The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers
Open accessAbstract
Society's expectations of farmers in relation to their environmental performance are ever increasing, in general terms and in response to regional challenges. One tool for achieving environmental improvements in agriculture is the design and promotion of region-specific 'best management practices' (BMPs). BMPs are conservation practices aimed at reducing diffuse source pollution from agricultural lands and thus improving end-of-catchment water quality. A suite of grazing BMPs was developed for the Burdekin River catchment in Australia, which drains into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon. BMPs were developed in a consultative fashion but without explicit consideration of key factors that influence adoption, in particular farmers' goals and risk perceptions. This paper utilises the data from a survey of 94 graziers in the Burdekin River catchment to explore whether and to what extent motivations and risk perceptions influence the adoption of BMPs. The results demonstrate clear correlations between both motivations, and risk attitudes, and the adoption of BMPs. In particular, strong conservation and lifestyle motivation translates into intrinsic motivation for adoption of conservation practices, while option values prevent strongly economically/financially motivated farmers from adopting in the absence of external incentives. We conclude that a sound understanding of farmers' motivations and risk attitudes is required--in a regional, industry and environmental context--to tailor public investments aimed at providing relevant improvements in the environmental performance of agriculture.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Dessart, F. J., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & van Bavel, R. (2019) · European Review of Agricultural Economics · doi:10.1093/erae/jbz019 · Cited by 1,050
How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: A review
Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M.-A., Justes, E., Journet, E.-P., Aubertot, J.-N., Savary, S., Bergez, J.-E., et al. (2015) · Agronomy for Sustainable Development · doi:10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1 · Cited by 659
Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice
Kleijn, D., Bommarco, R., Fijen, T. P. M., Garibaldi, L. A., Potts, S. G., & van der Putten, W. H. (2019) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.002 · Cited by 548
Greiner, R., & Gregg, D. (2011) · Land Use Policy · doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006 · Cited by 375
Self-citationGarrett, R. D., Gardner, T. A., Morello, T. F., Marchand, S., Barlow, J., Ezzine de Blas, D., Ferreira, J., Lees, A. C., & Parry, L. (2017) · Ecology and Society · doi:10.5751/es-09364-220327 · Cited by 140
Metadata
- Authors
- Greiner, R., Patterson, L., & Miller, O.
- Venue
- Agricultural Systems
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-02
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 2-3
- Pages
- 86-104
- ISSN
- 0308-521X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2080215109
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003
- The paper
- Greiner, R., Patterson, L., & Miller, O. (2009). Motivations, risk perceptions and adoption of conservation practices by farmers. Agricultural Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2008.10.003
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.