist

Control over life

Model 3

0.100⁎⁎⁎ (0.036) [0.030] −0.034 (0.031) [−0.010] 0.006 (0.047) [0.002] −0.001 (0.287) [−0.003] −0.023 (0.058) [−0.007] −0.005 (0.131) [−0.002] 0.312⁎⁎ (0.151) [0.094] 0.039 (0.132) [0.012] −0.223 (0.462) [−0.067] 0.137 49.34 (10)⁎⁎⁎ 69.6 0.301

0.108⁎⁎⁎ (0.036) [0.034] −0.020 (0.031) [−0.006] −0.026 (0.045) [−0.008] −0.133 (0.280) [−0.042] −0.040 (0.057) [−0.013] 0.001 (0.128) [0.003] 0.294⁎⁎ (0.147) [0.093] −0.006 (0.129) [−0.002] 0.042 (0.447) [0.013] 0.062 21.61 (10)⁎⁎ 62.3 0.316

Note: Standard errors are in parentheses. Slopes are in brackets, calculated by multiplying the coefficient by the average density. N = 500. ⁎ Significant at 10%. ⁎⁎ Significant at 5%. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at 1%.

marginal effects, calculated by multiplying the coefficient on each variable by the average density for that model (see Greene, 1996). As shown in Table 4, when asked about a farmer applying pesticides in windy conditions in order to keep to a production schedule, we find that productivist farmers and farmers who prefer tradition over technology are about 14% (model 1) and 13% (model 3) less likely to perceive applying pesticides in windy conditions as unethical, respectively. When considered separately, no other farmer identity has a significant effect on the attitude toward applying pesticides in windy conditions, including the conservationist identity. When all identities are considered simultaneously (see model 4), we find a modest positive effect from farmers who are pessimistic — they are about 10% more likely to consider such actions as unethical. Tables 5 and 6 show that farmers with a conservationist identity are most likely to perceive both ethical scenarios as unethical. In particular, we find that these farmers are 16% more likely to perceive disposing

pesticide containers without rinsing them as required by law as unethical (model 1 in Table 5) and nearly 22% more likely to indicate as unethical the continuing use of herbicides when traces of it are showing up in wells in the farmer's community (model 1 in Table 6). When the pairs of identities are tested in separate models for herbicide and disposing ethics, only the conservationist identity is positive and statistically significant. When considering all identities simultaneously, we find that the conservationist identity dominates all other identities (see model 4 in Tables 5 and 6). In other results, we find that farmers who believe they have control over their lives are marginally more likely to indicate that it is unethical to apply pesticides under windy conditions and to use herbicides that are found in water wells. We also find that age matters in the cases of the use of pesticides in windy conditions and the improper disposal of pesticide containers. Specifically, the older farmers are, the more likely they are to consider these activities as unethical. We also find that

58

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

Table 7 Probit results showing effects of farmer identity on environmental ethic. Variable

Model 1

Conservationist

0.577⁎⁎⁎ (0.157) [0.200] −0.101 (0.153) [−0.035]

Productivist

Model 2

Pessimist

Technological

Traditional

Satisfied with finances

Farm sales

Male

Age category

College education

Raises animals

Active in church

Intercept

Pseudo-R2 Likelihood-ratio (df) % Correctly pred Average density

Model 4

0.124 (0.143) [0.045] −0.155 (0.171) [−0.056] 0.044⁎⁎⁎ (0.034) [0.016] −0.019 (0.029) [−0.007] −0.040 (0.043) [−0.014] −0.366 (0.250) [−0.132] 0.122⁎⁎ (0.054) [0.044] −0.150 (0.124) [−0.054] 0.207 (0.148) [0.075] 0.217⁎ (0.123) [0.078] −0.851⁎⁎ (0.431) [−0.306] 0.057 21.05 (10)⁎⁎ 61.4 0.360

0.582⁎⁎⁎ (0.163) [0.200] −0.073 (0.164) [−0.025] −0.106 (0.151) [0.036] 0.160 (0.171) [0.055] 0.108 (0.154) [0.037] −0.216 (0.182) [−0.074] 0.051⁎⁎⁎ (0.035) [0.017] −0.022 (0.035) [−0.008] −0.017 (0.044) [−0.006] −0.237 (0.253) [−0.081] 0.123⁎⁎ (0.055) [0.042] −0.137 (0.127) [−0.047] 0.185 (0.152) [0.063] 0.276⁎⁎ (0.127) [0.095] −1.240⁎⁎⁎ (0.449) [0.425] 0.129 49.86 (14)⁎⁎⁎ 68.2 0.343

−0.126 (0.141) [−0.045] 0.123 (0.164) [0.044]

Optimist

Control over life

Model 3

0.052⁎⁎⁎ (0.035) [0.018] −0.027 (0.030) [−0.009] −0.010 (0.044) [−0.003] −0.228 (0.252) [−0.079] 0.129⁎⁎ (0.055) [0.045] −0.096 (0.124) [−0.033] 0.192 (0.151) [0.066] 0.267⁎⁎ (0.126) [0.092] −1.258⁎⁎⁎ (0.436) [−0.435] 0.116 44.01 (10)⁎⁎⁎ 67.0 0.346

0.055⁎⁎⁎ (0.035) [0.020] −0.013 (0.029) [−0.005] −0.034 (0.043) [−0.012] −0.320 (0.249) [−0.116] 0.108⁎⁎ (0.054) [0.039] −0.097 (0.122) [−0.035] 0.183 (0.148) [0.066] 0.216⁎ (0.123) [0.078] −0.911⁎⁎ (0.425) [−0.329] 0.055 20.44 (10)⁎⁎ 60.4 0.361

Note: The dependent variable, environmental ethic, is a composite of each of the three ethic variables, such that environmental ethic equals one if all three ethical variables (windy ethic, disposing ethic and herbicide ethic) equal one. Standard errors are in parentheses. Slopes are in brackets, calculated by multiplying the coefficient by the average density. N = 500. ⁎ Significant at 10%. ⁎⁎ Significant at 5%. ⁎⁎⁎ Significant at 1%.

farmers who have livestock are more likely to consider it unethical to continue using herbicides when traces of it show up in community wells. For all three measures, we find no evidence that farmers who indicated that they are satisfied with their finances, who are male, who had attained at least college education, and who are religious perceive these ethical situations as unethical. We also test for the relationship between the composite ethical measure, environmental ethic, and the farmer identities, controlling for the same farm and farmer characteristics. The results are presented in Table 7. We find that only the conservationist identity is significantly correlated with a belief that all three presented scenarios are unethical, with these farmers 20% more likely to view the three activities as unethical than farmers who are neither conservationist nor productivist. All five other farmer identities are not significant for this environmental ethic. Additionally, we find that farmer age and being active in church

are correlated with the belief that it is unethical for a farmer to apply pesticides in windy conditions, to dispose of pesticide containers without rinsing them, and to continuing using herbicides when these they show up in the wells of their community. Because the conservationist versus productivist identity appears to be the most important one affecting farmer attitudes regarding the appropriateness of unethical farm management practices, we explore how this identity distinction interacts with the other two farmer types in our analysis. Table 8 presents the percent of farmers who are conservationist, productivist or undecided and who are also either optimistic or pessimistic or more closely identify with either a technological or traditional worldview. The chi-square stat summarizes the analysis that the effect of being a conservationist or productivist on the belief that all three ethical scenarios are inappropriate is independent of the other identities. Because the chi-square statistic is significant, we

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61 Table 8 Percent of respondents who perceive environmental ethic as unethical, interacting conservationist and productivist with other identities.

Optimist N Pessimist N Don't know N Technological N Traditional N Don't know N

Conservationist

Productivist

Don't know

Chi-square stat

51.4 72 56.1 41 29.8 47 50.0 94 41.0 39 64.7 34

23.3 146 44.4 45 27.3 33 34.3 137 25.0 56 09.4 32

32.4 37 30.8 26 29.8 47 28.6 42 30.0 20 34.0 50

57.02⁎ df = 10

51.05⁎ df = 10

Note: Percentages are relative to the number of farmers with each interacted identity. For example, of the 72 farmers who are both conservationist and optimistic, 37 of them (i.e., 51.4%) believe that all three ethical scenarios (windy ethic, disposing ethic, and herbicide ethic) are unethical. Chi-square tests the hypothesis that the effect of a conservationist or productivist identity is independent of the other identities. ⁎ Indicates significance at 5% or better.

conclude there is an interaction effect between having a conservationist or productivist identity and being either optimistic or pessimistic or having a technological or traditional identity. Considering first the grouping of conservationists or productivists with optimists or pessimists, we find the group with the largest percent of farmers who perceive all three ethical scenarios as unethical are those who are both a conservationist and pessimistic about the future. Farmers least likely to evaluate each of the three ethical scenarios as unethical are optimistic productivists. Considering second the pairing of conservationists or productivists with a preference for technology or tradition, we find, interestingly, the strongest effect for farmers who are conservationist and who do not know whether they are technologically or traditionally-minded. In this case, nearly two-thirds of these farmers believe that it is unethical to engage in each of the three given environmental cases. In contrast, productivist farmers who are undecided about tradition or technology are least likely to evaluate these scenarios as unethical. 6. Commentary We investigate how farmer identities affect their attitudes toward environmentally ethical situations. In particular, if farmer identities matter, then what farmer identities are most important in affecting environmental attitudes and practices? We consider three pairs of identities: a conservationist versus productivist identity, an optimistic versus pessimistic worldview, and a general preference for technology over tradition (or vice versa). We focus on the ethical attitudes of farmers for two reasons. The first is that the ethical attitudes and beliefs of farmers are under-explored within the literature. The second is that scholars recognize a link between ethical attitudes and behavior. Because the environmental management practices of farmers are directly tied to overall environmental quality, how farmers perceive the ethics of what they do could have a significant impact on the pace and direction of environmental degradation caused by modern farming practices. In short, we propose that it matters whether farmers (1) believe that their actions have ethical implications and (2) recognize that certain environmental management practices are inherently unethical. In this paper we consider whether a farmer's identity affects the way he or she perceives the ethics of specific environmental practices. To begin, we note that there is considerable disagreement among farmers about the (in)appropriateness of the three environmental cases we consider: applying pesticides in windy conditions in order to keep to a schedule, disposing of pesticide containers without properly rinsing them, and continuing to use an herbicide after traces of the

59

chemical are found in local water supplies. Although on average more than half of farmers believe these activities are inappropriate, more than half do not believe that all three are inappropriate. Moreover, as shown in Tables 3 and 8, there is wide variation in these attitudes based on their respective identities. The case that has the highest response for being inappropriate is the herbicide one. Since the avoidance of harm is widely recognized as a universal ethical norm (Linklater, 2006), this might reflect the fact that of the three environmental scenarios presented to farmers, the herbicide case is perceived to be most likely to result in human harm. Stated differently, our study is consistent with the proposition that farmers might be more inclined to consider perceptions of harm, as opposed to what is defined by law or contract or other standards of ethical judgments, when making ethical judgments regarding the appropriateness of management practices that affect the environment (see also James and Hendrickson, 2008). Although Cardoso and James (2012) consider alternative standards that farmers use in making ethical judgments, further research is needed to determine whether perceptions of harm are most effective in guiding the ethical judgments of farmers, especially with respect to decisions that have implications for the environment. The strongest evidence we find for a connection between identity and attitudes about ethically questionable environmental management practices is the conservationist versus productivist identity. Specifically, we find that farmers who consider themselves as conservationist – that is, who believe that protecting the environment is more important than jobs or economic growth – are more likely than productivist farmers to consider the environmental scenarios presented here as unethical. We do not find that optimism matters or that a preference for technology over tradition matters either. Thus, we conclude that if identities matter, then having a conservationist identity and not being fixated on economic conditions matters most. However, we also find some evidence that being pessimistic about the future also correlates with attitudes that the ethical practices we presented to farmers are inappropriate. These findings are largely consistent with the literature that emphasizes the importance of farmers having a conservation orientation (Burton and Wilson, 2006). If there is a problem regarding the environmental management practices of farmers, then it occurs when farmers see themselves as “businessmen” and adopt a productivist orientation. A solution is to encourage farmers to be more conservation minded and to adopt a worldview that considers factors beyond mere economic and financial concerns. Although there is evidence that educational and policy efforts are having some positive impact (Morris and Potter, 1995; Potter and Lobley, 1992; Wilson and Hart, 2001), there are some areas of concern that might hinder the development of a conservationist identity. First, although our study does not provide information on trends, we note that more farmers see themselves as productivist than as conservationist. Second, Edwards (1991, p. 75) has stated that “it is important also to remember that a farmer is a businessman,” a sentiment that does not bode well for encouraging a conservationist identity among farmers. Third, James and Hendrickson (2008, 2010) have expressed concerns about farmers feeling stressed and anxious within an economic context, again a consideration that does not support a move toward a more conservationist mentality. These results need to be interpreted with caution. Identities are not mutually exclusive. As discussed above, farmers might have multiple identities. For instance, a farmer who is of the conservationist identity type might also be pessimistic, so that these identities mix and overlap (see Burton and Wilson, 2006). As McGuire et al. (2012) put it, “farmers can have a nesting of identities.” Our findings are consistent with this thesis. However, our paper contributes to the literature by showing that there is an interaction effect between farmer identity types. Such a nesting and interaction can complicate efforts to promote a conservationist mentality among farmers, since, as we find, alternative identities can enhance or mitigate the effect that conservationist identities have on the ethical judgments of farmers. For example, what does it mean if farmer optimism is negatively correlated with judgments about the

60

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61

appropriateness or inappropriateness of farming practices that impact the environment? Does it mean that efforts to promote a conservationist identity need to be tempered by the vision we present of what the future would be like if farmers were in fact more conservationistoriented? If farmer identity matters for judgments regarding the ethics of environmental management practices, and if a conservationist rather than productivist identity matters most, then an important implication of our research is on theories we use to model conservationist behavior. One approach is to assume a purely economic approach, where farmers are assumed to be motivated by self-interest only. The upshot is that improved environmental management practices can be obtained through appropriately designed incentive mechanisms. Another approach is based on a dual or multi-interest view of behavior, where farmers are assumed to be motivated by other or shared interests in addition to self-interest (Bishop et al., 2010; Chouinard et al., 2008; Cory, 2006; Czap et al., 2012; Lynne, 2006; Sheeder and Lynne, 2011). Our findings are consistent the dual-interest approach. We point to two specific findings. The first is that the herbicide ethic produces the strongest agreement among farmers about the inappropriateness of the practice. Of the three scenarios presented to farmers, the herbicide ethic is the most likely to involve actual harm, especially to others. The second is that the percentage change in ethical attitudes for farmers with a conservationist identity increases from the windy ethic to the disposing ethic to the herbicide ethic. As shown in model 1 of Tables 4, 5 and 6, farmers who are conservationists are 5% more likely than neither conservationists nor productivists to evaluate the windy ethic as inappropriate, 16% more likely to view the disposing ethic as inappropriate, and nearly 22% more likely to judge the herbicide ethic as inappropriate. This could be evidence that being a conservationist is “in sympathy with” other conservationist farmers and downstream water users (Sheeder and Lynne, 2011 p. 439). Also, the fact that productivists are less likely to perceive applying pesticides in windy conditions as inappropriate might indicate that self-interest pursuits conflict with the “other (shared)-interest.” Moreover, because the pessimistic identity is significant in the case of the windy and herbicide ethics, it could be argued that this identity reinforces the “other (shared)-interest,” if one's pessimism arises from a concern of how current conditions are likely to affect others in the future. Thus, this paper contributes to the literature by considering different typologies of farmer identities and by linking them with specific ethical attitudes regarding environmental issues. Our findings support the importance of farmers having a conservationist identity, if the ethical attitudes of farmers toward environmental management practices matter. McGuire et al. (2012) show that farmers could shift their identity from a profit-oriented, self-interest productivist identity toward a conservationist identity, thus increasing their willingness to adopt conservation practices in a group setting. We concur, but with the added consideration that a focus on a conservationist identity independent of other ways that farmers see themselves could limit the effectiveness of such programs. How farmers see themselves matters. Consequently, more research is needed in understanding the nature and evolution of farmer identities. Acknowledgments We thank the Editor and two anonymous referees for valuable comments that helped us improve the paper. A previous version of this paper was presented at the 2013 meetings of the Agriculture, Food and Human Values Society, in East Lansing, Michigan. References Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., 1977. Attitude–behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull. 84, 888–918.

Amsalu, A., de Graaff, J., 2007. Determinants of adoption and continued use of stone terraces for soil and water conservation in an Ethiopian highland watershed. Ecol. Econ. 61 (2–3), 294–302. Andrews, R., McGlynn, C., Mycock, A., 2009. Students' attitudes towards history: does selfidentity matter? Educ. Res. 51 (3), 365–377. Barnes, A.P., Willock, J., Toma, L., Hall, C., 2011. Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: nitrate vulnerable zones in Scotland. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 54 (4), 477–494. Bartlett, D., 2003. Management and business ethics: a critique and integration of ethical decision-making models. Br. J. Manag. 14, 223–235. Baumgart-Getz, A., Prokopy, L.S., Floress, K., 2012. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: a meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J. Environ. Manag. 96 (1), 17–25. Berry, W., 1997. The Unsettling of America: Culture & Agriculture. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA. Best, H., 2010. Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Soc. Nat. Resour. 23 (5), 451–468. Bishop, C.P., Shumway, C.R., Wandschneider, P.R., 2010. Agent heterogeneity in adoption of anaerobic digestion technology: integrating economic, diffusion, and behavioral innovation theories. Land Econ. 86 (3), 585–608. Burton, R.J.F., 2004. Seeing through the ‘good farmer's’ eyes: towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of ‘productivist’ behaviour. Sociol. Rural. 44, 195–215. Burton, R.J.F., Wilson, G.A., 2006. Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualizations of agricultural agency: towards a “post-productivist” farmer self-identity. J. Rural. Stud. 22 (1), 95–115. Cardoso, S.P., James Jr., H.S., 2012. Ethical frameworks and farmer participation in controversial farming practices. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 25 (3), 377–404. Chouinard, H.H., Paterson, T., Wandschneider, P.R., Ohler, A.M., 2008. Will farmers trade profits for stewardship? Heterogeneous motivations for farm practice selection. Land Econ. 84 (1), 66–82. Cory, G.A., 2006. The dual motive theory. J. Socio-Econ. 35, 589–591. Crane, F.G., Crane, E.C., 2007. Dispositional optimism and entrepreneurial success. Psychol.-Manag. J. 10 (1), 13–25. Czap, N.V., Czap, H.J., Khatchaturyan, M., Lynne, G.D., Burbach, M.E., 2012. Walking in the shoes of others: experimental testing of dual-interest and empathy in environmental choice. J. Socio-Econ. 41 (5), 642–653. Darnhofer, I., Walder, P., 2013. Farmer types and motivation. In: Thompson, P.B., Kaplan, D.M. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Food and Environmental Ethics. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (http://springerreference.com/docs/html/chapterdbid/307592.html. Accessed 24 April 2013). Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., Freyer, B., 2005. Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria: farmer types and their rationale. Agric. Hum. Values 22 (1), 39–52. Dohonoe, M., 2003. Causes and health consequences of environmental degradation and social injustice. Soc. Sci. Med. 56 (3), 573–587. Edwards, S., 1991. Farming's rewards at risk. In: Blatz, C.V. (Ed.), Ethics and Agriculture: An Anthology on Current Issues in World Context. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID, pp. 75–83. Fairweather, J.R., 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and conventional production: results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agric. Hum. Values 16 (1), 51–63. Ferrell, O.C., Gresham, L.G., 1985. A contingency framework for understanding ethical decision making in marketing. J. Mark. 49 (3), 87–96. Ford, R.C., Richardson, W.D., 1994. Ethical decision making: a review of the empirical literature. J. Bus. Ethics 13 (3), 205–221. Greene, W.H., 1996. Marginal Effects in the Bivariate Probit Model. NYU Working Paper No. EC-96–11 (Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1293106). Guillem, E.E., Barnes, A.P., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Renwick, A., 2012. Refining perceptionbased farmer typologies with the analysis of past census data. J. Environ. Manag. 110, 226–235. Hunt, S.D., Vitell, S., 1986. A general theory of marketing ethics. J. Macromark. 6 (1), 5–16. James Jr., H.S., Hendrickson, M.K., 2008. Perceived economic pressures and farmer ethics. Agric. Econ. 38 (3), 349–361. James Jr., H.S., Hendrickson, M.K., 2010. Are farmers of the middle distinctively “good stewards”? Evidence from the Missouri farm poll, 2006. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 23, 571–590. Jara-Rojas, R., Bravo-Ureta, B.E., Díaz, J., 2012. Adoption of water conservation practices: a socioeconomic analysis of small-scale farmers in Central Chile. Agric. Syst. 110, 54–62. Jones, T.M., 1991. Ethical decision-making in organizations: an issue-contingent model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16 (2), 366–395. Karlsson, S., 2007. Allocating responsibilities in multi-level governance for sustainable development. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 34 (1/2), 103–126. Kohlberg, L., 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development. Harper & Row, San Francisco, CA. Linklater, A., 2006. The harm principle and global ethics. Glob. Soc. 20 (3), 329–343. Lynne, G.D., 2006. Toward a dual motive metaeconomic theory. J. Socio-Econ. 35, 634–651. Lynne, G.D., Shonkwiler, J.S., Rola, L.R., 1998. Attitudes and farmer conservation behavior. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 70 (1), 12–19. Marcia, J.E., 1988. Common processes underlying ego identity, cognitive/moral development and individuation. In: Lapsley, D.K., Power, F.C. (Eds.), Self, Ego and Identity: Integrative Approaches. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 211–225. McGuire, J., Morton, L.W., Cast, A.D., 2012. Reconstructing the good farmer identity: shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agric. Hum. Values 30 (1), 57–69. Michaelidou, N., Hassan, L.M., 2008. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 32 (2), 163–170.

I. Sulemana, H.S. James Jr. / Ecological Economics 98 (2014) 49–61 Michel-Guillou, E., Moser, G., 2006. Commitment of farmers to environmental protection: from social pressure to environmental conscience. J. Environ. Psychol. 26 (3), 227–235. Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agrienvironmental schemes in the U.K. J. Rural. Stud. 11 (1), 51–63. Nigbur, D., Lyons, E., Uzzell, D., 2010. Attitudes, norms, identity and environmental behaviour: using an expanded theory of planned behaviour to predict participation in a kerbside recycling programme. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 49 (2), 259–284. O'Fallon, M.J., Butterfield, K.D., 2005. A review of the empirical ethical decision-making literature: 1996–2003. J. Bus. Ethics 59 (4), 375–413. Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1992. The conservation status and potential of elderly farmers: results from a survey in England and Wales. J. Rural. Stud. 8 (2), 133–143. Puri, M., Robinson, D.T., 2007. Optimism and economic choice. J. Financ. Econ. 86 (1), 71–99. Scanlon, S.M., 2002. Should Missouri farmers of genetically modified crops be held liable for genetic drift and cross-pollination? Mo. Environ. Law Policy Rev. 10, 1–213. Schoon, B., Te Grotenhuis, R., 2000. Values of farmers, sustainability and agricultural policy. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 12 (1), 17–27.

61

Seabrook, M., Higgins, C., 1988. The role of the farmer's self concept in determining farmer behaviour. Agric. Adm. Ext. 30, 99–108. Sheeder, R.J., Lynne, G.D., 2011. Empathy conditioned conservation: ‘walking-in-theshoes-of-others’ as a conservation farmer. Land Econ. 87 (3), 433–452. Sitko, N., 2008. Maize, food insecurity, and the field of performance in southern Zambia. Agric. Hum. Values 25 (1), 3–11. Sutherland, L.A., 2013. Can organic farmers be “good farmers?” Adding the “taste of necessity” to the conventionalization debate. Agric. Hum. Values 30 (3). Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., White, K.M., 1999. The theory of planned behaviour: self-identity, social identity and group norms. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 38 (3), 225–244. Thompson, P.B., 1995. The Spirit of the Soil: Agriculture and Environmental Ethics. Routledge, New York. Trevino, L.K., 1986. Ethical decision-making in organizations: a person–situation interactionist model. Acad. Manag. Rev. 11 (3), 601–617. Wilson, G.A., Hart, K., 2001. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: toward conservation-oriented thinking? Sociol. Rural. 41 (2), 254–274.