Cited by 4Agricultural Innovations and PracticesSustainable Agricultural Systems AnalysisAgricultural Development and Management

The role of farmer discussion groups in promoting sustainable farming practices: Drivers of participation and environmental impact

Open access
Adenuga, Adewale H., Jack, Claire·2025·Ecological Indicators

Abstract

Farmer discussion groups are increasingly recognised for their role in contributing to economic improvement, however, information relating to their effectiveness in improving environmental performance remains limited. This study investigates the drivers of participation in Environmental Business Development Groups (EBDGs) and evaluates the impact on farm-level environmental performance compared to a profitability-focused Business Development Groups (BDGs). A logistic regression model was used to identify factors influencing EBDG participation, while an Environmental Performance Index (EPI) was constructed to quantify environmental outcomes. Impact evaluation employed Mahalanobis Distance Matching (MDM), with Propensity Score Matching (PSM) applied for robustness. Our results indicate that the farmers’ age, higher educational qualifications, agricultural education, land area farmed, and farm diversification are positive and statistically significant factors influencing participation in EBDGs. Furthermore, membership of the EBDGs has a positive and statistically significant impact on farmers’ environmental performance compared to non-members of any group, with standardised Average Treatment Effect (ATE) and Average Treatment Effect on the Treated (ATT) estimates of 0.67 and 0.63 for EBDGs and 0.53 and 0.47 for BDG, respectively. However, when comparing EBDGs directly to BDGs, no statistically significant difference was found. These results offer valuable insights for policymakers seeking to enhance farmer engagement in environmental programs, highlighting the importance of tailored extension strategies to maximise environmental benefits in the agricultural sector. Encouraging farmer participation in structured discussion groups could be a viable pathway to achieving agricultural sustainability goals.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113714

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adenuga, A. H., & Jack, C.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Agri Food and Biosciences Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Adenuga, Adewale H.
Venue
Ecological Indicators
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-08
Volume
177
Pages
113714
ISSN
1470-160X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4411194134
Cited by
4
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1
FWCI
7.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ecological Indicators (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, UK Government (22/1/05)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Sustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
Keywords
sustainable agricultural practices, agricultural extension, farm diversification, farmer education, agricultural land area, Environmental Performance Index, sustainable agriculture

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