Where is ranching practices

This susceptibility to the descriptive norm is culturally grounded: in collectivist cultures, conforming to the social norm is more approved of and more common than in individualistic cultures Bond and Smith, People in general are interested in comparing themselves with similar others because they need social comparison Festinger, , and this also holds true for contributions to public goods Kurzban and DeScioli, When deciding whether to adopt a more sustainable practice, farmers are also influenced by what they think others expect from them, i.

Injunctive norms affect behaviour because individuals need social approval Talcott, Farmers who engage in sustainable hedge management feel greater social pressure than those who are not part of this type of collaborative project Beedell and Rehman, Those who adopt soil conservation practices are more likely than non-adopters to consider that important social referents think they should apply these practices Wauters et al.

Certainly, local citizens and the media put normative pressure on farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, as shown in the latest Eurobarometer on agriculture European Commission, d. Retailers, and more generally the downstream value chain, may also exert pressure on farmers to adopt more sustainable practices, especially for relatively un-processed food and practices that have received wide media coverage e.

However, advisors from agricultural input companies may influence farmers in a different direction. Spouses, relatives and co-workers may also have negative attitudes towards sustainable practices if the latter require more labour on their part Gardebroek, Culture also plays a role in the relative importance of social referents.

Consumers are known to choose environmentally friendly products because they seek higher status Griskevicius, Tybur and Van den Bergh, For farmers, too, improving local public image and status may motivate them to adopt more sustainable practices Willock et al. Farmers who participate in agri-environmental schemes, and those who have adopted organic farming, are more likely than those who do not to value their public image as a farmer Defrancesco et al.

An issue with social signalling, however, is that some sustainable farming practices are invisible to the general public and therefore receive little social praise Baland and Platteau, For instance, managing pastures to prevent forest fires is relatively visible Kuhfuss et al.

In addition, citizens who lack the relevant knowledge may erroneously consider some sustainable practices e. The desire to produce a visibly tidy landscape, for instance, is at odds with conservation objectives Schmitzberger et al.

Regarding descriptive norms, the strategy to follow essentially depends on the level of adoption of sustainable practices within a given area. If the level is high, one valuable policy option would be to communicate to farmers that the majority of neighbouring farmers have adopted sustainable practices. A similar approach has been proven effective in motivating consumers to conserve energy Allcott, In the context of the CAP, this approach is particularly relevant for voluntary schemes.

Recently, Kuhfuss et al. Informing participants that 80 per cent of other farmers were intending to maintain the sustainable practices even without renewing their contract more than doubled the odds that participants would also maintain the practices.

Also Gillich and colleagues found that farmers would grow perennial crops for bioenergy purposes against a lower compensation premium if their neighbours also grew them. However, another experiment conducted in the USA showed that providing information on the popularity of a voluntary programme had no effect on new or renewed sign-ups Higgins et al.

Conversely, if the adoption level is low, communicating this descriptive norm can backfire. In a famous experiment, Cialdini et al. For instance, farmers who are informed that they consume less water than the majority of others then tend to increase their water consumption Le Coent et al. In areas where the adoption of sustainable practices is particularly low, economic incentives may be more appropriate, precisely to change this self-feeding low descriptive norm.

As a result, farmers are willing to enrol for a lower subsidy amount, thus leading to greater budget efficacy. However, evidence shows that farmers do not value collective participation in agri-environmental schemes Rocamora-Montiel, Glenk and Colombo, ; Villanueva et al.

Harnessing the power of injunctive norms is also a policy option. Instead of targeting farmers, agri-environmental policies may attempt to persuade their social referents. Here, it is important to identify the most influential stakeholders in order to prioritise working with them to influence farmer decision-making. At a more societal level, policies aimed at educating consumers and citizens about agriculture in general, and about the value of sustainable farming practices, may increase the injunctive norm towards more sustainable practices.

In terms of social signalling, expressing social recognition to farmers for their contribution to protecting the environment may be effective. Farmers who are publicly acknowledged as contributing to environmental protection by participating in agri-environmental schemes are more likely to maintain the practices adopted once their contract ends Kuhfuss et al.

Certification programmes, such as the EU organic label, can give farmers who adopt sustainable practices an opportunity to send a signal of their environmental stewardship to their local community and consumers alike — provided that these programmes are well understood and seen as credible Stuart, Benveniste and Harris, An issue here is that many other sustainable practices e. Another option is to give farmers better opportunities to compare their environmental efforts with those of others, a strategy that was found effective for reducing water consumption among citizens Ferraro, Miranda and Price, and curbing antibiotics prescriptions by general practitioners Hallsworth et al.

Social comparison can be achieved either by fostering informal communication and, more generally, social capital between farmers e. For farmers who are heavy consumers of water, letting them compare their individual consumption with the average consumption of neighbouring farmers is effective in reducing their subsequent water consumption Le Coent et al. The adoption of sustainable practices is influenced by how farmers learn, understand and perceive these practices, particularly the associated difficulties, costs, benefits and risks.

These cognitive factors are very specific and, hence, proximal to the decision-making process in question: whereas one type of sustainable practice may be considered risky, costly and difficult to implement, another may be seen as entailing little risk, cost or difficulty.

Table 3 presents an overview of studies that found a significant relationship between cognitive factors and the adoptions of sustainable farming practices. Table 3. Literature on the role of cognitive factors on the adoption of sustainable farming practices. If farmers are to adopt more sustainable practices, an obvious prerequisite is that they are aware that such practices exist. Generally speaking, having access to relevant and reliable information is crucial if farmers are to adopt agronomic innovations Llewellyn, Acquiring information and knowledge about sustainable practices is a highly dynamic and social process see the Section 4 on social factors.

In a study carried out in five EU countries, farmers most often said that lack of knowledge about scheme opportunities was the reason they did not participate in voluntary agri-environmental schemes Pavlis et al. Perceived difficulties are also correlated with the non-adoption of soil conservation practices, especially reduced tillage Wauters et al. Relative to conventional practices, adopting more sustainable practices may entail both costs to and benefits for farmers. Conservation tillage, for instance, involves purchasing specialised planting equipment, but also saves time, labour and mechanised machinery and leads to a long-term increase in soil fertility, which overall results in a positive net financial impact Knowler and Bradshaw, Cover crops have also been identified as profitable for farmers Marcillo and Miguez, Organic farming, on the other hand, reduces the costs of inputs but increases labour costs Uematsu and Mishra, If farmers participate in subsidised schemes, then the premium received constitutes another benefit of adopting conservation agriculture.

Alongside financial costs and benefits, sustainable practices are expected to bring environmental benefits. Belief in the environmental benefits of filter strips, sustainable hedge management and payment-for-environmental-services programmes is also correlated with adoption Beedell and Rehman, ; Ma et al.

Perceptions of costs and benefits may deviate from objective measures Michel-Guillou and Moser, , because a number of biases distort them. Time discounting, also known as the present bias, suggests that immediate benefits and costs have a disproportionate weight in decisions than equivalent benefits and costs in the future Doyle, In a US study, early adopters of sustainable farming practices were found to discount future compensations to a lower extent than late adopters Duquette, Higgins and Horowitz, Research shows that some sustainable practices are somewhat financially riskier than conventional practices.

Organic production, for instance, experiences a greater fluctuation in demand and supply than conventional production Serra, Zilberman and Gil, , and prohibits the use of fertiliser or pesticides, increasing the risk of crop failure Gardebroek, The net payoff under conservation tillage is often more uncertain than under conventional tillage Kurkalova, Kling and Zhao, Here again, a behavioural approach will focus on risks as they are perceived by farmers.

In view of the high financial risks farmers generally face in their activity European Commission, b , the perceived financial risks of more sustainable practices may be one of the most important impediments to their adoption. For instance, organic farmers are considerably more likely than conventional farmers to have a perception of high risks of poor water quality to human health, livestock health and crop quality Toma and Mathijs, Farmers who evaluate the risks of climate change to agriculture as high are also more likely to support mitigation practices Arbuckle, Morton and Hobbs, The availability heuristics suggest that farmers will tend to think that a risk is more serious when they can easily recall a relevant incident Tversky and Kahneman, In contrast, environmental risks are usually relatively uncertain, strongly delayed and occur far away, making it less likely that environmental incidents will be recalled and hence more likely that these risks will be discounted Gattig and Hendrickx, Loss aversion also comes into play where the risks of losses loom larger than the chances of equally valuable gains Kahneman and Tversky, Loss aversion varies across cultures: for instance, in the general population, Asians are more sensitive to the magnitude of potential losses than the Dutch and the Americans Bontempo, Bottom and Weber, In the face of sunk costs e.

In the context of the CAP, this can be channelled through the extension or advisory services. To avoid knowledge asymmetry regarding the existence of compensated voluntary schemes, competent national or regional administrations must ensure that all farmers are provided on time and, at the same time, with the relevant knowledge to enable them to apply.

Providing relevant information to farmers already participating in voluntary schemes would also seem valuable; experimental evidence in the USA shows that sending reminder letters to farms with expiring contracts is effective in encouraging them to re-offer land under the Conservation Reserve Programme Higgins et al. One is to equip farmers with the necessary skills. The other is to avoid complex agri-environmental schemes Defrancesco et al. To decrease the perceived risks of adoption, an appropriate design of subsidy schemes is crucial.

Schemes based on management guidance are preferable over those based on outcomes, as the latter entails a high and uncontrollable perceived risk of non-compliance Latacz-Lohmann, Schilizzi and Breustedt, Making fixed — rather than irregular — payments can increase the adoption rates of nature conservation programmes Engel et al.

Offering insurance i. Another strategy is to reduce the perceived financial risks of adoption by promoting cost-free trialling of sustainable practices, so that farmers can test and learn practices before adopting them Pannell et al. Regarding the financial costs and benefits of adoption, farmers will perceive these as higher if consumers are made better aware of the environmental benefits of these farming practices and are thus willing to pay a price premium.

While some limited consumer awareness of organic farming has been achieved, thanks to the common label at EU level Padel, Zander and Zanoli, , less stringent but similarly sustainable practices are largely unknown to consumers Lefebvre, Langrell and Gomez-y-Paloma, The issues of perceived costs and benefits can also be tackled through policy design. A first general consideration when designing government-subsidised environmental schemes is how farmers actually perceive these parameters.

Finally, focusing agri-environmental schemes on practices for which environmental benefits are real and tangible to farmers is likely to strongly increase participation. Appropriately framing costs and benefits can also help. Framing the benefits of participating in agri-environmental schemes in terms of environmental conservation e. Conversely, framing the payments made to farmers for participating in agri-environmental schemes as a compensation for incurred opportunity costs instead of a payment for environmental benefits may backfire, since this type of framing highlights the costs rather than the benefits e.

Importantly, framing may have different effects on adopters and non-adopters Andrews et al. Framing techniques may also leverage loss aversion Kahneman and Tversky, A similarly stronger effect of punishment vs. The previous reviews carried out have had an academic focus Kabii and Horwitz, ; Knowler and Bradshaw, ; Prokopy et al. This review adds to the former in three ways. First, we addressed the fragmentation of this literature Pannell et al.

This allowed us to integrate several behavioural factors that were previously not considered in these reviews. Second, in our analysis we systematically included the biases e. Third, we provided an integrated, structured taxonomy of behavioural factors, along a distal—proximal spectrum, that facilitates their understanding and provides a basis for the short- and long-term policy recommendations.

Regarding our contribution with respect to the above-mentioned policy reports, whereas the focus of Dwyer et al. The exploration of policy options addressing each cluster of behavioural factors, and embedded in the specific yet highly important context of the CAP, also distinguishes this review from previous academic and policy papers investigating this topic.

For instance, a purely homo agricola economicus would not be affected by moral concerns leading to the altruistic provision of environmental public goods, by resistance to change, by the behaviours of fellow farmers or by the way the costs and benefits of adoption are framed.

A purely rational farmer would also be perfectly informed about sustainable practices and would not be biased in his or her perceptions of risks, costs and benefits. With so many ways in which farmers can deviate from being rational actors, and considering the abundance of psychological theories underlying the influence of behavioural factors, economists may be reluctant to adopt a behavioural approach.

This is a fair point; indeed, the fact that the assumption of rationality has survived in economics for so long proves how useful a simple, if somewhat unrefined, explanation of human behaviour can be. But including behavioural factors in economic and policy analysis does not simply mean introducing more refined variables into economic models.

Considering behavioural factors allows moving from a deductive approach to a more inductive one Lunn, ; instead of suggesting what farmer behaviour ought to be on the basis of a number of axioms and assumptions, a behavioural approach sets out to observe it empirically with a more open-minded perspective. When considering the role of the identified behavioural factors, one should avoid a deterministic stance.

In other words, the external validity of these behavioural factors, beyond the cultural settings in which they were examined, is not always established. We may thus not conclude whether these behavioural factors apply universally OECD, Depending on the context, behavioural factors may indeed be significant or not Knowler and Bradshaw, ; Prokopy et al.

As highlighted various times in this review, cultural factors play a role: culture affects not only the relative importance of behavioural factors e. Understanding the behavioural factors influencing farmer decision-making seems warranted to enable more realistic and effective agri-environmental policies. The CAP — which so far has been based mainly on these traditional policy tools — has indeed had a mixed record of achieving environmental objectives 10 Eurostat, For instance, in the current impact assessment European Commission, a , the enrolment rate of voluntary eco-schemes, which was incorporated in the agro-economic models, was calculated based on pure economic drivers, which led to an assumption that their adoption would be widespread.

Incorporating a behavioural approach in EU agri-environmental policies is, in practice, increasingly advocated and feasible. In the past, ex-ante and ex-post evaluations of CAP reforms e.

European Commission, , were mainly based on agro-economic models at different scales partial and global equilibrium approaches, market and agro-economic approaches. For each of the three clusters of behavioural factors, we provided insights on agri-environmental policy options that could take them into account.

Very often, a behaviourally informed policy option will address multiple behavioural factors, meaning that there is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship. Policy problems seldom have one behavioural cause, let alone one solution. Behavioural factors may also interact with each other. This means that, instead of using an isolated nudge to tackle one behavioural factor, a holistic approach tackling multiple behavioural factors is needed Dessart and van Bavel, Faced with so many behavioural factors and policy options, policy-makers may, with good reason, wonder where to start.

Policy options aiming at encouraging the adoption of more sustainable practices will vary greatly in terms of the likelihood, scope and duration of their effect, according to whether they address distal or proximal factors. Interventions addressing proximal factors may have a powerful effect on the adoption of specific sustainable practices, especially for those farmers that are already considering a conversion Ma et al.

These interventions are, compared with those targeting more distal factors, relatively easy to implement and may thus constitute a good starting point. For instance, reducing input use may be encouraged by designing agri-environmental schemes that take into account cognitive factors, for instance by properly and timely equipping farmers with knowledge about the existence of these schemes, by making them more salient and flexible and the payments more in line with perceived costs, or even by making enrolment to these schemes the default option.

Educating farmers about the real financial and environmental benefits of reduced input use through publications and advisory services may also increase adoption of this specific practice. Agri-environmental schemes, although well designed with these behavioural factors in mind, may also not have long-term effects on farmer adoption if they are discontinued for a review, see Kuhfuss et al.

Although policy interventions tackling these distal factors may take more time and have more uncertain outcomes, they are likely to produce more durable behavioural change. Applying a behavioural approach to motivate farmers to adopt sustainable practices may raise ethical concerns. Are farmers being manipulated? First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge there is no neutral choice architecture: the way options are presented to farmers will always influence their decisions.

The choice that policy-makers face is to either let other forces dictate how the choice architecture is shaped, or take a more active role. Three criteria Sunstein, , can be used to assess on a case-by-case basis whether behaviourally informed policies raise ethical concern: do these interventions promote or undermine welfare, autonomy and dignity? Second, regarding autonomy, adopting a behavioural approach to encourage voluntary adoption of sustainable practices does not rob farmers of their free will i.

Behaviourally informed agri-environmental policies can also promote autonomy by equipping farmers with the right information e. The policy options we have presented also do not leverage nudges based on system 1 i. Rather, most of these suggested behavioural interventions appeal to reflection or deliberation. First, a comprehensive behavioural approach to farmer decision-making, investigating proximal as well as distal factors, requires more cross-disciplinary work.

Whereas proximal factors e. A second general research gap concerns early phases of farmer decision-making. Third, it is important to go beyond individual behaviour and tackle group decision-making at farm level. Farms are usually family businesses, and decisions are rarely made by a single farmer. In contrast, most research cited in this paper tends to consider farmers as individual decision-makers with the exception of papers examining the influence of injunctive norms.

Given the relevance of age to the decision to adopt more sustainable practices Yeboah, Lupi and Kaplowitz, , the intergenerational aspect of group decision-making at farm level Trujillo-Barrera, Pennings and Hofenk, seems particularly relevant. We now turn to detail specific research gaps related to each of the three identified clusters of behavioural factors. Regarding the influence of dispositional factors, further research is needed to test whether the crowding-out effect applies to payments for environmental services made to farmers who are intrinsically motivated to protect the environment.

Additionally, more research would be welcome to assess whether moral licensing and the rebound effect occur when farmers adopt sustainable practices. The effectiveness of the sociodemographic and geographic segmentation advocated to address dispositional factors should also be further investigated. The provision of feedback on descriptive norms as a tool to motivate the adoption of sustainable practices deserves more research, especially its potential side effects.

More research is also needed to understand which risks e. From a CAP perspective, we identify three priority research opportunities. The first is to assess the optimal mix of mandatory and voluntary agri-environmental measures.

Second, the new CAP proposals regarding environmental, climate and other management commitments European Commission, c pave the way for Member States to include collective voluntary schemes and results-based payments. Understanding how behavioural factors e. The impact of risk aversion, perceived costs and perceived control will be key to understanding how farmers will respond to this new delivery model. The third priority research gap concerns the cross-cultural robustness of the behavioural factors identified in the literature.

Virtually all of the research reviewed in this paper was conducted in specific national or regional contexts. Assessing the external validity of behavioural factors across countries is warranted because, despite the expected shift towards greater subsidiarity, many EU agricultural policies are still centrally designed.

This requires concurrent cross-national behavioural research using identical methodologies, or at least that researchers report the methods they use more completely e. The growing interest in using experiments to evaluate the impact of agricultural policies Colen et al. Experiments carried out to inform agricultural policies indeed most often include a behavioural component, as the outcome variable generally consists in decisions made by farmers.

Experimental research is called for, both to fill the policy-oriented research gaps identified above, and to address some shortcomings of existing research on the behavioural factors influencing farmer decision-making. Experiments are also the best option to assess the effectiveness of the policy options suggested throughout this paper. We also believe that experiments can help address three shortcomings of the existing research.

For instance, the perceived environmental benefits associated with sustainable practices are correlated with the adoption of organic farming practices e. Beedell and Rehman, However, it may very well be that the adoption triggers a perception of higher environmental benefits rather than the other way around. Experiments are uniquely placed to establish a causal link between behavioural factors and decision-making.

Second, experiments can contribute to addressing some of the issues related to self-declared measures, which are largely used in the reported research. Social desirability bias may come into play when directly asking farmers about their motivations and the causes of their decisions, such as how influenced they are by significant others Greiner, ; Yeboah, Lupi and Kaplowitz, or the extent to which signalling motives are important to them when adopting sustainable practices Pavlis et al.

Farmers, like any individuals, may also be unaware of some of the reasons for their decisions Nisbett and Wilson, Moreover, a strategic bias might also be present, whereby farmers voluntarily alter the importance of some factors, such as the amount of compensation for agri-environmental schemes.

Experiments, in contrast, allow most of these biases to be avoided Colen et al. In that respect, randomised controlled trials, and more generally extra-laboratory experiments Charness, Gneezy and Kuhn, , are especially warranted, as the fact that farmers are not aware of participating in an experiment precludes the introduction of many of the above-mentioned biases.

Moreover, between-subject experimental designs are needed to ensure that participants are not aware of the experimentally manipulated variables, thereby reducing strategic bias. We also think that field experiments involving farmers as opposed to students , thanks to their high contextualisation and high ecological validity, are more likely to be taken into consideration by policy-makers.

Experimental research may be particularly relevant for cognitive and social factors; dispositional factors, given that they are very stable, may not be easily experimentally manipulated and may thus benefit less from the added value of experiments.

Experiments can help us to better understand behavioural factors, but the opposite is also true: understanding behavioural factors can contribute to better-informed experiments in agricultural economics.

A thorough theory-driven understanding of the behavioural factors, mechanisms and biases influencing farmer decision-making is sometimes lacking in these experiments. Therefore, there is a need to further incorporate behavioural insights and theories into experimental designs and into the interpretation of their results. We have organised the behavioural factors and the policy recommendations addressing them conceptually around three clusters: dispositional, social and cognitive.

These clusters were placed on a distal—proximal spectrum depending on their proximity to the decision to adopt specific sustainable practices. Our review shows that extraversion, openness to new experiences, risk seeking, moral and environmental concern, as well as lifestyle farming objectives are associated with higher adoption of sustainable practices.

Conversely, being resistant to change and moved by economic objectives makes farmers reluctant to convert. From a policy perspective, this heterogeneity of farmers on these dispositional factors can be addressed by indirectly segmenting them according to sociodemographic and geographic characteristics and by designing appropriate mixes of mandatory and voluntary schemes. Farmers are more likely to adopt sustainable practices when most neighbouring farmers have done so, when they follow the opinion of social referents who support adoption, and when they are willing to gain social status.

Cognitive factors relate to learning and reasoning about specific sustainable practices. Adoption of specific sustainable practices is higher when farmers have sufficient knowledge and competences related to these practices, and when they think these practices bring environmental or financial benefits with limited risks.

The application of behavioural insights to policy-making began by focussing on consumers and citizens, using nudge approaches targeting System 1 i. Leveraging a behavioural approach to design and evaluate policies targeting farmers — who tend to make relatively thoughtful, System 2 decisions when it comes to farming — is, in contrast, still novel.

The policy options put forward in the paper deal mainly with general principles to be taken into account when promoting the adoption of sustainable farming practices, as the evidence reviewed here is not specific enough to be more concrete. To address this issue, we have highlighted research gaps that need to be filled, mostly by experimental methods.

Pre-testing the impact of these behavioural factors on farmer decision-making can, in turn, lead to more effective agri-environmental policies, a crucial challenge in view of the enhanced environmental and climate ambitions for the future Common Agricultural Policy. The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers of this paper, who provided extremely useful feedback on earlier versions, as well as the participants to the coaching workshop gathering the authors of the papers submitted to the present special issue Montpellier, June and participants to the second workshop of the Research Network on Economic Experiments for the CAP Vienna, September for relevant insights.

The views expressed in this article do not imply an official policy position of the European Commission. The World Development Report World Bank Group, does make dozens of references to the application of behavioural insights to agricultural policy, but all of the reported cases concern developing countries and very few cases relate to actual policy-led interventions as opposed to researcher-led field trials.

When reviewing studies that link behavioural factors to the adoption of sustainable practices, we report them as they were labelled by the authors. In some cases, studies focus on broad combinations of multiple practices e. For instance, smoking is a documented behavioural factor causing lung cancer. In the psychological literature, dispositional factors emerge from attribution theory and are generally set in contrast to situational factors Malle, This review, however, does not strictly adhere to this dichotomy, and rather incorporates situational factors in the two other clusters i.

While we use the term risk tolerance, the literature also refers to this as risk attitudes, risk aversion or risk preference. Compared with farming objectives, personal values are much more distal from the decision to adopt sustainable farming practices. They convey what is important for a person in his or her life Bardi and Schwartz, , such as tradition, family and self-expression.

Emery, , there is little research about how they relate to the adoption of sustainable practices. Generally speaking, farming objectives are better predictors of decision-making than values Bandura, Louhichi and colleagues report that 45 per cent of the farms are exempted and an additional 25 per cent already comply with the greening measures, meaning that only 30 per cent of farms need to change their land allocation to comply with greening.

According to the European Court of Auditors , greening led to changes in farming practices on around only 5 per cent of all EU farmland. Looking at the set of 28 agri-environmental indicators that track the integration of environmental concerns into the CAP Eurostat, , positive trends can be identified, such as the decrease of greenhouse gas emissions a 20 per cent reduction in compared with or the increase of permanent grassland and meadows a 5 per cent increase from to On the other hand, the same data show that the consumption of pesticides increased by 2 per cent between and and that the population of common farmland birds decreased by over 30 per cent between and Ajzen , I.

The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50 2 : — Google Scholar. Alamian , A. Individual and social determinants of multiple chronic disease behavioral risk factors among youth.

Allcott , H. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics 95 9—10 : — American Psychological Association.

Behavior — APA dictionary. Andreoni , J. Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal : — Andrews , A. Why do farmers adopt conservation tillage? An experimental investigation of framing effects. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 68 6 : — Arbuckle , J. Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation: the roles of trust in sources of climate information, climate change beliefs, and perceived risk.

Environment and Behavior 47 2 : — Asch , S. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority.

Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 70 9 : 1 — Austin , E. Attitudes to farm animal welfare. Journal of Individual Differences 26 3 : — Personality and intelligence as predictors of economic behaviour in Scottish farmers. Balafoutis , A. Precision agriculture technologies positively contributing to GHG emissions mitigation, farm productivity and economics. Baland , J. Oxford University Press: Oxford. Google Preview. Bamberg , S. How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors?

A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology 23 1 : 21 — Bandura , A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Banerjee , S. Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 83 : 68 — Bardi , A. Values and behavior: strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29 10 : — Barreiro-Hurle , J. Choosing not to choose: a meta-analysis of status quo effects in environmental valuations using choice experiments.

Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53 7 : — Baumgart-Getz , A. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. Journal of Environmental Management 96 1 : 17 — Beedell , J. Journal of Environmental Management 57 3 : — Berbel , J. Does investment in irrigation technology necessarily generate rebound effects?

A simulation analysis based on an agro-economic model. Agricultural Systems : 25 — Beretti , A. Behavioral innovations: the missing capital in sustainable development? Ecological Economics 89 : — Berkhout , P. Defining the rebound effect.

Energy Policy 28 6 : — Best , H. Environmental concern and the adoption of organic agriculture. Blanken , I. A meta-analytic review of moral licensing.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41 4 : — Expected utility or prospect theory maximisers? European Review of Agricultural Economics 41 1 : — Bond , R.

Psychological Bulletin 1 : — Bontempo , R. Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: a model-based approach. Risk Analysis 17 4 : — Borges , J. Livestock Science : — Breustedt , G. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 62 4 : — Brewer , M. The social self: on being the same and different at the same time.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17 5 : — Broch , S. Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in farmer agri-environmental contract preferences. It is considered as a cost- effective farming practices with scope for raising employment and rural development. It is roughly estimated that around 2. In the next 5 years, it is expected to reach 20 lakh hectares- in any form of organic farming, including natural farming, of which 12 lakh hectares are under BPKP.

Background note. Manure produces nitrous oxide , which has times the warming potential of carbon dioxide. Cattle release large amounts of methane from their digestive system s.

Scientist s, governments, and ranchers are working together to find ways to reduce these problems and make ranching a sustainable economic activity. Ranch House A ranch house is a popular architectural design throughout the western United States and Canada.

Ranch houses are typically one story, with a low roof and attached garage. Ranchos Before California became a state in , the region was largely divided into huge land grants, called ranchos. Wealthy Spanish and Mexican landowners worked with native California Indians to manage these huge cattle and sheep ranches. English and Dutch settlers, as well as native Montauk Indians, established the area as a cattle ranch in the mids.

Deep Hollow remains a working cattle ranch, offering trail rides and living history events. Ranchera Ranchera is a type of Mexican popular song. Rancheras that developed in the rural, ranching state of Jalisco are often played by mariachi musicians. Many of them settled in the pastures of Argentina and quickly adapted to the gaucho , or cowboy, culture. These Jewish ranchers established the town of Moises Ville and developed their own dialect, a combination of Spanish and Yiddish.

Ranch Dressing Ranch dressing, a rich combination of buttermilk, yogurt, sour cream, mayonnaise, green onions, and garlic, was invented at a dude ranch in California in the s. The ranchs name? Hidden Valley. Antibiotics do not stop viruses. Carbon dioxide is also the byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Also called the alimentary canal.

Also called a game reserve. Also called alien, exotic, or non-native species. Also known as laughing gas or happy gas.

Pesticides can be fungicides which kill harmful fungi , insecticides which kill harmful insects , herbicides which kill harmful plants , or rodenticides which kill harmful rodents. Regions are the basic units of geography.

Sometimes, water rights include the amount of water a consumer is allowed to use. Also called a nature preserve. The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited. Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society.

Dunn, Margery G. For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher.

They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource. If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media. Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service. Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website.

You cannot download interactives. Agricultural communities developed approximately 10, years ago when humans began to domesticate plants and animals. By establishing domesticity, families and larger groups were able to build communities and transition from a nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle dependent on foraging and hunting for survival. Select from these resources to teach your students about agricultural communities. Encyclopedic entry. The Maasai people of East Africa built a pastoral way of life around their cattle, but the modern market economy has threatened to override the economy of bovine exchange.

Mining, logging, ranching, agriculture, and oil and gas extraction have put unsustainable pressure on the delicate rain forests of the Amazon Basin. Join our community of educators and receive the latest information on National Geographic's resources for you and your students.

Skip to content. Twitter Facebook Pinterest Google Classroom. Encyclopedic Entry Vocabulary. Ranches like this one in the Pampas are called estancias. Photograph by George F. Australian Shepherd. Also called American buffalo. Clint Eastwood. Dust Bowl. Also called American elk and wapiti. Gene Autry. German sheperd. Great Plains. Great Pyrenees. John Wayne. Marion Morrison, American actor. Middle Ages. Also called a round-up. Also called indigenous species.

New World. Prairie Provinces. Canadian provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. Also called the Prairies. Also called a muster. Media Credits The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. Last Updated Nov.

Media If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer. Text Text on this page is printable and can be used according to our Terms of Service. Interactives Any interactives on this page can only be played while you are visiting our website. Related Resources.