Exploring farmers’ perspectives on collective action: a case study on co-operation in Dutch agri-environment schemes

Figures & data

Figure 1. Overview of the participating farmers’ collectives (map by Sigrid Ehlert using ArcGIS 10.8.1, geospatial data by BoerenNatuur [collective areas] and GADM [administrative boundaries]).

Table 1: Factor characteristics and descriptive data

Characteristics	Factor 1	Factor 2	Factor 3
Number of Q sorts flagged	5	3	6
Eigenvalue	3.53	3.24	3.18
Explained variance (%)	23.52	21.58	21.20
Sum of explained variance (%)			66.31
Reliability (∈ [0,1])	0.952	0.923	0.960
Standard error of factor scores	0.218	0.277	0.200
Descriptive data
Participants involved (ID)	2, 7, 10, 11, 12	5, 9, 14	1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 13
Regions represented	Brabant, Drenthe, Friesland, Zeeland	Brabant, Friesland, Groningen	Brabant, Drenthe, Friesland, Groningen, Noord-Holland
Farming sector	dairy (2), arable (2), arable and livestock (1)	livestock (1), dairy (2)	dairy
Average farm size (ha)	76.4	86.3	68.2
Average number of cattle in dairy farming	170	405	152
Farm type	conventional	conventional	Conventional (5), organic (1)
Average income from farming (%)	84	98.3	87.2
Average age (years)	45	52	57
Average of years farming	24.4	33.7	33.8

Table 2: Overview of all statements with z-scores and factor arrays for each factor with distinguishing statements for a certain factor written in bold, and consensus statements written in italic.

Statement				Factor 1		Factor 2		Factor 3		Statement based on
Category		ID	Item	z-score	array	z-score	array	z-score	array
Costs & benefits	Direct monetary rewards	30	For me, direct payments are a very important reason to participate.	1.31	3	1.68	3	1.27	3	Defrancesco et al. (2008), Karali et al. (2014)
		29	The schemes would be more attractive if I received a financial bonus once we as a group achieve a certain level of participation.	−1.6	−4	−0.1	0	0.71	1	Kuhfuss et al. (2015)
	Indirect rewards	17	A main advantage of the collective scheme is that we get support with the application and administrative tasks.	0.82	1	0.79	2	1.07	2	Lastra-Bravo et al. (2015), Dedeurwaerdere et al. (2016), Wanner et al. (2020)
		16	The collective provides opportunities to get together and create useful networks.	0.56	1	0.53	1	0.56	1	M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017), Wanner et al. (2020)
		21	The collective schemes offer more flexibility and are less restrictive than the schemes we had before.	0.39	1	−0.2	0	−0.15	0	McKenzie et al. (2013), Wanner et al. (2020)
		19	Being part of a collective and participating in the scheme improves my image.	0.09	0	−0.4	−1	0.72	2	Mills et al. (2011), van Herzele et al. (2013)
		18	Implementing measures yields ecological benefits for my farm – beyond increases in biodiversity.	−0.01	0	−0.66	−1	−0.22	−1	Ahnström et al. (2008), van Herzele et al. (2013), Wynne-Jones (2017)
		20	I want to benefit from product marketing and labelling activities.	−0.84	−2	1.23	3	−0.16	−1	Barghusen et al. (2021)
	Cost savings	36	In the collective scheme I can save costs through easier access to information and resources.	−0.7	−1	0.54	1	−0.46	−1	Westerink et al. (2017), Wanner et al. (2020)
		37	In collective schemes we can save costs through division of labour and shared machinery usage.	−1.06	−2	−0.28	−1	−0.42	−1	OECD (2013)
Personal norms	Problem awareness	06	I want to protect species that I know and like, for example meadow birds.	1.03	2	0.42	1	1.35	3	van Dijk et al. (2016), Barghusen et al. (2021)
		07	My agricultural land use maintains biodiversity.	1.02	2	0.41	1	1.42	4	van Dijk et al. (2015), Vries et al. (2019), Wanner et al. (2020)
		05	Collective schemes yield higher ecological benefits than individual actions.	0.48	1	0.21	0	1.86	4	McKenzie et al. (2013), Wanner et al. (2020)
		03	I want to tackle environmental problems in our region.	−0.96	−2	−0.73	−2	0.44	1	Greiner (2015), M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017), Jones et al. (2020)
		01	I am cautious about adopting new ideas and farm practices.	−1.53	−3	−0.12	0	−1.7	−3	Howley et al. (2015), Cullen et al. (2020)
	Perceived responsibility	08	It’s part of being a good farmer to care about the environment.	1.93	4	0.65	1	0.73	2	Westerink et al. (2019)
		04	I love nature and our landscape.	1.21	3	1.74	4	0.87	2	van Dijk et al. (2016)
		02	It is a waste to leave farm land idle and not use it for production.	0.01	0	0.99	2	−0.07	0	Burton, Kuczera, and Schwarz (2008), Howley et al. (2015)
		09	I may continue with some of the measures, even if I'm not paid anymore.	−1.41	−3	−0.14	0	0.32	0	van Dijk et al. (2016)
	Group efficacy	27	I’m proud of what we achieve as a collective.	1.32	3	0.14	0	0.64	1	Wynne-Jones (2017), Wanner et al. (2020)
		24	I value the meetings and exchange with other farmers to learn from each other.	1.04	2	0.53	1	0.56	1	Jones et al. (2020), Wanner et al. (2020)
		25	Working collectively helps to bridge the gap between farmers and nature conservationists by supporting mutual understanding.	0.71	1	1.16	2	1.09	3	M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017)
		26	Within the collective I dare to try more complex schemes than I would on my own.	−0.36	−1	−1.03	−2	0.38	0	Jones et al. (2020)
		22	Through the collective we get a say in the design of the scheme.	−0.5	−1	-1.31	−3	−0.1	0	M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017), Westerink et al. (2017)
		28	I trust that my neighbours will do a good job cooperating.	-0.61	−1	−0.22	−1	−0.58	−1	Franks et al. (2016), Villamayor-Tomas, Sagebiel, and Olschewski (2019)
		23	In collective schemes I'm afraid that others will benefit from my work without contributing themselves.	−1.55	−3	−1.91	−4	−1.87	−4	OECD (2013)
Social norms	Injunctive norms	15	In the collective we help each other out if anyone needs support.	0.83	1	−0.43	−1	−0.12	0	Mills et al. (2011), Wynne-Jones (2017)
		11	Most people who are important to me think positive about collective agri-environment-schemes.	0.38	0	−0.2	0	−0.2	−1	van Dijk et al. (2016)
		14	Even if meetings and administration are tiring: sharing moments of laughter, sorrow or pride unite us as a group.	−0.08	0	−0.65	−1	−0.72	−2	Wynne-Jones (2017)
		10	I participate in collective agri-environment-schemes because collaborating for environmental protection is a tradition in this area.	−0.3	0	−0.95	−2	−1.37	−2	Barghusen et al. (2021)
		12	I participate because most members of my collective think that it's important to join collective conservation measures.	−0.3	0	−1.38	−3	−1.71	−3	van Dijk et al. (2015), van Dijk et al. (2016)
		13	I would only cooperate with farmers that I respect.	−0.43	−1	−1.37	−3	−1.59	−3	Mills et al. (2011), Riley et al. (2018)
	Descriptive norms	33	It's important for me that on my own farm I remain the boss and decide how things are done.	1.44	4	1.93	4	0.66	1	Wynne-Jones (2017)
		35	It is important that people in the region realise and appreciate what we do with the schemes.	0.93	2	0.71	2	0.38	0	M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017), Vries et al. (2019)
		31	I won't implement measures that make the farm look messy.	−0.34	−1	1.29	3	−0.89	−2	van Dijk et al. (2016), Riley et al. (2018)
		32	There is a high pressure of society – if I don't collaborate for conservation I may just lose my license to produce.	−1.04	−2	−0.74	−2	−0.66	−2	Siebert, Toogood, and Knierim (2006), Karali et al. (2014), M. P. M. M. de Krom (2017)
		34	I participate in collective agri-environment-schemes because my farmer colleagues participate.	−1.9	−4	−2.13	−4	−2.02	−4	Defrancesco et al. (2008), Lastra-Bravo et al. (2015), Cullen et al. (2020)

Note: Based on the difference between z-scores, statements are considered distinguishing when significantly differing from others, which is applicable when scores are greater than 1.96*standard error of difference for p < 0.05 (Brown 1980, p. 245). Statements are considered as consensus, if none of the differences between any pair of factors is significant. The statement ID is used for identification and possesses no further meaning.

Defrancesco, Edi., Paola Gatto, Ford Runge, and Samuele Trestini. 2008. “Factors Affecting Farmers? Participation in Agri-Environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective.” Journal of Agricultural Economics 59 (1): 114–131. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00134.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Karali, Eleni, Beat Brunner, Ruth Doherty, Anna Hersperger, and Mark Rounsevell. 2014. “Identifying the Factors That Influence Farmer Participation in Environmental Management Practices in Switzerland.” Human Ecology 42 (6): 951–963. doi:10.1007/s10745-014-9701-5.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kuhfuss, Laure, Raphaële Préget, Sophie Thoyer, and Nick Hanley. 2015. “Nudging Farmers to Enrol Land into Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Role of a Collective Bonus.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 43 (4): 609–636. doi:10.1093/erae/jbv031.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lastra-Bravo, Xavier B., Carmen Hubbard, Guy Garrod, and Alfredo Tolón-Becerra. 2015. “What Drives Farmers’ Participation in EU Agri-Environmental Schemes? Results from a Qualitative Meta-Analysis.” Environmental Science & Policy 54: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dedeurwaerdere, Tom., Jeroen Admiraal, Almut Beringer, Flavia Bonaiuto, Lavinia Cicero, Paula Fernandez-Wulff, Janneke Hagens, et al. 2016. “Combining Internal and External Motivations in Multi-Actor Governance Arrangements for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.” Environmental Science & Policy 58: 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wanner, Saskia, Dieter Mortelmans, Francis Turkelboom, Sven Defrijn, Marina García Llorente, and Inés Gutiérrez Briceño. 2020. Integrated Evaluation Report of Innovative/interesting Contracts. Accessed October 21, 2022. https://www.project-contracts20.eu/reports-publications/.

 Google Scholar

de Krom, Michiel P. M. M. 2017. “Farmer Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: Regionalisation and the Role of Bridging Social Capital.” Land Use Policy 60: 352–361. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.026.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

McKenzie, Ailsa J., Steven B. Emery, Jeremy R. Franks, Mark J. Whittingham, and Jos Barlow. 2013. “Landscape-Scale Conservation: Collaborative Agri-Environment Schemes Could Benefit Both Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, but Will Farmers Be Willing to Participate?” Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 1274–1280. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12122.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mills, Jane, David Gibbon, Julie Ingram, Matt Reed, Christopher Short, and Janet Dwyer. 2011. “Organising Collective Action for Effective Environmental Management and Social Learning in Wales.” The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension 17 (1): 69–83. doi:10.1080/1389224X.2011.536356.

 Google Scholar

Van Herzele, Ann., Anne Gobin, Peter Van Gossum, Lilibeth Acosta, Tom Waas, Nicolas Dendoncker, and Bruno Henry de Frahan. 2013. “Effort for Money? Farmers’ Rationale for Participation in Agri-Environment Measures with Different Implementation Complexity.” Journal of Environmental Management 131: 110–120. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.09.030.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahnström, Johan, Jenny Höckert, Hanna L. Bergea, Charles A. Francis, Peter Skelton, and Lars Hallgren. 2008. “Farmers and Nature Conservation: What is Known about Attitudes, Context Factors and Actions Affecting Conservation?” Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24 (1): 38–47. doi:10.1017/S1742170508002391.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wynne-Jones, Sophie. 2017. “Understanding Farmer Co-operation: Exploring Practices of Social Relatedness and Emergent Affects.” Journal of Rural Studies 53: 259–268. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.02.012.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barghusen, Rena, Claudia Sattler, Lisa Deijl, Carleen Weebers, and Bettina Matzdorf. 2021. “Motivations of Farmers to Participate in Collective Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of Dutch Agricultural Collectives.” Ecosystems and People 17 (1): 539–555. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1979098.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westerink, Judith, Roel Jongeneel, Nico Polman, Katrin Prager, Jeremy R. Franks, Pierre Dupraz, and Evy Mettepenningen. 2017. “Collaborative Governance Arrangements to Deliver Spatially Co-ordinated Agri-Environmental Management.” Land Use Policy 69: 176–192. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.09.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

OECD. 2013. Providing Agri-Environmental Public Goods through Collective Action. Paris: OECD Publishing.

 Google Scholar

van Dijk, William F. A. 2016. “Factors Underlying Farmers’ Intentions to Perform Unsubsidised Agri-Environmental Measures.” Land Use Policy 59: 207–216. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.09.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

van Dijk, William F. A., Anne M. Lokhorst, Frank Berendse, and Geert R. de Snoo. 2015. “Collective Agri-Environment Schemes: How Can Regional Environmental Co-operatives Enhance Farmers’ Intentions for Agri-Environment Schemes.” Land Use Policy 42: 759–766. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Greiner, Romy. 2015. “Motivations and Attitudes Influence Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Biodiversity Conservation Contracts.” Agricultural Systems 137: 154–165. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jones, Naomi, Yiying Cao, Hannah Adamson, Liz Lewis-Reddy, Andrew Crowe, and Ben Hockridge. 2020. Facilitation Fund Phase 2 Evaluation: Final Report. Accessed November 09, 2020. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=20130&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=LM0479&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description.

 Google Scholar

Howley, Peter, Cathal Buckley, Cathal O Donoghue, and Mary Ryan. 2015. “Explaining the Economic ‘Irrationality’ of Farmers’ Land Use Behaviour: The Role of Productivist Attitudes and Non-Pecuniary Benefits.” Ecological Economics 109: 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.015.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cullen, Paula, Mary Ryan, Cathal O’Donoghue, Stephen Hynes, Daire Ó. Uallacháin, and Helen Sheridan. 2020. “Impact of Farmer Self-Identity and Attitudes on Participation in Agri-Environment Schemes.” Land Use Policy 95: 104660. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104660.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Westerink, Judith, T. A. de Boer, M. Pleijte, and Raymond A. M. Schrijver. 2019. Kan een goede boer natuurinclusief zijn?: De rol van culturele normen in een beweging richting natuurinclusieve landbouw. Wageningen. Accessed March 02, 2021. https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/e0b14d63-6719-4192-b73a-46953605f5db.

 Google Scholar

Burton, Rob J., Carmen Kuczera, and Gerald Schwarz. 2008. “Exploring Farmers’ Cultural Resistance to Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes.” European Society for Rural Sociology 48 (1): 16–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Franks, Jeremy R., Steven, B. Emery, M. J. Whittingham, and Ailsa J. McKenzie. 2016. “Farmer Attitudes to Cross-Holding Agri-Environment Schemes and Their Implications for Countryside Stewardship.” International Journal of Agricultural Management 5 (4): 78–95.

 Google Scholar

Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio, Julian Sagebiel, and Roland Olschewski. 2019. “Bringing the Neighbors in: A Choice Experiment on the Influence of Co-ordination and Social Norms on Farmers’ Willingness to Accept Agro-Environmental Schemes across Europe.” Land Use Policy 48: 200–2015. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.006.

 Google Scholar

Riley, Mark, Heather Sangster, Hugh Smith, Richard Chiverrell, and John Boyle. 2018. “Will Farmers Work Together for Conservation? The Potential Limits of Farmers’ Co-operation in Agri-Environment Measures.” Land Use Policy 70: 635–646. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.049.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Siebert, Rosemarie, Mark Toogood, and Andrea Knierim. 2006. “Factors Affecting European Farmers’ Participation in Biodiversity Policies.” European Society for Rural Sociology 46 (4): 318–340. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00420.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar