Human psychology plays a big role in how quickly and confidently farmers take up water quality actions on their farms, the EPA’s annual water conference heard last week.
“Nobody wants to be the clown who gets things wrong first time,” Professor Mary Ryan of Teagasc said as she outlined some of the psychological and behavioural barriers that farmers face.
“All humans behave in the same way, and we’re all driven by the same things, and they’re simple. There’s PBC, which is perceived behavioural control – that’s about knowledge and it’s about skills,” she explained. “Do farmers think that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to take on a measure that you’re proposing to them?”
If the answer is no, they will not volunteer to take the action. For this reason, knowledge and advice are key to helping farmers be confident in taking actions on their farms.
Costs
Costs are another barrier to action, whether that is the cost of the consultant or the cost of farmers giving up their time to do the training.
Social or subjective norms are another psychological barrier for farmers, Dr Ryan explained.
“If I do this, will the neighbours think I’m stupid, or will they think it’s a good thing to do?” she asked.
“Attitudes can be positive or negative, but they are deeply held and not as easy to change as some other behavioural drivers,” the Teagasc expert told the conference.
The Teagasc Water Marke project studied farmers who had been part of the Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme (ASSAP) and the researchers found that non-dairy livestock farmers were less likely than tillage farmers to have started taken actions recommended by the ASSAP adviser, while dairy farmers had the highest level of engagement of all.
However, there was a high level of engagement across all farmers in the study.
They also found that farmers in water catchments with point sources of pollution (such as farmyards leaching waste or sediment directly to waterways) were more likely to take action than farmers in catchments with diffuse sources (multiple non-specific sources of leaching to waterways through soil for example).
“Point source is obviously a more obvious thing, and it may be easier to get your head around what happened and how it happened, compared to diffuse… does anybody really understand how it happens?,” Dr Ryan explained.
Farmers who participate in agri-environment schemes are more likely to have started and completed water quality actions as advised.
“This is likely because they’re more used to having to do measures under REPS or AEOS or ACRES,” she said.
“They understand this is a process. You’re asked to do this, you do it, and you get paid, and there’s a good result at the end.”
Lastly Dr Ryan said if farmers who live in a catchment where measures have already been implemented, they are much more likely to take up measures.
“The more that farmers see measures being taken up, and realise that it’s not stupid…familiarity makes us more confident.”
Dr Mary Ryan, Teagasc.
Human psychology plays a big role in how quickly and confidently farmers take up water quality actions on their farms, the EPA’s annual water conference heard last week.
“Nobody wants to be the clown who gets things wrong first time,” Professor Mary Ryan of Teagasc said as she outlined some of the psychological and behavioural barriers that farmers face.
“All humans behave in the same way, and we’re all driven by the same things, and they’re simple. There’s PBC, which is perceived behavioural control – that’s about knowledge and it’s about skills,” she explained. “Do farmers think that they have the necessary knowledge and skills to take on a measure that you’re proposing to them?”
If the answer is no, they will not volunteer to take the action. For this reason, knowledge and advice are key to helping farmers be confident in taking actions on their farms.
Costs
Costs are another barrier to action, whether that is the cost of the consultant or the cost of farmers giving up their time to do the training.
Social or subjective norms are another psychological barrier for farmers, Dr Ryan explained.
“If I do this, will the neighbours think I’m stupid, or will they think it’s a good thing to do?” she asked.
“Attitudes can be positive or negative, but they are deeply held and not as easy to change as some other behavioural drivers,” the Teagasc expert told the conference.
The Teagasc Water Marke project studied farmers who had been part of the Agricultural Sustainability Support and Advisory Programme (ASSAP) and the researchers found that non-dairy livestock farmers were less likely than tillage farmers to have started taken actions recommended by the ASSAP adviser, while dairy farmers had the highest level of engagement of all.
However, there was a high level of engagement across all farmers in the study.
They also found that farmers in water catchments with point sources of pollution (such as farmyards leaching waste or sediment directly to waterways) were more likely to take action than farmers in catchments with diffuse sources (multiple non-specific sources of leaching to waterways through soil for example).
“Point source is obviously a more obvious thing, and it may be easier to get your head around what happened and how it happened, compared to diffuse… does anybody really understand how it happens?,” Dr Ryan explained.
Farmers who participate in agri-environment schemes are more likely to have started and completed water quality actions as advised.
“This is likely because they’re more used to having to do measures under REPS or AEOS or ACRES,” she said.
“They understand this is a process. You’re asked to do this, you do it, and you get paid, and there’s a good result at the end.”
Lastly Dr Ryan said if farmers who live in a catchment where measures have already been implemented, they are much more likely to take up measures.
“The more that farmers see measures being taken up, and realise that it’s not stupid…familiarity makes us more confident.”
Dr Mary Ryan, Teagasc.
SHARING OPTIONS