- Email: [email protected]
Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland
Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland A.P. Barnes a,*, J. Willock b, C. Hall a, L. Toma a a b
Land Economy Research Division, SAC, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom Health Psychology Research Unit, Queen Margaret University, Queen Margaret University Drive, Musselburgh, United Kingdom
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 29 August 2008 Accepted 1 July 2009 Available online 9 August 2009
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) were introduced in response to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) which states that all EU countries must reduce the nitrate in drinking water to a maximum of 50 mg/l. Farmers within a designated NVZ must adhere to strict rules over the timing and application of nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources. In Scotland, four NVZ regions were designated in 2003, covering around 14% of the land area and affecting over 12,000 farmers. This paper outlines the results of a recent study to understand farmer activities in response to and attitudes towards NVZ regulations in Scotland. A telephone survey was administered, obtaining a response of 184 farmers, supplemented by four workshops held in each NVZ region. This explored, both quantitatively and qualitatively, farmer behaviour and attitudes. The bulk of farmers have made little capital investment since the 2003 designation. Few farmers have invested in increased slurry storage facilities, nor begun to transport more slurry off-farm, claiming to have had enough storage capacity before designation to cover the imposed closed period. Farmer attitudes indicate a mostly negative view towards the perceived environmental benefits, water management and compliance. This can be explained by a number of concerns raised by farmers towards the scientific basis for designations. Furthermore, farmers viewed the restrictions placed on farming practices within NVZs as too inflexible. Given the mostly sceptical perceptions demonstrated by the farmers we call for a more integrated approach to water management at the catchment level. There is a role for policy-makers to provide clearer information over the science and purpose of the designations and also to invest in the transfer of technologies, in particular N-use software which is specifically tailored to NVZ regulations. Also, critical to this would be the development of transparent indicators of water quality. This may start to embed nitrogen pollution impacts within the farmer’s cultural framework of decision-making. ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Farmer attitudes Nonpoint source pollution European Union
1. Introduction Catchment level management is becoming an increasingly popular instrument for the improvement of water quality (Ribaudo, 1997; Defra, 2008a; DEWHA, 2009). Within the European Union the establishment of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) is a concerted effort by the European Union to reduce nitrate pollution at catchment level. NVZs impose strict limits on the timing and the application of organic and inorganic nitrogen-based materials on agricultural land. Whilst some countries have adopted country-wide designations, such as Northern Ireland and Denmark, others have adopted a regional approach. Within Scotland four regions now have NVZ status,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0131 5354042; fax: +44 0131 5354345. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.P. Barnes). 0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.002
which covers 14% of agricultural land. These regions are shown in Fig. 1 below. The Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 no. 51) establishes the current Action Programme, the monitoring, the offence procedures where the rules have been contravened and appeals procedures. In particular, the schedule to these regulations sets out the rules on (i) the quantities, timing and application conditions for applying nitrogen fertilisers to land; (ii) storage capacity for livestock manures; and (iii) the planning and recording of fertiliser use. Table 1 outlines the main restrictions farmers within Scottish NVZs must abide by. All farmers within a NVZ are required by law to observe these regulations, and principal monitoring is through the Scottish Government, who inspect 5% of farms within the NVZs annually (Scottish Executive, 2002, 2006, 2007). The designations and the consequent restrictions on activity affect around 12,000 farmers in Scotland. Consequently, this paper focuses on farmer perceptions
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
1716
Fig. 1. Geographic areas of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland.
of this designation and whether there has been any behavioural or attitudinal change, in particular to farmer approaches to water pollution and management. Studies have been conducted on quality management issues in water catchment areas of the US (Lichtenberg and Lessley, 1992; McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007); in Europe and Australia (Bratt, 2002; Sang and Birnie, 2008; Weaver and Prout, 1993; Hayman and Alston, 1999) and in several developing countries (Wafai and Associates, 1993; Nguyen et al., 2006; Agrawal, 1991). These studies find that farmers frequently express a lack of responsibility for creating and addressing water pollution problems (McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007). Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge that any water pollution problems exist (Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2006). Whilst they do demonstrate an understanding of what
measures can be applied to reduce problems of nitrogen loss from the farm, common obstacles to implementing such measures are costs and time (Bratt, 2002; McDermaid, 2005; Hayman and Alston, 1999). Some studies exist which directly examine the perceptions of farmers operating within NVZs. Studies have been conducted in Denmark and England (Nimmo Smith et al., 2007), and in Scotland (Widdison et al., 2004; Macgregor and Warren, 2006). Widdison et al. (2004) used stakeholder interviews coupled with surveys of 48 farmers operating within the Leet Catchment in the Lothian and Borders NVZ. Overall they found gaps in farmers’ knowledge of, and scepticism towards, the Nitrates Directive and NVZ regulation. In addition, they found that farmers wanted concise and clear information on guidelines and were wary of management changes required by the regulations. Macgregor and Warren (2006) undertook a qualitative study of a small sample of mostly arable farmers operating within the Strathmore and Fife NVZ and found that none of the farmers felt responsible for any negative environmental issues beyond the boundaries of their farms. Most farmers had a clear sense of what practices cause nitrate pollution problems (e.g. excessive applications of fertilisers and manure, poor timing of applications, and inadequate or poorly maintained manure, slurry and silage storage) but many refused to accept that farming was responsible for any problems. This position was used to justify their reluctance to consider changing their current practices. In addition, more than half of the farmers in their study thought their operations already complied with the rules. Clearly, these studies seem to show a lack of any pro-active uptake of measures within the scheme. In addition, it indicates resistance to any possible future changes to the NVZ Action Programme if stricter restrictions are enforced on them. From a policy perspective more interest is being directed at how behaviours can be influenced to ‘nudge’ producers along the adoption curve (Brook Lyndhurst, 2006; Defra, 2008b). The first step is to understand how these behaviours develop. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to focus on the producer perspectives towards NVZ regulations. Previous studies have only examined small samples by a single region or farming type. Similarly, they have not offered any assessment of the practices adopted by farmers within NVZs since the designations. This is crucial to understanding the producer responses to the regulations. Consequently, this paper examines whether there is any deviation in perception of NVZs across farm types and across all four Scottish NVZ’s. It combines a quantitative assessment of practices and attitudes, with qualitative results from workshops to further explore perceptions and attitudes. The paper is structured as follows; the next section outlines the conceptual background for
Table 1 Main Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Action Programme Regulations for Scotland. Record keeping Records must be kept annually on the use of all organic and inorganic (chemical) nitrogen (N) fertilisers, on a field by field basis. A fertiliser and manure plan must be prepared and implemented each year. Nitrogen application limits There are farm and field based limits for the quantity of N that can be applied in the form of organic manure. N from organic and inorganic sources must not exceed the crop or grassland requirement. Closed periods For inorganic (chemical) fertilisers the closed periods cover the month 1 October and 1 November for autumn sown crops and between 1 August and 1 November in any other case where there is unlikely to be plant uptake and the risk of nitrate leaching is highest. For slurry, poultry manure and liquid digested sewage sludge closed periods cover sandy and shallow soils during the times when nitrate leaching is most likely. Storage of slurry/poultry manure and farmyard manure The capacity of storage facilities must be sufficient to hold all the slurry/poultry manure that cannot be applied due to closed periods. Manure produced in excess of the storage requirement must not be used in a manner that will cause harm to the environment. Field middens must be sited away from inland and coastal waters, wells, boreholes or similar water supplies. Source: Scottish Executive (2003).
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
measuring farmer attitudes, this is followed by an outline of the data collected and detail concerning the sample; farming activities and practices since designation are then outlined; this is followed by a quantitative and qualitative assessment of farmer attitudes and perceptions within NVZs; the final section offers discussion and conclusions with respect to these perceptions and practices. 2. Conceptual background The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) was the first model to demonstrate a consistent link between attitudes towards a behaviour and actual performance of a behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It assumes individuals have full volitional control over their actions and that, barring unforeseen events, a behaviour is performed if an individual intends to perform it. Intention becomes the focus because this allows some discrimination between those likely to carry out an action and those unlikely to. The TORA therefore assumes that modification of beliefs is sufficient to change attitudes, subjective norms, and, hence, intentions to perform a behaviour, and the actual carrying out of the behaviour. The main focus of the farming studies employing TORA-based frameworks is to examine the influence of attitudes on behaviour and decision-making (Potter and Gasson, 1988; Brotherton, 1991; Wilson, 1992; Ward and Lowe, 1994; Colman, 1994; Young et al., 1995; Rehman et al., 2007). In attempting to understand the cause of behavioural actions, it is argued that this behaviour could be predicted by a producer’s intentions. These intentions can also be determined by the farmer’s attitudes and the influence of other reference groups. These attitudes are critical in determining the cause of particular behavioural effects. In turn both behaviour and attitudes are affected by a set of antecedent variables, including socio-economic and structural factors, such as policies, financial pressures, family concerns, ethical principles and values. A further branch of literature has explored the causes of these attitudes and behaviours, finding strong correlations with socio-economic variables (Inglehart, 1995; Sureshwaran et al., 1996; Diekmann and Franzen, 1999). Gasson’s (1973) study of farmer behaviour led to a growth in literature concerning the attitudes, motivations and non-economic attitudes of farmers. The bulk of these studies tend to follow Gasson by classifying farmers according to their production and non-production related goals. Other studies have examined the effect of structural and socio-economic factors on the decision to become more environmentally friendly (Shucksmith, 1993; Potter and Lobley, 1992; Battershill and Gilg, 1997). Willock et al. (1999) identified a number of attitudinal factors concerned with business and environmental performance. They surveyed a sample of farmers within the East of Scotland, and identified the most prevalent characteristics for environmental behaviour. Attitudes towards chemical use and conservation objectives were highly correlated to positive environmental behaviour. In addition they found openness attitudes towards farming (e.g. allowing access by the public) and size of farm also contributed to influencing farmer decision-making regarding the environment. Participation in environmental protection programmes has also gained attention (Segerson and Miceli, 1998; Carraro and Leveque, 1999). Several case studies have found that despite generally proenvironmental attitudes per se farmer attitudes towards the environment are stronger when programmes compensate or support them (Newby et al., 1977; Potter and Gasson, 1988; Morris and Potter, 1995; Paniagua Mazorra, 2001; Lutz and Bastian, 2002). Other factors which have been found to be important in explaining a farmer’s propensity to participate in agri-environ-
1717
mental programmes (AEP) is social capital (Saltiel et al., 1994; Wilson and Hart, 2000; Mathijs, 2003); a lack of profitability and credit constraints are considered influential to the adoption of environmental technologies (Cary and Wilkinson, 1997; Nowak, 1987); and the degree of effort necessary to implement the environmental behaviour (Edwards-Jones et al., 1998; Saltiel et al., 1994). Burton (2004) explored the cultural influences behind farmer decision-making and found that a productivist approach represents a means of obtaining ‘social status and recognition within the community as a ‘good farmer’ (pp. 208). He argued that, from a policy-maker perspective, there should be greater consideration of cultural values when promoting change to a ‘post-productive’ agriculture. 3. Data collection 3.1. Telephone survey A questionnaire was developed to understand farmer responses, attitudes and understanding of the NVZ regulations. The questionnaire consisted of a number of sections aimed at measuring the influence of farmers’ attitudes, goals and external constraints on farming behaviour (farm size, farm type etc.). Four scales were developed for this study, based partly on Willock et al. (1999) and partly on discussion with policy-makers. These were: (i) farm information; (ii) farming attitudes to conservation, pollution and NVZ legislation; (iii) farming goals or objectives to the above; (iv) farming behaviour directly related to the above. If these attitudes have an important influence on a farmer’s motivation then it is also necessary to design and measure how important they are to the individual. Thus attitude items were evaluative statements, whilst objectives were measured by how important the particular concept was to the farmer. Actual reported behaviour was investigated using a similar set of items, such as ‘Have you taken any active conservation measures in the past 3 years?’ These attitudes were measured using a standard 5-point Likert scale. There is discourse on the strengths and weakness of this approach (Mclver and Carmines, 1981; Manstead and Semin, 2001). However, it does provide a common framework for capturing a set of attitudes, ranging from beliefs to behaviours. A telephone survey was conducted over the period February– March 2007. Names and telephone numbers of 700 holdings were provided from the Scottish Government June Agricultural Census contact list. This was stratified by each of the four administrative NVZ regions and by farm type. In total 184 responses were received, giving a return rate of 26%. Table 2 shows the percentage responses in more detail for the Survey (SV), compared to the total distribution of farms recorded as operating within NVZs from the June Agricultural Census (JAC). The JAC does suffer from some estimation bias, as around 30% of the sample for Scotland is imputed from past data. Nevertheless it is the best source of data for comparing the response distributions. For most categories, the responses closely mimic the distribution of the JAC, though some areas, in particular those in the Lower Nithsdale NVZ, tends to over represent cereals and general cropping (e.g. potatoes and vegetables) and slightly under represent cattle and sheep producers. The majority of NVZ farms who responded were owned outright (72%), with the remainder being either tenanted or partially tenanted. In addition, 60% of farms were trading on a partnership basis, around 30% were sole traders, whereas around 10% were a limited company; across all farms sampled only a small percentage
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
1718
Table 2 Comparison between response rates for survey (SV) against the June Annual Census (JAC), by farm type and region, percent.
Lothian and Borders Lower Nithsdale Moray, Aberdeenshire Banff and Buchan Strathmore and Fife
Cereals and general cropping
Mixed
SV
JAC
SV
56 41 29
(51) (23) (37)
3 11 14
59
(44)
5
(8%) had certified organic production. High proportions of farmers in NVZs claimed to keep production records and also to keeping annual financial budgets. These data were firstly cleaned and some attitude responses were reverse scored to represent consistent responses along the 5-point Likert scale used. Initially, standard statistical analysis was conducted on the data. This consisted of measuring frequency of response to a number of questions. Where possible, responses were cross-tabulated against a number of economic and socio-demographic factors to identify any particular patterns within the data. In addition some responses were aggregated, e.g. by farming types and farm size, to increase category sizes for robust statistical analysis. 3.2. Farmer workshops Four workshops were held, one in each of the four NVZ areas. The overall aim was to add more context, detail and in-depth understanding of the results obtained from the survey. In total, 36 farmers attended the four workshops; nine were at Thainstone in the Aberdeenshire, Banff, Buchan and Moray NVZ, eight at Perth in the Strathmore and Fife NVZ, seven at Gifford in the Edinburgh, East Lothian and Borders NVZ, and 12 at Dumfries in the Lower Nithsdale NVZ. Participants also varied in terms of age, from their 20 s through to over 65 s. It was evident from discussions that participants were involved in a variety of farming activities, including arable, dairy, beef, and sheep. Examining the first part of participants’ postcodes (i.e. the first three or four digits only, such as AB51 or DG3) there was a total of 19 different codes. Hence, crucially, there was significant diversity among participants. The key attitudinal results from the survey were presented at the workshops to encourage discussion. Then an ‘affinity mapping’ exercise was conducted, in which participants were asked to provide individual statements on the good and bad points of farming within NVZs. These were then prioritised after discussion with the participants. Discussions were recorded and analysed to provide overall context setting for the results. 4. Results 4.1. Farm practices Around half of the farmers surveyed (51%) conducted a soil analysis every 1–5 years, with a further 25% conducting one at least once a year; 62% of farmers claimed to prepare a nutrient management plan, with the majority also keeping records of fertiliser and manure applications for individual fields. There were varied responses to the storage of solid manure. These are presented by farming type in Table 3. Those farms which are classified as mostly cropping activity (cereals, potatoes and field vegetables) and those with mostly livestock (dairy, beef and sheep, pigs and poultry) preferred storage in-field, with the highest levels recorded for this activity being arable, dairy and poultry farms. Mixed farm types preferred mixed methods of storage. A chi-square test found a significant difference across farm types by storage practices.
Cattle and sheep
Dairy
Pigs and poultry
JAC
SV
JAC
SV
JAC
SV
JAC
(14) (16) (17)
26 24 39
(24) (32) (28)
4 12 9
(1) (15) (5)
11 12 9
(9) (14) (13)
(12)
21
(27)
3
(3)
12
(14)
Table 3 Type of storage of solid manure, by farming type, percentage by column. Mixed In-field Concrete In tank Mixed In tank/field Do not use
Mostly crops
Mostly livestock
Total
18 18 9 36 9 9
51 10 5 18 5 11
38 10 10 21 15 6
44 11 7 20 9 9
100
100
100
100
When asked about storage capacity, around two thirds claimed to have already had enough storage capacity for present practices and to abide by the NVZ regulations. 4.2. Changes since the 2003 designation A number of questions were aimed at understanding how farmers in NVZs have changed behaviour since the 2003 designation. The majority of farms had not invested in slurry or manure space, nor on expansion of storage facilities. Mostly cropping (95%), mostly livestock (86%) and mixed (73%) farming types claimed to have made no investment or expansion of storage since 2003. This seems to tally with the responses above concerning the belief that they had enough storage capacity. Around 40% of all farming types have invested in obtaining farming or agronomic advice for improved record keeping. As outlined above, the NVZ regulations require an increased amount of record keeping, specifically in terms of recording crop N requirements and field level applications, and some investment in advice would be understandable. However, whilst there were no discernible differences across the four regions, more activity was recorded for livestock categories, in particular dairy producers. Around 60% of this farming type claimed to have made some investment for improved record keeping since 2003. The farmers were asked whether they had changed any practices since 2003 which would impact on water quality. Their responses are presented by farm type in Table 4 and show that most farmers have not changed their practices, aside from an increase in membership of environmental schemes (though this follows a general trend throughout Scotland as schemes, such as the Rural Stewardship Scheme have expanded membership). Notably, the specialist livestock categories (dairy, pigs and poultry) had the lowest recorded levels of membership with environmental schemes. A chi-square test found no significant difference across farming types. Farmers were asked about adoption of Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity (PEPFAA) best standards.1 Around 46% of mixed farms, 60% of mostly cropping farms and 61% of mostly livestock farms claim to have adopted some 1 The PEPFAA code is a voluntary scheme to ensure best practice for reducing diffuse water pollution. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/37428/ 0014235.pdf.
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722 Table 4 Farming practices since 2003 for Nitrate Vulnerable Zone farmers, percentage by columna. Mostly crops
Mostly livestock
Transport more slurry off-farm Yes 13 No 87
Mixed
1 98
3 97
Adopted environmental schemes Yes 47 No 47
47 46
28 72
Used manure management software Yes 7 No 93
10 87
11 86
Received a grant under the NVZ scheme? Yes 13 6 No 87 94
12 88
a
Non-rounding to 100% indicates practices conducted before 2003.
form of PEPFAA recommended best practices since the regulations were introduced in 2003. A chi-square test found that mixed farms were significantly different from specialist farming types and hence were less likely to adopt PEPFA standards. 4.3. Farmer perceptions of NVZ regulations Farmers were required to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a set of attitude statements, using a standard 5point Likert scale. The themes identified, along with example statements, are outlined in Table 5 below.
1719
Table 6 shows the frequency of response to these themes by farming type. Interestingly, none of the farmers disagreed strongly with any of the statements. Consequently the results ranged from disagree to strongly agree. Around 70–80% of responses within the livestock and cropping farming types either agreed or strongly agreed with the statements related to production. Within this theme, all farmers tended to agree quite strongly with the statement ‘farmers should fully utilise their resources’. For mixed farming types the level of agreement was smaller, though around 60% also either agreed or strongly agreed. A chi-square test found no significant difference across farming types to this set of attitudes. Attitudes towards the environment (Green) and, especially, responsibility for environmental damage (Responsibility) had the largest number of unsure responses across all farming types. The bulk of the remainder, in mixed and mostly livestock farms (around 30%), tended to agree with the environmental attitude statements. Given the large number of unsure responses a focus in the workshops was to further explore the farmer responses to the environmental and responsibility statements. Some differences were observed for attitudes towards NVZ compliance. The specialist, livestock and cropping, farming types had some agreement with statements concerning compliance, whereas mixed farming types were more unsure. Statements which registered a high level of agreement types were ‘it is important to use or store slurry correctly’ and ‘It is important for me to reduce chemical nitrogen waste using organic sources’. However, mixed farming types tended to either disagree or were more
Table 5 Attitude themes and example statements. Attitudes
Example statements
Attitudes to production
On a farm of this size you must be oriented towards production if you are to survive; farmers should fully utilise their resources.
Green attitudes
If farming in the UK is to be sustained you must reduce chemical fertiliser applications; farmers have to do their bit to reduce environmental pollution.
Responsibility for environmental damage
Other industries pollute more than farmers. Other industries are not penalised sufficiently for environmental pollution.
Attitudes to compliance
It is fair that farmers should be held responsible for water pollution in this area; it is unfair that certain farmers have to bear the cost of complying with NVZ regulations.
Water management attitudes
Water quality can affect my health; groundwater pollution is an important environmental issue.
Table 6 Farmer responses to statements, by attitude theme and by farming type, percentage by column. Attitude theme
Mixed farming type Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Mostly crop farms Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Mostly livestock farms Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Production
Green
Responsibility
Compliance
Water management
13.3 26.7 40.0 20.0 100
0.0 64.3 35.7 0.0 100
7.1 78.6 14.3 0.0 100
0.0 66.7 25.0 8.3 100
6.7 66.7 26.7 0.0 100
0.0 17.1 54.3 28.6 100
7.8 74.5 17.6 0.0 100
8.0 80.7 11.4 0.0 100
0.0 31.2 65.6 3.2 100
10.6 41.3 46.2 1.9 100
4.7 18.8 65.6 10.9 100
3.2 61.3 33.9 1.6 100
12.5 73.2 12.5 1.8 100
2.0 41.2 52.9 3.9 100
7.8 45.3 43.8 3.1 100
1720
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
unsure of these statements. A chi-square test found a significant difference between mixed and other farming types. Finally, the specialist farms have higher levels of agreement to the water quality management statements, compared to the mixed farming types. Nevertheless, around 40% of specialist farms and 67% of mixed farms were unsure on the water quality management statements. 4.4. Workshop responses In order to supplement the responses to the questionnaire, a number of workshops were held in the NVZ regions: Perth (Fife), Thainstone (Aberdeen), Gifford (Lothian), and Dumfries (Nithsdale). All the workshops followed the same structure in which the results of the survey were presented by each of the attitude themes outlined above, which were then discussed by the workshop groups. Although the dynamics of the four groups were very different, and there were obviously regional differences in terms of farming activity and environmental conditions, there were some very consistent messages from the participants. Views and opinions gathered in the four workshops are listed below in terms of negative and positive points of operating within an NVZ. 4.5. Negative points Key points arose from three of the workshops related to the belief that the scientific basis for designation of the NVZ areas was flawed. In general, farmers either did not believe the evidence related to the designations, or wanted to see proof that reductions in application levels may have some positive impact. Key points from the discussions reveal that farmers felt unfairly penalised by the restrictions placed on them, compared to those outside the zones. This clearly links to the farmer unwillingness to accept responsibility for any negative impacts on water quality found in other studies. Other key points arising from the workshops related to the restrictions placed on farming practice from the NVZ regulations. In effect, they wanted more flexibility in the closed periods that better reflect seasonal and weather conditions. In addition, they voiced concern that fertiliser limits restrict potential crop yields. Farmers also revealed some dissatisfaction at the extra levels of paperwork they are required to produce when operating within the NVZ areas. They considered these to be too complicated, requiring additional cost and time. Several statements were made by the workshop participants which related to provision of information. Information to farmers in NVZs was not deemed adequate since some were not aware of the regulations and others were not aware of details, such as grant funding and consultations about revisions. In addition, some farmers felt dissatisfied with the Scottish Government and felt that their grievances were not listened to. 4.6. Positive points Whilst some positive points about farming in NVZs were extracted from the workshops, the general feeling of the group tended to indicate that any positive comments in no way balanced the negative comments. However, in some workshops farmers agreed that the main advantage of operating within an NVZ region was that having to pay especial attention to applications and use of N, raised farmers’ awareness of how much they were using, and in some cases helped to improve efficiency of use. Furthermore, some members of the workshops identified with the environmental goal of NVZs in that a positive benefit for society would be an improvement in water quality.
5. Discussion Improving water quality is a stated aim of EU policy making, embodied in the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The Nitrate Vulnerable Zones legislation is an instrument for member states to comply with EU water quality regulations and to meet targets under the forthcoming Water Framework Directive. However, with only small amounts of funding directed at monitoring, it relies on the adoption of regulatory standards to achieve water quality targets. Past studies on water quality management, both within the US and EU, generally find a dislike for government regulation and a lack of responsibility for water pollution related to their activities (Macgregor and Warren, 2006; McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007). The literature pertaining to NVZs confirms a scepticism amongst producers towards water quality issues. This may partly explained by the predominant attitude of NVZ farmers which has been found to be productivist. The focus of their operation, to maximise resources and output, is part of their identification of what makes a good farmer (Burton, 2004). The NVZ regulations, like a number of agri-environmental policies in Scotland, did not account for these cultural differences within farming, which is crucial for successful adoption. Nevertheless, this study found there was some agreement with statements concerned with compliance and water quality, which indicates that the designations have created awareness and softened the attitudes of some farmers. This could be explained within Burton’s (2004) framework because requirements for improved record keeping lead to efficiencies which help farmers to achieve their productivist goals. However, nitrogen application is a less visible farming activity than the ploughing and cropping patterns observed in Burton’s study. Hence, it could be argued that this has less of a cultural value from the farmer’s perspective and, consequently, is not identified with being a ‘good farmer’. This is certainly true of this study which found that farmers accept little responsibility for environmental damage caused by their activities. The Porter hypothesis (Porter, 1991; Porter and van der Linde, 1995) proposes that well-designed environmental regulation will force firms to seek innovations that would turn out to be both privately and socially beneficial. The implication is a ‘win-win’ situation, where farmers would benefit economically from more efficient application and storage of N, as would society, who benefit from improved water quality. Porter and van der Linde (1995) contend that well-designed environmental regulation has clear goals, flexible approaches and incentives for innovation. Testing the Porter Hypothesis is beyond the scope of this paper, but if it were to apply to the situation of NVZs, regulation would have to be perceived to have clear goals, from the producer perspective and also offer a flexible approach. The bulk of research in this area has found that producers do not perceive any clear goals from NVZ designation. This has been echoed by this study, which found scepticism over the perceived benefits of restricting activity on water pollution. Similarly, they do not highlight a flexible approach, as NVZ restrictions are set at the national level and offer no allowance for regional variation. The workshops found that farmers required more flexibility to respond to changing conditions and have a belief in their own judgement and awareness of management of their own resources over and above ‘blanket’ limits. 6. Conclusion Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have to comply with stricter regulations concerning nitrogen management. A farmer within a NVZ has an extra requirement to limit and store excess
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
nitrogen, as well as to expand record keeping to cover nitrogen application. The main costs which would be expected to occur arise from storage of slurry. This study has found that the majority of farmers have not invested in extra capacity, nor have they transported more slurry off-farm, indicating that the closed period of 1 month has been accommodated by storage facilities in place before 2003. In addition, only a small number of producers have sought support for capital investment for extra storage. This indicates that farmers currently operating within Scottish NVZs have not unduly changed their behaviour to accommodate the greater restrictions imposed after designation. This study has also found negative attitudes towards NVZs, which could be explained by the scepticism exhibited by producers over the science of the designation itself. This agrees with Macgregor and Warren (2006), who discovered that farmers feel victimised compared to others outside the zones. Coupled with the fact that benefits in water quality only emerge over a number of years (Nimmo Smith et al., 2007), it may be difficult for producers to accept perceived constraints on their activity. Consequently, a more integrated approach to water management is needed and clear indicators of water quality should be developed. This may start to embed nitrogen saving goals within the farmer’s cultural framework of decision-making and lead to greater adoption of these regulations. There is also a role for the policy-makers in providing clearer information regarding the purpose of the NVZ designations, in particular with the science of the designation. Some effort should be made towards emphasising the links between farming activities and nitrate pollution, any positive impact of the regulations and the science behind the nitrate limits imposed on farmers. Some investment in the development and transfer of technologies which aid efficient nitrogen use, in particular N-use software, which is specifically tailored for NVZ regulations, may also encourage greater adoption and aid the Scottish Government in achieving its water quality targets. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Social Research Group within the Scottish Government for funding our work in this area, and all the farmers who willingly gave their time. We also thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on this paper. References Agrawal, G.D., 1991. Diffuse agricultural water pollution in India. Water Science and Technology 39 (3), 33–47. Battershill, R.J., Gilg, A.W., 1997. Socio-economic constraints and environmentally friendly farming in Southwest of England. Journal of Rural Studies 13, 213–228. Bratt, A., 2002. Farmer’s choice: management practices to reduce nutrient leaching within a Swedish catchment. Journal of Environmental Planning Management 45 (5), 673–689. Brook Lyndhurst, 2006. Triggering widespread adoption of sustainable behaviour. Behaviour Change: A Series of Practical Guides for Policy-Makers and Practitioners. Number 4. Report published by Defra, London. Brotherton, I., 1991. What limits participation in environmentally sensitive areas? Journal of Environmental Management 32, 241–249. Burton, R.B., 2004. Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 359– 371. Carraro, C., Leveque, F. (Eds.), 1999. Voluntary Approaches in Environmental Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Cary, J.W., Wilkinson, R.L., 1997. Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48, 13–21. Colman, D., 1994. Ethics and externalities: agricultural stewardship and other behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 299–311. Defra, 2008a. The England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative. Defra, London. Defra, 2008b. Understanding behaviours in a farming context: bringing theoretical and applied evidence together from across Defra and highlighting policy
1721
relevance and implications for future research. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Discussion Paper. DEWHA, 2009. Tasmanian River Catchment Water Quality Initiative. In: Final Report of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Austrailian Government, Biotext Printing Limited, Canberra. Diekmann, A., Franzen, A., 1999. The Wealth of Nations and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior 31, 540–549. Edwards-Jones, G., Deary, I., Willock, J., 1998. Incorporating psychological variables in models of farmer behaviour: does it make for better predictions. In: Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference, Reading, 25–28 March. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour. Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wiley, Reading, MA. Gasson, R., 1973. Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 521–542. Hayman, P.T., Alston, C.L., 1999. A survey of farmer practices and attitudes to nitrogen management in the northern New South Wales grains belt. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39 (1), 51–63. Inglehart, R., 1995. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics 28, 57– 72. Lichtenberg, E., Lessley, B.V., 1992. Water quality, cost-sharing, and technical assistance: perceptions of Maryland farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47, 260–264. Lutz, M., Bastian, O., 2002. Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape—a case study from Saxony. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92, 159–170. Macgregor, C.J., Warren, C.R., 2006. Adopting sustainable farm management practices within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone in Scotland: the view from the farm. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113, 108–119. Manstead, A.S.R., Semin, G.R., 2001. Methodology in social psychology: tools to test theories. In: Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. (Eds.), Introduction to Social Psychology. 3rd ed. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81–122. Mathijs, E., 2003. Social capital and farmers’ willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on Agriculture 32, 13–16. McDermaid, K., 2005. Social Profile: La Moine River Ecosystem Partnership. University of Illinios working paper. Mclver, J.P., Carmines, E.G., 1981. Uni-dimensional Scaling. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 11, 51–63. Morton, L.W., 2007. A different view: mid-west farmers’ perceptions of water quality. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Marriott Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California, 03 February. Newby, H., Bell, C., Sanders, P., Rose, D., 1977. Farmers’ attitudes to conservation. Countryside Recreation Review 2, 23–30. Nguyen, V.T., Momtaz, S., Zimmerman, K., 2006. Water pollution concerns in shrimp farming in Vietnam: a case study of Can Gio, Ho Chi Minh City. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability 3 (2), 129–138. Nimmo Smith, R., Glegg, G., Parkinson, R., Richards, J., 2007. Evaluating the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Denmark and England using an actororientated approach. European Environment 17, 124–144. Nowak, P.J., 1987. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology 52, 208–220. Paniagua Mazorra, A., 2001. Agri-environmental policy in Spain. The agenda of socio-political developments at the national, regional and local levels. Journal of Rural Studies 17, 81–97. Popp, J., Rodriguez, G., 2007. The role of stakeholders’ perceptions in addressing water quality disputes in an embattled watershed. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Restoration 3, 225–263. Porter, M.E., 1991. America’s Green Strategy. Scientific American 264, 168. Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 289–299. Potter, C., Gasson, R., 1988. Farm participation in voluntary land diversion schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 6, 1–7. Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1992. The conservation status and potential of elderly farmers: results from a survey of England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 8, 133–143. Rehman, T., McKemey, K., Yates, C.M., Cooke, R.J., Garforth, C., Tranter, R.B., Park, J.R., Dorward, P.T., 2007. Identifying and understanding the factors influencing the uptake of technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the Theory of Reasoned Action. Agricultural Systems 94 (2), 281–293. Ribaudo, M., 1997. USDA’s water quality program: the lessons learned. Agricultural Outlook (May), 28–31. Saltiel, J., Bauder, J.W., Palakovich, S., 1994. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: diffusion, farm structure and profitability. Rural Sociology 59, 333– 349. Sang, N., Birnie, R.V.B., 2008. Informing common pool resource problems: a survey of preference for catchment management strategies amongst farmers and the general public in the Ythan river catchment. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 1161–1174. Scottish Executive, 2002. The designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI No. 276) Scottish Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 276. TSO (The Stationery Office), London. Scottish Executive, 2003. Guidelines for farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Water Environment Unit, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh.
1722
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
Scottish Executive, 2006. Protection of Scotland’s Water Environment: consultation on proposed amendments to the action programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. SE Water Division, Edinburgh, 16 November 2006. Scottish Government Environmental Quality Directorate, 2007. Protection of Scotland’s Water Environment Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: Proposed Amendments. Analysis of consultation responses received. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK. Segerson, K., Miceli, T.J., 1998. Voluntary environmental agreements: good or bad news for environmental protection? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 109–130. Shucksmith, M., 1993. Farm household behaviour and the transition to postproductivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44, 466–479. Sureshwaran, S., Londhe, S.R., Frazier, P., 1996. A logit model for evaluating farmer participation in soil conservation programs: slopping agricultural land technology on upland farms in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7, 57–69. Wafai and Associates, 1993. Water pollution in Egypt: awareness, attitudes and perceptions. In: A qualitative assessment, Wafai and Associates, Cairo, Egypt. Ward, N., Lowe, P., 1994. Shifting values in agriculture: the farm family and pollution regulation. Journal of Rural Studies 10, 173–184.
Weaver, D.M., Prout, A.L., 1993. Changing farm practice to meet environmental objectives of nutrient loss to Oyster Harbour. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 36 (2), 177–184. Widdison, P., Burt, T., Hudson, R., 2004. The Water Framework Directive: implications for farmers in the Leet water catchment. In: Published in the Proceedings of the SAC/SEPA Biannual Conference on Managing Rural Diffuse Water pollution. pp. 117–123. Willock, J., Deary, I., Edward-Jones, G., Gibson, G., McGregor, M., Sutherland, A., Dent, B., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., 1999. The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision-making: business and environmentally oriented behaviour in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50, 286–303. Wilson, G.A., 1992. A survey of attitudes of landholders to native forest management on farmland. Journal of Environmental Management 34, 117–136. Wilson, G.A., Hart, K., 2000. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A 32, 2161–2185. Young, C., Morris, C., Andrews, C., 1995. Agriculture and the environment in the UK: towards an understanding of the role of ‘farming culture’. (special issue)In: Greener Management International—Organisations, Culture and the Environment. pp. 63–81.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Agricultural Water Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/agwat
Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland A.P. Barnes a,*, J. Willock b, C. Hall a, L. Toma a a b
Land Economy Research Division, SAC, King’s Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, United Kingdom Health Psychology Research Unit, Queen Margaret University, Queen Margaret University Drive, Musselburgh, United Kingdom
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 29 August 2008 Accepted 1 July 2009 Available online 9 August 2009
Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) were introduced in response to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) which states that all EU countries must reduce the nitrate in drinking water to a maximum of 50 mg/l. Farmers within a designated NVZ must adhere to strict rules over the timing and application of nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources. In Scotland, four NVZ regions were designated in 2003, covering around 14% of the land area and affecting over 12,000 farmers. This paper outlines the results of a recent study to understand farmer activities in response to and attitudes towards NVZ regulations in Scotland. A telephone survey was administered, obtaining a response of 184 farmers, supplemented by four workshops held in each NVZ region. This explored, both quantitatively and qualitatively, farmer behaviour and attitudes. The bulk of farmers have made little capital investment since the 2003 designation. Few farmers have invested in increased slurry storage facilities, nor begun to transport more slurry off-farm, claiming to have had enough storage capacity before designation to cover the imposed closed period. Farmer attitudes indicate a mostly negative view towards the perceived environmental benefits, water management and compliance. This can be explained by a number of concerns raised by farmers towards the scientific basis for designations. Furthermore, farmers viewed the restrictions placed on farming practices within NVZs as too inflexible. Given the mostly sceptical perceptions demonstrated by the farmers we call for a more integrated approach to water management at the catchment level. There is a role for policy-makers to provide clearer information over the science and purpose of the designations and also to invest in the transfer of technologies, in particular N-use software which is specifically tailored to NVZ regulations. Also, critical to this would be the development of transparent indicators of water quality. This may start to embed nitrogen pollution impacts within the farmer’s cultural framework of decision-making. ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones Farmer attitudes Nonpoint source pollution European Union
1. Introduction Catchment level management is becoming an increasingly popular instrument for the improvement of water quality (Ribaudo, 1997; Defra, 2008a; DEWHA, 2009). Within the European Union the establishment of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) is a concerted effort by the European Union to reduce nitrate pollution at catchment level. NVZs impose strict limits on the timing and the application of organic and inorganic nitrogen-based materials on agricultural land. Whilst some countries have adopted country-wide designations, such as Northern Ireland and Denmark, others have adopted a regional approach. Within Scotland four regions now have NVZ status,
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0131 5354042; fax: +44 0131 5354345. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.P. Barnes). 0378-3774/$ – see front matter ß 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.07.002
which covers 14% of agricultural land. These regions are shown in Fig. 1 below. The Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2003 (SI 2003 no. 51) establishes the current Action Programme, the monitoring, the offence procedures where the rules have been contravened and appeals procedures. In particular, the schedule to these regulations sets out the rules on (i) the quantities, timing and application conditions for applying nitrogen fertilisers to land; (ii) storage capacity for livestock manures; and (iii) the planning and recording of fertiliser use. Table 1 outlines the main restrictions farmers within Scottish NVZs must abide by. All farmers within a NVZ are required by law to observe these regulations, and principal monitoring is through the Scottish Government, who inspect 5% of farms within the NVZs annually (Scottish Executive, 2002, 2006, 2007). The designations and the consequent restrictions on activity affect around 12,000 farmers in Scotland. Consequently, this paper focuses on farmer perceptions
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
1716
Fig. 1. Geographic areas of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland.
of this designation and whether there has been any behavioural or attitudinal change, in particular to farmer approaches to water pollution and management. Studies have been conducted on quality management issues in water catchment areas of the US (Lichtenberg and Lessley, 1992; McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007); in Europe and Australia (Bratt, 2002; Sang and Birnie, 2008; Weaver and Prout, 1993; Hayman and Alston, 1999) and in several developing countries (Wafai and Associates, 1993; Nguyen et al., 2006; Agrawal, 1991). These studies find that farmers frequently express a lack of responsibility for creating and addressing water pollution problems (McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007). Furthermore, they fail to acknowledge that any water pollution problems exist (Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2006). Whilst they do demonstrate an understanding of what
measures can be applied to reduce problems of nitrogen loss from the farm, common obstacles to implementing such measures are costs and time (Bratt, 2002; McDermaid, 2005; Hayman and Alston, 1999). Some studies exist which directly examine the perceptions of farmers operating within NVZs. Studies have been conducted in Denmark and England (Nimmo Smith et al., 2007), and in Scotland (Widdison et al., 2004; Macgregor and Warren, 2006). Widdison et al. (2004) used stakeholder interviews coupled with surveys of 48 farmers operating within the Leet Catchment in the Lothian and Borders NVZ. Overall they found gaps in farmers’ knowledge of, and scepticism towards, the Nitrates Directive and NVZ regulation. In addition, they found that farmers wanted concise and clear information on guidelines and were wary of management changes required by the regulations. Macgregor and Warren (2006) undertook a qualitative study of a small sample of mostly arable farmers operating within the Strathmore and Fife NVZ and found that none of the farmers felt responsible for any negative environmental issues beyond the boundaries of their farms. Most farmers had a clear sense of what practices cause nitrate pollution problems (e.g. excessive applications of fertilisers and manure, poor timing of applications, and inadequate or poorly maintained manure, slurry and silage storage) but many refused to accept that farming was responsible for any problems. This position was used to justify their reluctance to consider changing their current practices. In addition, more than half of the farmers in their study thought their operations already complied with the rules. Clearly, these studies seem to show a lack of any pro-active uptake of measures within the scheme. In addition, it indicates resistance to any possible future changes to the NVZ Action Programme if stricter restrictions are enforced on them. From a policy perspective more interest is being directed at how behaviours can be influenced to ‘nudge’ producers along the adoption curve (Brook Lyndhurst, 2006; Defra, 2008b). The first step is to understand how these behaviours develop. Accordingly, the aim of this paper is to focus on the producer perspectives towards NVZ regulations. Previous studies have only examined small samples by a single region or farming type. Similarly, they have not offered any assessment of the practices adopted by farmers within NVZs since the designations. This is crucial to understanding the producer responses to the regulations. Consequently, this paper examines whether there is any deviation in perception of NVZs across farm types and across all four Scottish NVZ’s. It combines a quantitative assessment of practices and attitudes, with qualitative results from workshops to further explore perceptions and attitudes. The paper is structured as follows; the next section outlines the conceptual background for
Table 1 Main Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Action Programme Regulations for Scotland. Record keeping Records must be kept annually on the use of all organic and inorganic (chemical) nitrogen (N) fertilisers, on a field by field basis. A fertiliser and manure plan must be prepared and implemented each year. Nitrogen application limits There are farm and field based limits for the quantity of N that can be applied in the form of organic manure. N from organic and inorganic sources must not exceed the crop or grassland requirement. Closed periods For inorganic (chemical) fertilisers the closed periods cover the month 1 October and 1 November for autumn sown crops and between 1 August and 1 November in any other case where there is unlikely to be plant uptake and the risk of nitrate leaching is highest. For slurry, poultry manure and liquid digested sewage sludge closed periods cover sandy and shallow soils during the times when nitrate leaching is most likely. Storage of slurry/poultry manure and farmyard manure The capacity of storage facilities must be sufficient to hold all the slurry/poultry manure that cannot be applied due to closed periods. Manure produced in excess of the storage requirement must not be used in a manner that will cause harm to the environment. Field middens must be sited away from inland and coastal waters, wells, boreholes or similar water supplies. Source: Scottish Executive (2003).
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
measuring farmer attitudes, this is followed by an outline of the data collected and detail concerning the sample; farming activities and practices since designation are then outlined; this is followed by a quantitative and qualitative assessment of farmer attitudes and perceptions within NVZs; the final section offers discussion and conclusions with respect to these perceptions and practices. 2. Conceptual background The Theory of Reasoned Action (TORA) was the first model to demonstrate a consistent link between attitudes towards a behaviour and actual performance of a behaviour (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). It assumes individuals have full volitional control over their actions and that, barring unforeseen events, a behaviour is performed if an individual intends to perform it. Intention becomes the focus because this allows some discrimination between those likely to carry out an action and those unlikely to. The TORA therefore assumes that modification of beliefs is sufficient to change attitudes, subjective norms, and, hence, intentions to perform a behaviour, and the actual carrying out of the behaviour. The main focus of the farming studies employing TORA-based frameworks is to examine the influence of attitudes on behaviour and decision-making (Potter and Gasson, 1988; Brotherton, 1991; Wilson, 1992; Ward and Lowe, 1994; Colman, 1994; Young et al., 1995; Rehman et al., 2007). In attempting to understand the cause of behavioural actions, it is argued that this behaviour could be predicted by a producer’s intentions. These intentions can also be determined by the farmer’s attitudes and the influence of other reference groups. These attitudes are critical in determining the cause of particular behavioural effects. In turn both behaviour and attitudes are affected by a set of antecedent variables, including socio-economic and structural factors, such as policies, financial pressures, family concerns, ethical principles and values. A further branch of literature has explored the causes of these attitudes and behaviours, finding strong correlations with socio-economic variables (Inglehart, 1995; Sureshwaran et al., 1996; Diekmann and Franzen, 1999). Gasson’s (1973) study of farmer behaviour led to a growth in literature concerning the attitudes, motivations and non-economic attitudes of farmers. The bulk of these studies tend to follow Gasson by classifying farmers according to their production and non-production related goals. Other studies have examined the effect of structural and socio-economic factors on the decision to become more environmentally friendly (Shucksmith, 1993; Potter and Lobley, 1992; Battershill and Gilg, 1997). Willock et al. (1999) identified a number of attitudinal factors concerned with business and environmental performance. They surveyed a sample of farmers within the East of Scotland, and identified the most prevalent characteristics for environmental behaviour. Attitudes towards chemical use and conservation objectives were highly correlated to positive environmental behaviour. In addition they found openness attitudes towards farming (e.g. allowing access by the public) and size of farm also contributed to influencing farmer decision-making regarding the environment. Participation in environmental protection programmes has also gained attention (Segerson and Miceli, 1998; Carraro and Leveque, 1999). Several case studies have found that despite generally proenvironmental attitudes per se farmer attitudes towards the environment are stronger when programmes compensate or support them (Newby et al., 1977; Potter and Gasson, 1988; Morris and Potter, 1995; Paniagua Mazorra, 2001; Lutz and Bastian, 2002). Other factors which have been found to be important in explaining a farmer’s propensity to participate in agri-environ-
1717
mental programmes (AEP) is social capital (Saltiel et al., 1994; Wilson and Hart, 2000; Mathijs, 2003); a lack of profitability and credit constraints are considered influential to the adoption of environmental technologies (Cary and Wilkinson, 1997; Nowak, 1987); and the degree of effort necessary to implement the environmental behaviour (Edwards-Jones et al., 1998; Saltiel et al., 1994). Burton (2004) explored the cultural influences behind farmer decision-making and found that a productivist approach represents a means of obtaining ‘social status and recognition within the community as a ‘good farmer’ (pp. 208). He argued that, from a policy-maker perspective, there should be greater consideration of cultural values when promoting change to a ‘post-productive’ agriculture. 3. Data collection 3.1. Telephone survey A questionnaire was developed to understand farmer responses, attitudes and understanding of the NVZ regulations. The questionnaire consisted of a number of sections aimed at measuring the influence of farmers’ attitudes, goals and external constraints on farming behaviour (farm size, farm type etc.). Four scales were developed for this study, based partly on Willock et al. (1999) and partly on discussion with policy-makers. These were: (i) farm information; (ii) farming attitudes to conservation, pollution and NVZ legislation; (iii) farming goals or objectives to the above; (iv) farming behaviour directly related to the above. If these attitudes have an important influence on a farmer’s motivation then it is also necessary to design and measure how important they are to the individual. Thus attitude items were evaluative statements, whilst objectives were measured by how important the particular concept was to the farmer. Actual reported behaviour was investigated using a similar set of items, such as ‘Have you taken any active conservation measures in the past 3 years?’ These attitudes were measured using a standard 5-point Likert scale. There is discourse on the strengths and weakness of this approach (Mclver and Carmines, 1981; Manstead and Semin, 2001). However, it does provide a common framework for capturing a set of attitudes, ranging from beliefs to behaviours. A telephone survey was conducted over the period February– March 2007. Names and telephone numbers of 700 holdings were provided from the Scottish Government June Agricultural Census contact list. This was stratified by each of the four administrative NVZ regions and by farm type. In total 184 responses were received, giving a return rate of 26%. Table 2 shows the percentage responses in more detail for the Survey (SV), compared to the total distribution of farms recorded as operating within NVZs from the June Agricultural Census (JAC). The JAC does suffer from some estimation bias, as around 30% of the sample for Scotland is imputed from past data. Nevertheless it is the best source of data for comparing the response distributions. For most categories, the responses closely mimic the distribution of the JAC, though some areas, in particular those in the Lower Nithsdale NVZ, tends to over represent cereals and general cropping (e.g. potatoes and vegetables) and slightly under represent cattle and sheep producers. The majority of NVZ farms who responded were owned outright (72%), with the remainder being either tenanted or partially tenanted. In addition, 60% of farms were trading on a partnership basis, around 30% were sole traders, whereas around 10% were a limited company; across all farms sampled only a small percentage
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
1718
Table 2 Comparison between response rates for survey (SV) against the June Annual Census (JAC), by farm type and region, percent.
Lothian and Borders Lower Nithsdale Moray, Aberdeenshire Banff and Buchan Strathmore and Fife
Cereals and general cropping
Mixed
SV
JAC
SV
56 41 29
(51) (23) (37)
3 11 14
59
(44)
5
(8%) had certified organic production. High proportions of farmers in NVZs claimed to keep production records and also to keeping annual financial budgets. These data were firstly cleaned and some attitude responses were reverse scored to represent consistent responses along the 5-point Likert scale used. Initially, standard statistical analysis was conducted on the data. This consisted of measuring frequency of response to a number of questions. Where possible, responses were cross-tabulated against a number of economic and socio-demographic factors to identify any particular patterns within the data. In addition some responses were aggregated, e.g. by farming types and farm size, to increase category sizes for robust statistical analysis. 3.2. Farmer workshops Four workshops were held, one in each of the four NVZ areas. The overall aim was to add more context, detail and in-depth understanding of the results obtained from the survey. In total, 36 farmers attended the four workshops; nine were at Thainstone in the Aberdeenshire, Banff, Buchan and Moray NVZ, eight at Perth in the Strathmore and Fife NVZ, seven at Gifford in the Edinburgh, East Lothian and Borders NVZ, and 12 at Dumfries in the Lower Nithsdale NVZ. Participants also varied in terms of age, from their 20 s through to over 65 s. It was evident from discussions that participants were involved in a variety of farming activities, including arable, dairy, beef, and sheep. Examining the first part of participants’ postcodes (i.e. the first three or four digits only, such as AB51 or DG3) there was a total of 19 different codes. Hence, crucially, there was significant diversity among participants. The key attitudinal results from the survey were presented at the workshops to encourage discussion. Then an ‘affinity mapping’ exercise was conducted, in which participants were asked to provide individual statements on the good and bad points of farming within NVZs. These were then prioritised after discussion with the participants. Discussions were recorded and analysed to provide overall context setting for the results. 4. Results 4.1. Farm practices Around half of the farmers surveyed (51%) conducted a soil analysis every 1–5 years, with a further 25% conducting one at least once a year; 62% of farmers claimed to prepare a nutrient management plan, with the majority also keeping records of fertiliser and manure applications for individual fields. There were varied responses to the storage of solid manure. These are presented by farming type in Table 3. Those farms which are classified as mostly cropping activity (cereals, potatoes and field vegetables) and those with mostly livestock (dairy, beef and sheep, pigs and poultry) preferred storage in-field, with the highest levels recorded for this activity being arable, dairy and poultry farms. Mixed farm types preferred mixed methods of storage. A chi-square test found a significant difference across farm types by storage practices.
Cattle and sheep
Dairy
Pigs and poultry
JAC
SV
JAC
SV
JAC
SV
JAC
(14) (16) (17)
26 24 39
(24) (32) (28)
4 12 9
(1) (15) (5)
11 12 9
(9) (14) (13)
(12)
21
(27)
3
(3)
12
(14)
Table 3 Type of storage of solid manure, by farming type, percentage by column. Mixed In-field Concrete In tank Mixed In tank/field Do not use
Mostly crops
Mostly livestock
Total
18 18 9 36 9 9
51 10 5 18 5 11
38 10 10 21 15 6
44 11 7 20 9 9
100
100
100
100
When asked about storage capacity, around two thirds claimed to have already had enough storage capacity for present practices and to abide by the NVZ regulations. 4.2. Changes since the 2003 designation A number of questions were aimed at understanding how farmers in NVZs have changed behaviour since the 2003 designation. The majority of farms had not invested in slurry or manure space, nor on expansion of storage facilities. Mostly cropping (95%), mostly livestock (86%) and mixed (73%) farming types claimed to have made no investment or expansion of storage since 2003. This seems to tally with the responses above concerning the belief that they had enough storage capacity. Around 40% of all farming types have invested in obtaining farming or agronomic advice for improved record keeping. As outlined above, the NVZ regulations require an increased amount of record keeping, specifically in terms of recording crop N requirements and field level applications, and some investment in advice would be understandable. However, whilst there were no discernible differences across the four regions, more activity was recorded for livestock categories, in particular dairy producers. Around 60% of this farming type claimed to have made some investment for improved record keeping since 2003. The farmers were asked whether they had changed any practices since 2003 which would impact on water quality. Their responses are presented by farm type in Table 4 and show that most farmers have not changed their practices, aside from an increase in membership of environmental schemes (though this follows a general trend throughout Scotland as schemes, such as the Rural Stewardship Scheme have expanded membership). Notably, the specialist livestock categories (dairy, pigs and poultry) had the lowest recorded levels of membership with environmental schemes. A chi-square test found no significant difference across farming types. Farmers were asked about adoption of Prevention of Environmental Pollution from Agricultural Activity (PEPFAA) best standards.1 Around 46% of mixed farms, 60% of mostly cropping farms and 61% of mostly livestock farms claim to have adopted some 1 The PEPFAA code is a voluntary scheme to ensure best practice for reducing diffuse water pollution. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/37428/ 0014235.pdf.
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722 Table 4 Farming practices since 2003 for Nitrate Vulnerable Zone farmers, percentage by columna. Mostly crops
Mostly livestock
Transport more slurry off-farm Yes 13 No 87
Mixed
1 98
3 97
Adopted environmental schemes Yes 47 No 47
47 46
28 72
Used manure management software Yes 7 No 93
10 87
11 86
Received a grant under the NVZ scheme? Yes 13 6 No 87 94
12 88
a
Non-rounding to 100% indicates practices conducted before 2003.
form of PEPFAA recommended best practices since the regulations were introduced in 2003. A chi-square test found that mixed farms were significantly different from specialist farming types and hence were less likely to adopt PEPFA standards. 4.3. Farmer perceptions of NVZ regulations Farmers were required to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a set of attitude statements, using a standard 5point Likert scale. The themes identified, along with example statements, are outlined in Table 5 below.
1719
Table 6 shows the frequency of response to these themes by farming type. Interestingly, none of the farmers disagreed strongly with any of the statements. Consequently the results ranged from disagree to strongly agree. Around 70–80% of responses within the livestock and cropping farming types either agreed or strongly agreed with the statements related to production. Within this theme, all farmers tended to agree quite strongly with the statement ‘farmers should fully utilise their resources’. For mixed farming types the level of agreement was smaller, though around 60% also either agreed or strongly agreed. A chi-square test found no significant difference across farming types to this set of attitudes. Attitudes towards the environment (Green) and, especially, responsibility for environmental damage (Responsibility) had the largest number of unsure responses across all farming types. The bulk of the remainder, in mixed and mostly livestock farms (around 30%), tended to agree with the environmental attitude statements. Given the large number of unsure responses a focus in the workshops was to further explore the farmer responses to the environmental and responsibility statements. Some differences were observed for attitudes towards NVZ compliance. The specialist, livestock and cropping, farming types had some agreement with statements concerning compliance, whereas mixed farming types were more unsure. Statements which registered a high level of agreement types were ‘it is important to use or store slurry correctly’ and ‘It is important for me to reduce chemical nitrogen waste using organic sources’. However, mixed farming types tended to either disagree or were more
Table 5 Attitude themes and example statements. Attitudes
Example statements
Attitudes to production
On a farm of this size you must be oriented towards production if you are to survive; farmers should fully utilise their resources.
Green attitudes
If farming in the UK is to be sustained you must reduce chemical fertiliser applications; farmers have to do their bit to reduce environmental pollution.
Responsibility for environmental damage
Other industries pollute more than farmers. Other industries are not penalised sufficiently for environmental pollution.
Attitudes to compliance
It is fair that farmers should be held responsible for water pollution in this area; it is unfair that certain farmers have to bear the cost of complying with NVZ regulations.
Water management attitudes
Water quality can affect my health; groundwater pollution is an important environmental issue.
Table 6 Farmer responses to statements, by attitude theme and by farming type, percentage by column. Attitude theme
Mixed farming type Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Mostly crop farms Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Mostly livestock farms Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly agree
Production
Green
Responsibility
Compliance
Water management
13.3 26.7 40.0 20.0 100
0.0 64.3 35.7 0.0 100
7.1 78.6 14.3 0.0 100
0.0 66.7 25.0 8.3 100
6.7 66.7 26.7 0.0 100
0.0 17.1 54.3 28.6 100
7.8 74.5 17.6 0.0 100
8.0 80.7 11.4 0.0 100
0.0 31.2 65.6 3.2 100
10.6 41.3 46.2 1.9 100
4.7 18.8 65.6 10.9 100
3.2 61.3 33.9 1.6 100
12.5 73.2 12.5 1.8 100
2.0 41.2 52.9 3.9 100
7.8 45.3 43.8 3.1 100
1720
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
unsure of these statements. A chi-square test found a significant difference between mixed and other farming types. Finally, the specialist farms have higher levels of agreement to the water quality management statements, compared to the mixed farming types. Nevertheless, around 40% of specialist farms and 67% of mixed farms were unsure on the water quality management statements. 4.4. Workshop responses In order to supplement the responses to the questionnaire, a number of workshops were held in the NVZ regions: Perth (Fife), Thainstone (Aberdeen), Gifford (Lothian), and Dumfries (Nithsdale). All the workshops followed the same structure in which the results of the survey were presented by each of the attitude themes outlined above, which were then discussed by the workshop groups. Although the dynamics of the four groups were very different, and there were obviously regional differences in terms of farming activity and environmental conditions, there were some very consistent messages from the participants. Views and opinions gathered in the four workshops are listed below in terms of negative and positive points of operating within an NVZ. 4.5. Negative points Key points arose from three of the workshops related to the belief that the scientific basis for designation of the NVZ areas was flawed. In general, farmers either did not believe the evidence related to the designations, or wanted to see proof that reductions in application levels may have some positive impact. Key points from the discussions reveal that farmers felt unfairly penalised by the restrictions placed on them, compared to those outside the zones. This clearly links to the farmer unwillingness to accept responsibility for any negative impacts on water quality found in other studies. Other key points arising from the workshops related to the restrictions placed on farming practice from the NVZ regulations. In effect, they wanted more flexibility in the closed periods that better reflect seasonal and weather conditions. In addition, they voiced concern that fertiliser limits restrict potential crop yields. Farmers also revealed some dissatisfaction at the extra levels of paperwork they are required to produce when operating within the NVZ areas. They considered these to be too complicated, requiring additional cost and time. Several statements were made by the workshop participants which related to provision of information. Information to farmers in NVZs was not deemed adequate since some were not aware of the regulations and others were not aware of details, such as grant funding and consultations about revisions. In addition, some farmers felt dissatisfied with the Scottish Government and felt that their grievances were not listened to. 4.6. Positive points Whilst some positive points about farming in NVZs were extracted from the workshops, the general feeling of the group tended to indicate that any positive comments in no way balanced the negative comments. However, in some workshops farmers agreed that the main advantage of operating within an NVZ region was that having to pay especial attention to applications and use of N, raised farmers’ awareness of how much they were using, and in some cases helped to improve efficiency of use. Furthermore, some members of the workshops identified with the environmental goal of NVZs in that a positive benefit for society would be an improvement in water quality.
5. Discussion Improving water quality is a stated aim of EU policy making, embodied in the Nitrates Directive and the Water Framework Directive. The Nitrate Vulnerable Zones legislation is an instrument for member states to comply with EU water quality regulations and to meet targets under the forthcoming Water Framework Directive. However, with only small amounts of funding directed at monitoring, it relies on the adoption of regulatory standards to achieve water quality targets. Past studies on water quality management, both within the US and EU, generally find a dislike for government regulation and a lack of responsibility for water pollution related to their activities (Macgregor and Warren, 2006; McDermaid, 2005; Popp and Rodriguez, 2007; Morton, 2007). The literature pertaining to NVZs confirms a scepticism amongst producers towards water quality issues. This may partly explained by the predominant attitude of NVZ farmers which has been found to be productivist. The focus of their operation, to maximise resources and output, is part of their identification of what makes a good farmer (Burton, 2004). The NVZ regulations, like a number of agri-environmental policies in Scotland, did not account for these cultural differences within farming, which is crucial for successful adoption. Nevertheless, this study found there was some agreement with statements concerned with compliance and water quality, which indicates that the designations have created awareness and softened the attitudes of some farmers. This could be explained within Burton’s (2004) framework because requirements for improved record keeping lead to efficiencies which help farmers to achieve their productivist goals. However, nitrogen application is a less visible farming activity than the ploughing and cropping patterns observed in Burton’s study. Hence, it could be argued that this has less of a cultural value from the farmer’s perspective and, consequently, is not identified with being a ‘good farmer’. This is certainly true of this study which found that farmers accept little responsibility for environmental damage caused by their activities. The Porter hypothesis (Porter, 1991; Porter and van der Linde, 1995) proposes that well-designed environmental regulation will force firms to seek innovations that would turn out to be both privately and socially beneficial. The implication is a ‘win-win’ situation, where farmers would benefit economically from more efficient application and storage of N, as would society, who benefit from improved water quality. Porter and van der Linde (1995) contend that well-designed environmental regulation has clear goals, flexible approaches and incentives for innovation. Testing the Porter Hypothesis is beyond the scope of this paper, but if it were to apply to the situation of NVZs, regulation would have to be perceived to have clear goals, from the producer perspective and also offer a flexible approach. The bulk of research in this area has found that producers do not perceive any clear goals from NVZ designation. This has been echoed by this study, which found scepticism over the perceived benefits of restricting activity on water pollution. Similarly, they do not highlight a flexible approach, as NVZ restrictions are set at the national level and offer no allowance for regional variation. The workshops found that farmers required more flexibility to respond to changing conditions and have a belief in their own judgement and awareness of management of their own resources over and above ‘blanket’ limits. 6. Conclusion Farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones have to comply with stricter regulations concerning nitrogen management. A farmer within a NVZ has an extra requirement to limit and store excess
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
nitrogen, as well as to expand record keeping to cover nitrogen application. The main costs which would be expected to occur arise from storage of slurry. This study has found that the majority of farmers have not invested in extra capacity, nor have they transported more slurry off-farm, indicating that the closed period of 1 month has been accommodated by storage facilities in place before 2003. In addition, only a small number of producers have sought support for capital investment for extra storage. This indicates that farmers currently operating within Scottish NVZs have not unduly changed their behaviour to accommodate the greater restrictions imposed after designation. This study has also found negative attitudes towards NVZs, which could be explained by the scepticism exhibited by producers over the science of the designation itself. This agrees with Macgregor and Warren (2006), who discovered that farmers feel victimised compared to others outside the zones. Coupled with the fact that benefits in water quality only emerge over a number of years (Nimmo Smith et al., 2007), it may be difficult for producers to accept perceived constraints on their activity. Consequently, a more integrated approach to water management is needed and clear indicators of water quality should be developed. This may start to embed nitrogen saving goals within the farmer’s cultural framework of decision-making and lead to greater adoption of these regulations. There is also a role for the policy-makers in providing clearer information regarding the purpose of the NVZ designations, in particular with the science of the designation. Some effort should be made towards emphasising the links between farming activities and nitrate pollution, any positive impact of the regulations and the science behind the nitrate limits imposed on farmers. Some investment in the development and transfer of technologies which aid efficient nitrogen use, in particular N-use software, which is specifically tailored for NVZ regulations, may also encourage greater adoption and aid the Scottish Government in achieving its water quality targets. Acknowledgements The authors thank the Social Research Group within the Scottish Government for funding our work in this area, and all the farmers who willingly gave their time. We also thank two anonymous referees for helpful comments on this paper. References Agrawal, G.D., 1991. Diffuse agricultural water pollution in India. Water Science and Technology 39 (3), 33–47. Battershill, R.J., Gilg, A.W., 1997. Socio-economic constraints and environmentally friendly farming in Southwest of England. Journal of Rural Studies 13, 213–228. Bratt, A., 2002. Farmer’s choice: management practices to reduce nutrient leaching within a Swedish catchment. Journal of Environmental Planning Management 45 (5), 673–689. Brook Lyndhurst, 2006. Triggering widespread adoption of sustainable behaviour. Behaviour Change: A Series of Practical Guides for Policy-Makers and Practitioners. Number 4. Report published by Defra, London. Brotherton, I., 1991. What limits participation in environmentally sensitive areas? Journal of Environmental Management 32, 241–249. Burton, R.B., 2004. Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 359– 371. Carraro, C., Leveque, F. (Eds.), 1999. Voluntary Approaches in Environmental Policy. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Cary, J.W., Wilkinson, R.L., 1997. Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48, 13–21. Colman, D., 1994. Ethics and externalities: agricultural stewardship and other behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 45, 299–311. Defra, 2008a. The England Catchment Sensitive Farming Delivery Initiative. Defra, London. Defra, 2008b. Understanding behaviours in a farming context: bringing theoretical and applied evidence together from across Defra and highlighting policy
1721
relevance and implications for future research. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Discussion Paper. DEWHA, 2009. Tasmanian River Catchment Water Quality Initiative. In: Final Report of the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Austrailian Government, Biotext Printing Limited, Canberra. Diekmann, A., Franzen, A., 1999. The Wealth of Nations and Environmental Concern. Environment and Behavior 31, 540–549. Edwards-Jones, G., Deary, I., Willock, J., 1998. Incorporating psychological variables in models of farmer behaviour: does it make for better predictions. In: Paper presented at the Agricultural Economics Society Annual Conference, Reading, 25–28 March. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour. Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wiley, Reading, MA. Gasson, R., 1973. Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics 24, 521–542. Hayman, P.T., Alston, C.L., 1999. A survey of farmer practices and attitudes to nitrogen management in the northern New South Wales grains belt. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 39 (1), 51–63. Inglehart, R., 1995. Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Political Science and Politics 28, 57– 72. Lichtenberg, E., Lessley, B.V., 1992. Water quality, cost-sharing, and technical assistance: perceptions of Maryland farmers. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 47, 260–264. Lutz, M., Bastian, O., 2002. Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape—a case study from Saxony. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 92, 159–170. Macgregor, C.J., Warren, C.R., 2006. Adopting sustainable farm management practices within a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone in Scotland: the view from the farm. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 113, 108–119. Manstead, A.S.R., Semin, G.R., 2001. Methodology in social psychology: tools to test theories. In: Hewstone, M., Stroebe, W. (Eds.), Introduction to Social Psychology. 3rd ed. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 81–122. Mathijs, E., 2003. Social capital and farmers’ willingness to adopt countryside stewardship schemes. Outlook on Agriculture 32, 13–16. McDermaid, K., 2005. Social Profile: La Moine River Ecosystem Partnership. University of Illinios working paper. Mclver, J.P., Carmines, E.G., 1981. Uni-dimensional Scaling. Sage, Newbury Park, CA. Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 11, 51–63. Morton, L.W., 2007. A different view: mid-west farmers’ perceptions of water quality. In: Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Marriott Santa Clara, Santa Clara, California, 03 February. Newby, H., Bell, C., Sanders, P., Rose, D., 1977. Farmers’ attitudes to conservation. Countryside Recreation Review 2, 23–30. Nguyen, V.T., Momtaz, S., Zimmerman, K., 2006. Water pollution concerns in shrimp farming in Vietnam: a case study of Can Gio, Ho Chi Minh City. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability 3 (2), 129–138. Nimmo Smith, R., Glegg, G., Parkinson, R., Richards, J., 2007. Evaluating the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in Denmark and England using an actororientated approach. European Environment 17, 124–144. Nowak, P.J., 1987. The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Sociology 52, 208–220. Paniagua Mazorra, A., 2001. Agri-environmental policy in Spain. The agenda of socio-political developments at the national, regional and local levels. Journal of Rural Studies 17, 81–97. Popp, J., Rodriguez, G., 2007. The role of stakeholders’ perceptions in addressing water quality disputes in an embattled watershed. Journal of Environmental Monitoring and Restoration 3, 225–263. Porter, M.E., 1991. America’s Green Strategy. Scientific American 264, 168. Porter, M.E., van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environmentcompetitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9, 289–299. Potter, C., Gasson, R., 1988. Farm participation in voluntary land diversion schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 6, 1–7. Potter, C., Lobley, M., 1992. The conservation status and potential of elderly farmers: results from a survey of England and Wales. Journal of Rural Studies 8, 133–143. Rehman, T., McKemey, K., Yates, C.M., Cooke, R.J., Garforth, C., Tranter, R.B., Park, J.R., Dorward, P.T., 2007. Identifying and understanding the factors influencing the uptake of technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the Theory of Reasoned Action. Agricultural Systems 94 (2), 281–293. Ribaudo, M., 1997. USDA’s water quality program: the lessons learned. Agricultural Outlook (May), 28–31. Saltiel, J., Bauder, J.W., Palakovich, S., 1994. Adoption of sustainable agricultural practices: diffusion, farm structure and profitability. Rural Sociology 59, 333– 349. Sang, N., Birnie, R.V.B., 2008. Informing common pool resource problems: a survey of preference for catchment management strategies amongst farmers and the general public in the Ythan river catchment. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 1161–1174. Scottish Executive, 2002. The designation of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (Scotland) Regulations 2002 (SSI No. 276) Scottish Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 276. TSO (The Stationery Office), London. Scottish Executive, 2003. Guidelines for farmers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. Water Environment Unit, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department, Edinburgh.
1722
A.P. Barnes et al. / Agricultural Water Management 96 (2009) 1715–1722
Scottish Executive, 2006. Protection of Scotland’s Water Environment: consultation on proposed amendments to the action programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones. SE Water Division, Edinburgh, 16 November 2006. Scottish Government Environmental Quality Directorate, 2007. Protection of Scotland’s Water Environment Action Programme for Nitrate Vulnerable Zones: Proposed Amendments. Analysis of consultation responses received. Scottish Government, Edinburgh, UK. Segerson, K., Miceli, T.J., 1998. Voluntary environmental agreements: good or bad news for environmental protection? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 36, 109–130. Shucksmith, M., 1993. Farm household behaviour and the transition to postproductivism. Journal of Agricultural Economics 44, 466–479. Sureshwaran, S., Londhe, S.R., Frazier, P., 1996. A logit model for evaluating farmer participation in soil conservation programs: slopping agricultural land technology on upland farms in the Philippines. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 7, 57–69. Wafai and Associates, 1993. Water pollution in Egypt: awareness, attitudes and perceptions. In: A qualitative assessment, Wafai and Associates, Cairo, Egypt. Ward, N., Lowe, P., 1994. Shifting values in agriculture: the farm family and pollution regulation. Journal of Rural Studies 10, 173–184.
Weaver, D.M., Prout, A.L., 1993. Changing farm practice to meet environmental objectives of nutrient loss to Oyster Harbour. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 36 (2), 177–184. Widdison, P., Burt, T., Hudson, R., 2004. The Water Framework Directive: implications for farmers in the Leet water catchment. In: Published in the Proceedings of the SAC/SEPA Biannual Conference on Managing Rural Diffuse Water pollution. pp. 117–123. Willock, J., Deary, I., Edward-Jones, G., Gibson, G., McGregor, M., Sutherland, A., Dent, B., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., 1999. The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision-making: business and environmentally oriented behaviour in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics 50, 286–303. Wilson, G.A., 1992. A survey of attitudes of landholders to native forest management on farmland. Journal of Environmental Management 34, 117–136. Wilson, G.A., Hart, K., 2000. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A 32, 2161–2185. Young, C., Morris, C., Andrews, C., 1995. Agriculture and the environment in the UK: towards an understanding of the role of ‘farming culture’. (special issue)In: Greener Management International—Organisations, Culture and the Environment. pp. 63–81.