Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Background on Soil Microbes in Agriculture and Related Challenges
1.2. Research Approach
2. Theoretical Framework
3. Material and Methods
3.1. Sampling and Participants
3.2. Interview Guide and Transcripts
3.3. Codebook and Content Analysis
3.4. Reliability of the Coding
4. Results
4.1. Overall Sample and Adopter Groups
4.2. Innovation Traits per Group
4.2.1. Non-Adopter Group
Sample and Context
Innovation Traits
Whereas, if I put this can of something on, it is going to increase my, you know, I think the cause is not necessarily something that the everyday farmer can see. So it is a bit of an unknown. […] You don’t have to take all the samples, send them away to a lab and get them analysed, you know. And I think that is potentially you know, a barrier and a fact that is kind of, it is the unknown.(Farmer ID 18, personal interview, 21 February 2020, quote reference 04)
4.2.2. Dis-Adopter Group
Sample and Context
Innovation Traits
But then that fell asleep a bit, because that also cost money, you have to be honest. And I think we also tried something in that direction and tried something out. But somehow we never stuck with it. Because then somehow, it’s just a question of money, you simply have to see it that way. It costs money, and if it is not to be recognized then afterwards in the purse, then one leaves again.(Farmer ID 45, personal interview, 19 November 2019, quote reference 05)
“We have then also, as I said, employed, laid out rows and so on, such an attempt. Well, now we have not evaluated it to the smallest, we have not done that of course. Because there is time missing to do that”.(Farmer ID 45, personal interview, 19 November 2019, quote reference 06)
What are the kind of guidelines, you know, we know don’t put fungicides on during the rain and so on and so forth. There are very simple rules about that. But these things [note: soil microbes], how do they work, […] where is the guidance to the usage, that is the stuff that is going to be tricky and that is going to take time.(Farmer ID 17, personal interview, 19 February 2020, quote reference 07)
Because, you put a fungicide on a plant or an herbicide on a weed. And the weed either dies, half dies, or doesn’t die, and you can visually measure it. The disease either stops in its tracks or never appears in the first place. And you can measure it against a control. Whereas, if you put biology on the soil, you can stick a spade in the ground and, I would imagine the bit of soil next to the bit that you have treated would look exactly the same as the bit that you treated for a while.(Farmer ID 17, personal interview, 19 February 2020, quote reference 08)
4.2.3. Adopter Group
Sample and Context
Innovation Traits
But it is also the case that what was known in the first place is that it does not fit on all soils or all locations or forms of farm business, I say it this way now, and that it does not bring the same success everywhere.(Farmer ID 44, personal interview, 29 October 2019, quote reference 10)
4.3. Communication Channels
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Innovation Characteristic | Definition | References |
---|---|---|
Relative advantage * | Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage is often expressed as economic profitability, social prestige, or other benefits. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 212 |
Cost | The cost of an innovation. | Tornatzky and Klein, 1982 [21], p. 36 |
Profitability | Profitability is the degree to which an innovation may create profit through adoption, this may not be applicable to all innovations. | Tornatzky and Klein, 1982 [21], p. 37 |
Compatibility * | Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. An innovation that is more compatible is less uncertain to the potential adopter and fits more closely with the individual’s life situation. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 224 |
Complexity * | Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. Any new idea may be classified on the complexity–simplicity continuum. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 242 |
Trialability * | Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on an instalment plan are generally adopted more rapidly than innovations that are not divisible. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 243 |
Divisibility | Divisibility is the “extent to which an innovation can be tried on a small scale prior to adoption”, which is closely related to trialability. This trait describes to what degree the innovation can be tried only in separate parts. | Tornatzky and Klein [21], 1982, p. 37 |
Observability * | Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others. The results of some ideas are easily observed and communicated to others, whereas some innovations are difficult to observe or to describe to others. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 244 |
Communicability | Communicability is the degree to which an innovation can be communicated to others, which is closely related to observability. | Tornatzky and Klein, 1982 [21], p. 36 |
Image * | Image is the degree to which using an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system. | Moore and Benbasat, 1996 [23], p. 173 |
Social approval | Social approval is the degree to which status can by gained due to adoption. | Tornatzky and Klein, 1982 [21], p. 37 |
Voluntariness of use | The degree to which use of the innovation is perceived as being voluntary, or of free will. | Moore and Benbasat, 1991 [22], p. 203 |
Code | Description | Literature/References | Coding Rule |
---|---|---|---|
Relative advantage | Relative advantage is the degree to which innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes. The degree of relative advantage is often expressed as economic profitability or other benefits. The nature of the innovation determines what specific type of relative advantage is important to adopters. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 212 | Any statements related to social advantage or prestige code under ‘image’. |
Direct economic factors | Code perceptions about relative economic advantages and disadvantages associated with the innovation. | ||
Non-economic factors | Code perceptions about relative non-economic advantages and disadvantages associated with the innovation. | ||
Compatibility | Compatibility is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters. A more compatible idea is less uncertain to the potential adopter and fits more closely with the individual’s life situation. Such compatibility helps the individual give meaning to the new idea to be regarded as familiar. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 224 | Only code in subcodes. |
Sociocultural values * | Perceived compatibility or incompatibility with sociocultural values and beliefs. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 224 | |
Previous ideas | Perceived compatibility or incompatibility with previously introduced ideas/previously adopted ideas. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 224 | |
Needs | Perceived compatibility or incompatibility with (the farmers’) needs for the innovation. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 224 | |
Farm compatibility | Perceived compatibility or incompatibility with farm-specific conditions, infrastructure, and environment. This includes, for example, available equipment or machinery. | ||
Other (compatibility) * | Other aspects of perceived compatibility. | ||
Complexity | Code perception of the innovation’s complexity. Complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use. Some innovations are clear in their meaning to potential adopters whereas others are not. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 242 | Only code in subcodes. |
Mental effort | Code perceived complexity with regard to mental effort or difficulty. | Davis, 1985 [54], p. 26 | |
Physical effort | Code perceived complexity with regard to physical effort or difficulty. | Davis, 1985 [54], p. 26 | |
Other (complexity) * | Other perceptions regarding complexity. | ||
Trialability | Code perception of the innovation’s trialability. Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis. New ideas that can be tried on the instalment plan are generally adopted more rapidly than innovations that are not divisible. Some innovations are more difficult to divide for trial than are others. The personal trying-out of an innovation is a way to give meaning to an innovation, to find out how it works under one’s own conditions. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 243 | Code observability in trials or observability due to trials in “observability” code |
Observability | Code perception of the innovation’s observability. Observability is the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to the farmer (user), others and potential adopters. The results of some ideas are easily observed and communicated to others, whereas some innovations are difficult to observe or to describe to others. | Rogers, 1995 [19], p. 244 | |
Image | Code perceptions of image changes. Image is the degree to which using an innovation is perceived to enhance one’s image or status in one’s social system. Social approval is the degree to which one’s status can be increased due to the innovation. | Moore and Benbasat, 1996 [26], p. 137; Tornatzky and Klein, 1982 [24], p. 37 | |
Image (positive) | Positive enhancement of one’s image due to the innovation. | ||
Image (negative) | Negative enhancement of one’s image due to the innovation. | ||
Adoption | Statements describing the participant’s actual and/or previous direct usage or direct experience with innovations (behavioural response). This includes statements about current and past usage and experiences. | Only code in subcodes. Code yes or no statements if generic answers, code innovation itself if innovation-specific statements are given. Only applicable for farmer sample. | |
Yes (general) | Statements describing previous usage or experience with innovations. Can be undefined time commitment/implementation phase or long-term integration/adoption. | ||
Yes (past) | Statements describing previous usage or experience with innovations but discontinued the usage (so no long-term implementation), that is, trials only. | ||
No (use) | Statements describing no usage nor experience with innovations. | ||
Communication channels | Statements or simple terms and phrases that mention the stakeholder relevant for sources of information or diffusion, contact points which provide information/innovation or similar. This refers to general contact points (not innovation-specific). | Only code in sub-codes. Ordinal subcodes. Only mark the term/name for the stakeholder. | |
Subcodes: Extension service (private), extension service (public), manufacturers, agricultural trade, farmers (neighbourhood), farmers (network), family, friends, neighbours (non-farmer), academia/researcher, other stakeholder |
Channels | Explanation | Non-Adopter | Dis-Adopter | Adopter | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | % | n | % | n | % | ||
Private network | Family, friends, neighbours | 12 | 10 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 3 |
Extension service | Private and public extension services | 31 | 27 | 21 | 24 | 23 | 21 |
Farmer community | Farmer neighbours, networks, associations | 30 | 26 | 23 | 26 | 32 | 29 |
Manufacturers and trade | Manufacturers and trade | 28 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 24 | 22 |
Other contacts | i.e., academia, staff, organic organizations | 15 | 13 | 14 | 16 | 28 | 25 |
Total | 116 | 100 | 89 | 100 | 110 | 100 |
References
- Shukla, P.R.; Skea, J.; Calvo Buendía, E.; Masson-Delmotte, V.; Pörtner, H.O.; Roberts, D.; Zhai, P.; Slade, R.; Connors, S.; van Diemen, R.; et al. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC Special Report on Climate Change, Desertification, Land Degradation, Sustainable Land Management, Food Security, and Greenhouse Gas Fluxes in Terrestrial Ecosystems; International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Barber, J. Production, Consumption and the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2003, 5, 63–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sattler, C.; Nagel, U.J. Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 70–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scerri, A. Paradoxes of increased individuation and public awareness of environmental issues. Environ. Polit. 2009, 18, 467–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Commission. Factsheet: From Farm to Fork: Our Food, Our Health, Our Planet, Our Future; 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/fs_20_908 (accessed on 18 March 2022).
- Drobek, M.; Frąc, M.; Cybulska, J. Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the Quality and Yield of Horticultural Crops and the Improvement of Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress—A Review. Agronomy 2019, 9, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- European Commission. Questions and Answers: Farm to Fork: New Rules for Micro-Organisms Used in Plant Protection Products; 2022. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_22_852 (accessed on 28 March 2020).
- Basu, S.; Roel, C.R.; Sangeeta, N. AMF: The future prospect for sustainable agriculture. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 102, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, J.S.; Pandey, V.C.; Singh, D.P. Efficient soil microorganisms: A new dimension for sustainable agriculture and environmental development. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011, 140, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee Díaz, A.S.; Macheda, D.; Saha, H.; Ploll, U.; Orine, D.; Biere, A. Tackling the Context-Dependency of Microbial-Induced Resistance. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rouphael, Y.; Colla, G. Editorial: Biostimulants in Agriculture. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Du Jardin, P. The Science of Plant Biostimulants—A Bibliographic Analysis, Ad Hoc Study on Bio-Stimulants Products; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxemburg, 2012; Available online: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5c1f9a38-57f4-4f5a-b021-cad867c1ef3c (accessed on 27 December 2021).
- Bashan, Y.; de-Bashan, L.E.; Prabhu, S.R.; Hernandez, J.-P. Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: Formulations and practical perspectives (1998–2013). Plant Soil 2014, 378, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, M.; Arato, M.; Borghi, L.; Nouri, E.; Reinhardt, D. Beneficial Services of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi—From Ecology to Application. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, P.; Lakshmanan, V.; Labbé, J.L.; Craven, K.D. Microbe to Microbiome: A Paradigm Shift in the Application of Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 622926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gianinazzi, S.; Gollotte, A.; Binet, M.-N.; van Tuinen, D.; Redecker, D.; Wipf, D. Agroecology: The key role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in ecosystem services. Mycorrhiza 2010, 20, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harrier, L.A.; Watson, C.A. The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotection of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or other sustainable farming systems. Pest Manag. Sci. 2004, 60, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pineda, A.; Kaplan, I.; Bezemer, T.M. Steering Soil Microbiomes to Suppress Aboveground Insect Pests. Trends Plant Sci. 2017, 22, 770–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Läpple, D.; van Rensburg, T. Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption? Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 1406–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tornatzky, L.G.; Klein, K.J. Innovation Characteristics and Innovation Adoption-Implementation: A Meta Analysis of Findings. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 1982, EM-29, 28–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 192–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moore, G.C.; Benbasat, I. Integrating Diffusion of Innovations and Theory of Reasoned Action models to predict utilization of information technology by end-users. In Diffusion and Adoption of Information Technology, 1st ed.; Kautz, K., Pries-Heje, J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1996; pp. 132–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Ittersum, K.; Rogers, W.A.; Capar, M.; Caine, K.E.; O’Brien, M.A.; Parsons, L.J.; Fisk, A.D. Understanding Technology Acceptance: Phase 1–Literature Review and Qualitative Model Development (Technical Report HFA-TR-0602); Georgia Institute of Technology: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Fichman, R.G. Information Technology Diffusion: A Review of Empirical Research. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS) 1992; Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis1992/39 (accessed on 6 February 2021).
- Kuehne, G.; Llewellyn, R.; Pannell, D.J.; Wilkinson, R.; Dolling, P.; Ouzman, J.; Ewing, M. Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy. Agric. Syst. 2017, 156, 115–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nutley, S.; Davies, H.; Walter, I. Conceptual Synthesis 1: Learning from the Diffusion of Innovations. In ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice: Working Paper 10; University of St Andrews: St Andrews, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Boddy, C.R. Sample size for qualitative research. Qual. Mark. Res. 2016, 19, 426–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbin, J.; Strauss, A. Grounded Theory Research: Procedures, Canons and Evaluative Criteria. Z. Für Soziol. 1990, 19, 418–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carlisle, L. Factors influencing farmer adoption of soil health practices in the United States: A narrative review. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 2016, 40, 583–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, M. Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 2010, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morse, J.M. Determining sample size. Qual. Health Res. 2000, 10, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernard, H.R. Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Qu, S.Q.; Dumay, J. The qualitative research interview. Qual. Res. Account. Manag. 2011, 8, 238–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krippendorff, K. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, 2nd ed.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Attride-Stirling, J. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qual. Res. 2001, 1, 385–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabbour, R.; Zwickle, S.; Gallandt, E.R.; McPhee, K.E.; Wilson, R.S.; Doohan, D. Mental models of organic weed management: Comparison of New England US farmer and expert models. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2014, 29, 319–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gisev, N.; Bell, J.S.; Chen, T.F. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability: Key concepts, approaches, and applications. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2013, 9, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL). Agrarpolitischer Bericht der Bundesregierung 2019; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft (BMEL): 2019. Available online: https://www.bmel.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Broschueren/Agrarbericht2019.html (accessed on 7 March 2022).
- Nomis Annual Population Survey–Employment by Occupation by Sex, Survey Period Oct 2019–Sep 2020. Available online: https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/datasets/aps168/reports/employment-by-occupation?compare=K02000001 (accessed on 27 July 2021).
- Kaufmann, H.J.; Jäckel, K. Die Bio-Branche 2021; Bund Ökologische Lebensmittelwirtschaft e.V.: 2021. Available online: https://www.boelw.de/news/die-bio-branche-2021/ (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs. Organic Farming Statistics United Kingdom 2020; Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs: London, UK, 2021. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/organic-farming-statistics-2020 (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Statista. Estimated Number of Farmers in the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2021; 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/319325/number-of-farmers-in-the-uk/ (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Destatis. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2021/01/PD21_028_412.html (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Agriculture in the United Kingdom 2020; 2021. Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1056618/AUK2020_22feb22.pdf (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Montes de Oca Munguia, O.; Pannell, D.J.; Llewellyn, R.; Stahlmann-Brown, P. Adoption pathway analysis: Representing the dynamics and diversity of adoption for agricultural practices. Agric. Syst. 2021, 191, 103173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannell, D.J.; Marshall, G.R.; Barr, N.; Curtis, A.; Vanclay, F.; Wilkinson, R. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2006, 46, 1407–1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kapoor, K.K.; Dwivedi, Y.K.; Williams, M.D. Rogers’ Innovation Adoption Attributes: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Existing Research. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2014, 31, 74–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wood, B.A.; Blair, H.T.; Gray, D.I.; Kemp, P.D.; Kenyon, P.R.; Morris, S.T.; Sewell, A.M. Agricultural science in the wild: A social network analysis of farmer knowledge exchange. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Diederen, P.; van Meijl, H.; Wolters, A. Modernisation in agriculture: What makes a farmer adopt an innovation? Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 2004, 2, 328–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blasch, J.; van der Kroon, B.; van Beukering, P.; Munster, R.; Fabiani, S.; Nino, P.; Vanino, S. Farmer preferences for adopting precision farming technologies: A case study from Italy. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2022, 49, 33–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skaalsveen, K.; Ingram, J.; Urquhart, J. The role of farmers’ social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deutschlandfunk. Proteste bei Agrarministerkonferenz Bauern Befürchten zu viel Insektenschutz; 2019. Available online: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/proteste-bei-agrarministerkonferenz-bauern-befuerchten-zu-100.html (accessed on 14 January 2022).
- Davis, F.D. A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]
Germany | UK | ||
---|---|---|---|
Data collection period | 10–11/2019 | 02–03/2020 | |
Participants | n = 14 (39%) | n = 22 (61%) | |
Interview duration | 32–76 min | 30–68 min | |
Mode of production | Conventional production | n = 9 (25%) | n = 21 (58%) |
Organic production | n = 5 (14%) | n = 1 (3%) | |
Hectare (range) | Smallest farm size | 68 hectares | 161 hectares |
Largest farm size | 945 hectares | 2400 hectares | |
Age range | 27–63 years old | 22–77 years old | |
Gender | Male | n = 14 (39%) | n = 19 (53%) |
Female | n = 0 | n = 2 (6%) |
Group | n | Location | Innovation Adopted or Experienced |
---|---|---|---|
No experience, no adoption (non-adopter) | 14 | Germany: n = 3 | Not applicable |
UK: n = 11 | |||
Experience but no adoption (dis-adopter) | 9 | Germany: n = 5 | Bacteria, biostimulant, mycorrhiza, plant strengthener, soil additives |
UK: n = 4 | |||
Adopter | 8 | Germany: n = 6 | Bacteria, biostimulant, ginger quartz, mycorrhiza, plant strengthener, seaweed extract, soil rejuvenator |
UK: n = 2 |
Demographic Categories | n | Answer Range | |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 14 | 22–65 years old (mean: 44 years old) | |
Experience as farmer (in years) | 10 | 2–42 years of experience (mean: 18 years) | |
Gender: | Male | 12 | |
Female | 2 |
Farm Categories | n | Mean | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
Farm size (h in hectare) | 13 | 310 hectares | 68–800 hectares |
Organic production | 1 | ||
Meadowsandforestry | 6 | ||
Animal husbandry | 10 |
Relative Advantage | |||
---|---|---|---|
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Direct economic factors | Concerns about limitations in resources needed to adopt | 12 | 13.64% |
Concerns about receiving value (for money) | 5 | 5.68% | |
Benefit of application delayed after application | 2 | 2.27% | |
Other factors | Benefits for the plant: health, vitality, growth | 4 | 4.55% |
Support and/or positive effect on yield | 3 | 3.41% | |
Benefits regarding nutrients or nutrient uptake | 3 | 3.41% | |
Environmentally friendly | 3 | 3.41% | |
Trialability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Preference/willingness to test product themselves | 7 | 7.96% | |
Concerns about resources needed | 5 | 5.68% | |
Compatibility | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Farm compatibility | Compatibility to other farm practices or measures (need/concern) | 3 | 3.41% |
Needs | No other choice left/other choices are decreasing | 6 | 6.82% |
No need identified | 4 | 4.55% | |
Complexity | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Physical effort | Concerns about how to operate the innovation/technology | 7 | 7.95% |
Need for knowledge | 2 | 2.27% | |
Mental effort | Interactions and functioning unclear | 9 | 10.23% |
General lack of knowledge/understanding | 6 | 6.82% | |
Unclear effects and/or variability of effects | 4 | 4.55% | |
Complex soil structure | 3 | 3.41% | |
Observability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Criteria to evaluate effect of technology | 4 | 4.55% |
Demographic Categories | n | Answer Range | |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 8 | 27–63 years old (mean: 46 years old) | |
Experience as farmer (in years) | 8 | 13–39 years of experience (mean: 25 years) | |
Gender: | Male | 9 |
Farm Categories | n | Mean | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
Farm size (h in hectare) | 9 | 490 hectares | 70–1200 hectares |
Organic production | 2 | ||
Meadowsandforestry | 6 | ||
Animal husbandry | 5 |
Relative Advantage | |||
---|---|---|---|
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Direct economic factors | Concerns about limitations in resources needed to adopt | 12 | 8.16% |
Concerns about receiving value (for money) | 12 | 8.16% | |
Advantage by cost of product and/or receiving value for money | 2 | 1.36% | |
Other factors | Benefits for the plant: health, vitality, growth | 6 | 4.08% |
Benefits for the soil | 4 | 2.72% | |
Support with extreme (external) conditions | 4 | 2.72% | |
Trialability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Trial experience (in the past) | 18 | 12.24% | |
Preference/willingness to test product themselves | 8 | 5.44% | |
Call or need for trials | 6 | 4.08% | |
Concerns about resources needed | 6 | 4.08% | |
Call for support with trials | 2 | 1.36% | |
Compatibility | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Farm compatibility | Compatibility to biophysical circumstances on field or farm level (need/concern) | 4 | 2.72% |
Compatibility to equipment or machinery (need/concern) | 4 | 2.72% | |
Needs | Need to support plant (soil, water, pest resistance, nutrients) | 6 | 4.08% |
No other choice left/other choices are reducing | 3 | 2.04% | |
No need | 2 | 1.36% | |
Complexity | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Physical effort | Concerns about how to operate the innovation/technology | 12 | 8.16% |
Need for knowledge | 3 | 2.04% | |
Mental effort | Interactions and functioning unclear | 3 | 2.04% |
General lack of knowledge/understanding | 3 | 2.04% | |
Observability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Observed results from technology: neutral results | 13 | 8.84% | |
Observed results from technology: positive results | 4 | 2. 72% | |
Concerns/challenge to observe effect | 4 | 2.72% | |
Observed results from technology: negative results | 3 | 2.04% | |
Criteria to evaluate effect of technology | 3 | 2.04% |
Demographic Categories | n | Answer Range | |
---|---|---|---|
Age | 8 | 39–58 years old (mean: 51 years old) | |
Experience as farmer (in years) | 8 | 9–31 years of experience (mean: 20 years) | |
Gender: | Male | 8 |
Farm Categories | n | Mean | Min–Max |
---|---|---|---|
Farm size (h in hectare) | 8 | 396 hectares | 100–1400 hectares |
Organic production | 2 | ||
Meadowsandforestry | 2 | ||
Animal husbandry | 1 |
Relative Advantage | |||
---|---|---|---|
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Direct economic factors | Benefits through the reduction of other inputs | 13 | 9.77% |
Concerns about limitations in resources needed to adopt | 10 | 7.52% | |
Concerns about receiving value (for money) | 8 | 6.02% | |
Advantage by cost of product and/or receiving value for money | 2 | 1.50% | |
Other factors | Environmentally friendly | 4 | 3.01% |
Support and/or positive effect on yield | 3 | 2.26% | |
Benefits for the soil | 3 | 2.26% | |
Benefits for the plant: health, vitality, growth | 2 | 1.50% | |
Benefits regarding disease and/or pest protection | 2 | 1.50% | |
Trialability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Trial experience (in the past) | 10 | 7.52% | |
Call or need for trials | 8 | 6.02% | |
Concerns about trial evaluation and/or assessment | 6 | 4.51% | |
Preference/willingness to test product themselves | 6 | 4.51% | |
Concerns about resources needed | 4 | 3.01% | |
Compatibility | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Farm compatibility | Compatibility to biophysical circumstances on field or farm level (need/concern) | 5 | 3.76% |
Compatibility to equipment or machinery (need/concern) | 3 | 2.26% | |
Needs | Need to support plant (soil, water, pest resistance, nutrients) | 2 | 1.50% |
No other choice left/other choices are reducing | 2 | 1.50% | |
Complexity | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Physical effort | Concerns about how to operate the innovation/technology | 5 | 3.76% |
Product application unclear | 2 | 1.50% | |
Mental effort | General lack of knowledge/understanding | 9 | 6.77% |
Interactions and functioning unclear | 6 | 4.51% | |
Unclear effects and/or variability of effects | 3 | 2.26% | |
Observability | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Observed results from technology: positive results | 4 | 3.01% | |
Observed results from technology: neutral results | 3 | 2.26% | |
Observed results from technology: negative results | 2 | 1.50% | |
Concerns/challenge to observe effect | 2 | 1.50% | |
Image | |||
Themes | Occurrences | Percentage | |
Positive evaluation of user | 2 | 1.50% | |
Negative judgement/association of user | 2 | 1.50% |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ploll, U.; Arato, M.; Börner, J.; Hartmann, M. Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105749
Ploll U, Arato M, Börner J, Hartmann M. Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK. Sustainability. 2022; 14(10):5749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105749
Chicago/Turabian StylePloll, Ursula, Miguel Arato, Jan Börner, and Monika Hartmann. 2022. "Sustainable Innovations: A Qualitative Study on Farmers’ Perceptions Driving the Diffusion of Beneficial Soil Microbes in Germany and the UK" Sustainability 14, no. 10: 5749. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105749