Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Relationship between farmers’ perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison

1 Faculty of Business Economics, Hasselt University, Hasselt, Belgium
2 Department of Engineering Management, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
3 Countryside and Community Research Institute, University of Gloucestershire, Gloucester, UK
4 Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, Agricultural University of Athens, Athens, Greece

The environmental challenges have become increasingly integrated into the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The Europe 2020 CAP Framework defines new rules for farmers and targets on innovation, resource efficiency, economic viability, and environmental sustainability. Given the continual evolution of the CAP, it is relevant to focus on sustainable agriculture and which indicators can be employed to aid our understanding of the future farming strategies. This study examines the relationship between perceived sustainability and future farming strategies for three different commodities: sugar beet, dairy, and feta cheese. Survey data collected between 2017–2018 from 191 Belgian sugar beet farmers, 524 dairy farmers (from UK, Denmark, France, and Latvia), and 150 Greek sheep and goat farmers producing milk for feta cheese were analysed using multinomial logistic regressions. Our results show that the farmers’ attitude towards sustainability affects intentions to implement specific farming strategies. Belgian sugar beet farmers who perceive their supply chain arrangements (SCAs) environmentally sustainable are less likely to reduce the scale of their farms’ operations rather than to maintain them. Dairy farmers are more likely to change the existing scale than to maintain scale if they perceive that production choices affect environmental sustainability to a higher extent. Dairy farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are less likely to abandon farming. Greek sheep and goat farmers who perceive their SCAs economically sustainable are more likely to expand the existing scale. The observed differences at commodity-level show the importance of well targeted policy measures towards more sustainable farming systems in the European Union.
  Article Metrics

Keywords perceived sustainability; future farming strategies; sugar beet; dairy; feta cheese

Citation: Sarah Creemers, Steven Van Passel, Mauro Vigani, George Vlahos. Relationship between farmers’ perception of sustainability and future farming strategies: A commodity-level comparison. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2019, 4(3): 613-642. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2019.3.613


  • 1. Brklacich M, Bryant C, Smit B (1990) Review and appraisal of concepts of sustainable food production. Environ Manage 15: 1–14.
  • 2. Cobb D, Dolan P, O'Riordan T (1999) Interpretations of sustainable agriculture in the UK. Prog Hum Geogr 23: 209–235.    
  • 3. Fish R, Seymour S, Watkins C (2003) Conserving English landscapes: Land managers and agri-environmental policy. Environ Plann A 35: 19–41.    
  • 4. Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: Evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22: 331–344.    
  • 5. Vigani M, Maye D, Kirwan J (2018) Producer Survey Report, SUFISA.
  • 6. Menard C, Valceschini E (2005) New institutions for governing the agri-food industry. European Review Agric Econ 32: 421–440.    
  • 7. Markets Task Force Report (2016) Improving market outcomes-enhancing the position of farmers in the supply chain. In: Report of the Agricultural Markets Task Force, Brussels.
  • 8. Menozzi D, Fioravanzi M, Donati M (2015) Farmer's motivation to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Bio-based Appl Econ 4: 125–147.
  • 9. Falconer K, Saunders C (2002) Transaction costs for SSSIs and policy design. Land Use Policy 19: 157–166.    
  • 10. Falconer K (2000) Far-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16: 379–394.    
  • 11. Renting H, Marsden TK, Banks J (2003) Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environ Plann A 35: 393–412.    
  • 12. Diazabakana A, Latruffe L, Bockstaller C, et al. (2014) A review of farm level indicators of sustainability with a focus on CAP and FADN. Eur Comm.
  • 13. Methorst RG, Roep D, Verhees F, et al. (2016) Drivers for differences in dairy farmers' preceptions of farm development strategies in an area with nature and landscape as protected public goods. Local Econ 31: 554–571.    
  • 14. Kielbasa B, Pietrzak S, Ulén B (2018) Sustainable agriculture: The study on farmers' perception and practices regarind nutrient management and limiting losses. J Water Land Dev 36: 67–75.    
  • 15. Van Passel S (2013) Food miles to assess sustainability: A revision. Sustainable Dev 21: 1–17.    
  • 16. Giddings B, Hopwood B, O'Brien G (2002) Environment, economy and society: Fitting together into sustainable development. Sustainable Dev 10: 187–196.    
  • 17. Solazzo R, Donati M, Arfini F, et al. (2014) A PMP model for the impact assessment of the Common Agricultural Policy reform 2014–2020 on the Italian tomato sector. New Medit 13: 9–19.
  • 18. Roling N, Pretty JN (1997) Extension's role in sustainable agricultural development. In: Swanson BE, Bentz RP, Sufranko AJ, Improving Agricultural Extension, A Reference Manual, Rome, Italy, FAO.
  • 19. Alonge AJ, Martin R (1995) Assessment of the adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: Implications for agricultural education. J Agric Educ 36: 34–42.    
  • 20. WCED (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
  • 21. Latruffe L, Diazabakana A, Bockstaller C, et al. (2016) Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: A review of indicators. Stud Agric Econ 118: 123–130.    
  • 22. Eckert H, Breitschuh (1994) Kritische Umweltbelastungen Landwirtschaft (KUL)-Eine Methode zur Analyse und Bewertung der ökologischen Situation von Landwirtschaftsbetrieben. In Thüringer Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft. EULANU. Schriftenreihe 10: 30–46.
  • 23. Lewandowski I, Härdtlein M, Martin K (1999) Sustainable crop production: Definition and methodological approach for assessing and implementing sustainability, 39.
  • 24. Van Cauwenbergh N, Biala K, Bielders C, et al. (2007) SAFE-A hierarchical framework for assessing the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120: 229–242.    
  • 25. Hayati D, Ranjbar Z, Karami E (2011) Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Lichtfouse E. Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry and Conservation Agriculture, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 5, Dordrecht, Springer Science Business Media B.V.
  • 26. Zhen L, Routray JK (2003) Operational indicators for measuring agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Environ Manage 32: 34–46.    
  • 27. Meul M, Van Passel S, Nevens F, et al. (2008) MOTIFS: A monitoring tool for integrated farm sustainability. Agron Sustainable Dev 28: 321–332.    
  • 28. Zervas G (2018) The role of feta for the sustainability of Greek sheep and goat sector. Epi Gis 12: 6–7.
  • 29. European Commission (2001) A framework for indicators for the economic and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture and rural development.
  • 30. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1972) Attitudes and opinions. Annu Rev Psychol 23: 487–544.    
  • 31. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. New York, US: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
  • 32. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behaviour. Organ Behav Hum Decis Processes 50: 179–211.    
  • 33. Lebacq T, Baret PV, Stilmant D (2013) Sustainability indicators for livestock farming, a review. Agron Sustainable Dev 33: 311c327.
  • 34. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis: A global perspective. Upper Sadle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  • 35. Negatu W, Parikh A (1999) The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (District) of Ethiopia 21: 205–216.
  • 36. Bagheri A (2010) Potato farmers' perceptions of sustainable agriculture: The case of Ardabil province of Iran. Proc Soc Behav Sci 5: 1977–1981.    
  • 37. Maye D, Kirwan J, Chiswell H, et al. (2018) Comparative report. SUFISA Deliverable 2.3 WP 2.
  • 38. Field A (2009) Discovering statistics using SPSS, 3Eds. London, SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • 39. Bergen D, Tacquenier B, Van der Straeten B (2015) Suikerbieten-Rentabiliteits-en kostprijsanalyse op basis van het Landbouwmonitoringsnetwerk. Departement Landbouw en Visserij, Brussel. Depotnummer: D/2015/3241/237.
  • 40. Biely K, Creemers S, Van Passel S (2018) The future of sugar beet cultivation in Belgium-Market and structural challenges, SUFISA Policy Brief.
  • 41. Aubert PM, Treyer S, Tayeb Cherif O, et al. (2019) The future of dairy farming in Finistère, SUFISA Policy Brief.
  • 42. Maye D, Kirwan J, Vigani M, et al. (2018) Milk price volatility and dairy contracts in Somerset: Some key messages, SUFISA Policy Brief.
  • 43. Hvarregaard Thorsoe M, Bjornshave Noe E (2018) Danish dairy report, SUFISA Extended Summary.
  • 44. Grivins M, Tisenkopfs T (2018) The future of the dairy sector in Latvia, SUFISA Policy Brief.
  • 45. Vlahos G, Tsakalou E (2018) Outlook on sheep and goats breeding in Greece: Restrained optimism, SUFISA Policy Brief.
  • 46. Unfair trading practices in the food chain. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/marke t-measures/unfair-trading-practices_en.
  • 47. Byrne BM (2005) Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. J Pers Assess 85: 17–32.    
  • 48. Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, et al. (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res 99: 323–337.    


This article has been cited by

  • 1. Artyom Lamanov, Yurij Ivanov, Rishat Iskhakov, Liliya Zubairova, Khamit Tagirov, Azat Salikhov, Beef quality indicators and their dependence on keeping technology of bull calves of different genotypes, AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2020, 5, 1, 20, 10.3934/agrfood.2020.1.20

Reader Comments

your name: *   your email: *  

© 2019 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved