ASESORAMIENTO Y VALORACION DEL FARMACEUTICO.

The first part of this section investigates farmers’ responses to interventions that encourage behaviour change (voluntary, educational and economic) and the second to interventions that attempt to enforce behaviour change (regulatory). Educational interventions commonly support other intervention types. Industry initiatives are voluntary interventions, but considered separately in this review because control is retained by industry rather than government as occurs

Farmers’ responses to interventions that encourage change: voluntary, educational and economic

In these studies, farmers responded to a mix of interventions that encourage behaviour change. Although voluntary or economic interventions are the key policy instrument used, educational interventions (e.g. field days, printed information, advice) are commonly used to support these interventions.

Voluntary interventions encourage social interaction (Cocklin et al., 2007) and attempt to establish a moral incentive, or social acceptance of a practice, to ensure the practice is implemented (Moon & Cocklin, 2011). Studies investigating farmer response to voluntary interventions commonly interpret individual response as a change in behaviour, for example, adoption of recommended best management practices (e.g. Emtage & Herbohn, 2012; Lankester et al., 2009). A few studies found other responses, including: experimenting and trialling different management practices (‘to see if there was any difference’) (Cotching et al., 2009; Moon & Cocklin, 2011); and monitoring changes after practices were adopted (Cotching et al., 2009; Lankester et al., 2009). Additionally, Lankester et al. (2009) found farmers were sceptical of the government’s scientific information about factors that can impact on water quality. The government’s scientific information about water quality differed from the landholders’ beliefs and observations about the factors that can contribute to water quality decline.

Some scholars identified a collective farmer response, and a collective influence over individual farmer adoption of best management practices. Both Cotching et al. (2009) and Lankester et al. (2009) found farmer group activities facilitated social interaction between farmers, and social interaction enabled farmers to share knowledge, learn and develop understanding through a social learning process. In Cotching et al.’s (2009) study, social learning contributed to a change in individual farmers’ understanding (about soil management), and a change in farm management practices. Social learning among the farmers in Lankester et al.’s (2009) study contributed to a change in social norms (e.g. farmers questioning current farm practice, concerns about how other farmers view their riparian management practices), and this change in norms contributed to farmers adopting riparian best management practices.

Economic interventions encourage change by offering economic incentives. Most researchers interpret farmer response as participation in a subsidy programme, uptake of incentives, and adoption of best management practices. Mendham et al. (2007) found a spectrum of landholder

participation: some landholders accepted incentives and changed behaviour (e.g. fencing and revegetation), some sought information about the incentive scheme, some attended field days and workshops (social learning), and some landholders did not participate. Mendham et al. (2007) identified a number of individual farmer factors that influenced farmers’ non-participation in this subsidy scheme. These factors include: farmers’ concerns about a loss of autonomy; decreased trust in government’s intentions; a belief that accepting money would restrict their future farm management practices; a belief they were being unfairly criticised by the public; and a belief their contributions to native vegetation management were not being recognised or valued. Farmers’ concerns about a loss of autonomy were similarly identified by scholars investigating farmers’ responses to European agri-environment schemes (e.g. Curry & Winter, 2000; C. Morris & Potter, 1995; J. Morris et al., 2000).

Farmers’ responses to interventions that enforce change: regulation

Regulatory interventions aim to control human behaviour by regulating or legislating against certain behaviour. Researchers commonly view response to a regulatory intervention as a change in individual farmer behaviour (e.g. change in farm practice). Many researchers also investigated how individual farmers’ characteristics, such as attitude (Barnes et al., 2011; Bartel & Barclay, 2011; Macgregor & Warren, 2006, 2016), perception and emotion (Botha et al., 2013), influence a farmers’ behavioural response to rules and regulations. In most cases, these researchers interpret a change in farmer characteristics (e.g. a change in attitude) as both a response to rules and regulations, and a driver of other farmer responses. Similarly to other researchers, Duncan (2013, 2016) reported farmers’ responses as a change in understanding and behaviour, however, she also explored farmers’ ‘ways of knowing’ water quality.

Duncan (2013, 2016) also responded to Blackstock et al.’s (2010) identified research gaps in understanding the socio-cultural aspects of farmers’ responses to water quality interventions. She investigated New Zealand farmers’ responses to the process used to set nutrient limits9 _{to achieve} agreed water quality goals, and to the regulatory intervention (a regional plan) that set the limits. Her research investigated how farmers and policy makers framed and conceived water quality, or their ‘ways of knowing’. Duncan (2013) found general understanding of and acceptance of the water quality issue, general agreement that nutrient limits were necessary, and farm practice change (e.g. waterway fencing). Importantly, she also found a divergence between farmers and

policy maker’s framing of the water quality problem: what farmers observe and know about their land differed from what science modelling was indicating. These findings support Blackstock et al. (2010), who emphasise that gaining agreement on the problem is crucial to influencing farmer behaviour change.

Duncan (2016) built on her earlier research (Duncan, 2013), and further investigated the divergence in farmers and policy makers problem framing, or, what she termed as ‘ways of knowing’. She also investigated farmers’ responses to Overseer10_{; a computer model commonly} used as a regulatory tool by regional councils in New Zealand, to predict nutrient losses. Some farmers were sceptical of the results from Overseer, and others criticised policy makers for relying on a predictive modelling tool that is ‘prone to assumptions and error’. She concluded that while policy makers rely on Overseer to develop their ways of knowing, farmers’ ways of knowing are based on gut feeling, observations, and common sense.

In another New Zealand water quality study, Botha et al. (2013) investigated New Zealand farmers’ responses to new regional council regulation in terms of their perceptions (of policy change), emotions (in response to change), and behaviour (farm practice change). These authors grouped farmers’ perceptions of policy change as either negative (e.g. rules unfairly target farmers), ambivalent (e.g. science results about farming and pollution are inconclusive), or positive (e.g. farmers are guardians of Lake Taupo). Emotional responses ranged from shock, denial and fear because they believed these rules would threaten their farming operations, to feelings of inevitability and acceptance of environmental regulations. Behavioural responses ranged from no change to their current farm practices because of uncertainty about current and future regional council compliance standards, to making a management practice change. Botha et al. (2013) concluded that an individual’s behavioural response to environmental policy is shaped by their perception and their emotions: negative perceptions and emotions were associated with resistance to change, and positive perceptions and emotions with acceptance of change.

A few studies investigated individual farmers’ responses to the Nitrate Vulnerable Zone (NVZ) regulations introduced in Scotland to address declining water quality. Earlier studies by Macgregor and Warren (2006) and Barnes et al. (2009) found a range of individual farmer responses. The farmers in Macgregor and Warren’s (2006) study were interviewed in 2002 before NVZ regulations were introduced, and were reluctant to change practice. They often used denial

of personal responsibility for river pollution to justify their reluctance, and these farmers rarely considered environmental impacts past the farm’s boundary. Building on Macgregor and Warren’s (2006) research, Barnes et al. (2009) found most farmers who operate within NVZ had not changed farm practices to improve water quality since the NVZ were designated in 2003. Additionally, most farmers in both studies felt negatively towards the NVZ regulations. The farmers in Barnes et al.’s (2009) study either did not believe the scientific evidence used to designate the NVZ or wanted proof that input reductions have a positive impact on water quality. Additionally, the farmers in the NVZ felt unfairly penalised by the restrictions placed on their farm practices, and wanted the restrictions to be more flexible. Some farmers felt the Scottish government was not listening to their concerns. Farmers in both studies were negative about bureaucratic process, for example, time spent on record keeping and complicated paperwork.

In later studies, Barnes et al. (2011) found most farmers had made some farm practice changes since NVZ regulations (e.g. fencing watercourses). Similarly to Macgregor and Warren’s (2006) study, Barnes et al. (2011) also found a range of negative attitudes towards water quality regulations. They classified farmers based on their attitudes towards regulations. Farmers who were negative towards NVZ regulations, based on their perception it would increase workload and reduce income, were labelled as ‘resistors’. Farmers who were disengaged and indifferent towards regulations were labelled as ‘apathists’. However, in contrast to Macgregor and Warren’s (2006) results, they did find some farmers (the ‘multifunctionalists’) who were aware of environmental and water quality issues and agreed with stated practices to reduce nitrogen use. More recent work by Macgregor and Warren (2016) builds on earlier work by Macgregor and Warren (2006) and by Barnes and colleagues (Barnes et al., 2009; Barnes et al., 2011). They found an increasing number of farmers were adopting farm practices designed to improve water quality (e.g. reduction in fertiliser use). They also found a shift in farmer attitude towards NVZ regulation since earlier studies. Most farmers did not express negative views towards NVZ, and some acknowledged the NVZ regulations had changed their attitudes towards the environment.

Other researchers also investigated farmer response as behaviour change (adoption of best management practices) and attitudes towards environmental regulation. Bartel and Barclay (2011) found the majority of Australian farmers in their study had negative attitudes towards government, environmental law and agricultural regulations, and as a result, more likely to defy regulations. A smaller group held positive attitudes, supported the government, and would be

towards regulation and government were more likely to comply with regulation, and adopt best management practices to reduce environmental impacts.

Most studies of farmer response towards regulatory interventions focus on individual farmer responses with less attention to a collective farmer response. Although taking an individual farmer perspective, Botha et al. (2013) did note how peer support encouraged farmer practice change. The next section investigates farmers’ responses to voluntary industry initiatives.

Farmers’ responses to industry initiatives

In some situations, industry initiatives can be described as voluntary in nature (individual chooses to participate), and are developed by industry in response to specific issues facing the industry (Gunningham & Rees, 1997). There is limited international research on farmers’ responses to industry initiated interventions, and in particular, little international research on industry initiatives around farming and water quality.

A few studies measured New Zealand dairy farmers’ responses to the 2003 Dairying and Clean Streams Accord (DCSA)11_{. The DCSA established principles and farm practices around dairy} farming and water quality and relied on social pressure to encourage farmer behaviour change. The DCSA was not a legally binding agreement and did not use economic incentives or regulatory interventions. The researchers investigating the DCSA, viewed individual farmer response as a change in behaviour (Bewsell et al., 2007) and a farmer’s level of involvement (from high to low) in developing a nutrient budget for their farm (Bewsell & Brown, 2011). Bewsell et al. (2007) investigated whether the DCSA influenced farmers’ stream fencing decisions, and found the majority of farmers fenced their streams for practical stock management reasons. Some fenced due to off-farm pressure and expectations (to conform with the DCSA). The farmers yet to fence did not perceive any stock benefits from fencing and did not feel pressured by community concerns to fence. In a later study, Bewsell and Brown (2011) found the majority of farmers in their study had a low involvement in the preparation of their farm’s nutrient budget (e.g. spent little time and effort in gathering information), and had their budget prepared by another individual (e.g. fertiliser representative). Many farmers had a budget prepared to comply with the industry’s requirements, and had little interest in using the results from their budget to assess

their environmental impacts and change their farm management practices. There was no evidence in these studies of farmers being motivated by financial gain to change behaviour.

This synopsis of empirical farmer response studies highlights the diversity of ways scholars investigated farmers’ responses to interventions. Firstly, some studies viewed response as behaviour change, and others as the individual farmer characteristics and socio-cultural aspects that influence farmer behaviour. Secondly, interventions operate in different ways: regulations remove choice and enforce change, whilst voluntary and economic interventions offer choice and encourage change. Educational interventions commonly support the other policy instruments. Farmers are different individuals, and as such, different individuals respond differently to different