Understanding Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Agricultural Landscape Practices to Achieve More Sustainable Rural Planning

Abstract

The Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Serbia’s most agriculturally developed region, lies within the fertile Pannonian plain. Decades of agricultural intensification have transformed its landscape into a near continuous expanse of arable land, largely devoid of natural elements such as trees, shrubs, or non-crop vegetation. These simplified agroecosystems support very low biodiversity, contradicting the key principles of sustainable agricultural development. To assess farmers’ willingness to support more ecologically sound landscape practices, a survey was conducted of 400 farmers across Vojvodina. The results revealed limited openness to change; i.e., most respondents expressed a low interest in all three offered interventions: (a) introducing landscape elements, (b) fallowing, (c) converting arable land to grassland. This resistance reflects a prevailing productivist mindset in which farmers perceive themselves as producers of food, raw materials, and energy. Within this view, a neat, highly cultivated landscape is perceived as a hallmark of professionalism and success. These findings underscore the importance of developing context-sensitive policies and educational efforts that align sustainability goals with farmers’ values and economic realities.

1. Introduction

Numerous environmental problems faced by modern society, such as floods, soil erosion, biodiversity loss, wildfires, water pollution, and others, are closely linked to agricultural production and its transformative impact on the landscape in which it operates [1]. Intensive agricultural practices have long been identified as major drivers of environmental degradation [2,3]. In general, changes in agriculture bring about corresponding changes in the landscape, with significant (and frequently negative) impacts on biodiversity, cultural heritage, recreation value, and other landscape functions [1].

While some consequences of climate change have contributed to vegetation expansion in certain climatic regions, reflected in the documented trend of accelerated global greening [4], many areas continue to experience extensive anthropogenic transformation. In particular, agricultural intensification has led to the loss of native plant communities, further aggravating environmental challenges. The widespread conversion of diverse, heterogeneous landscapes into uniform monocultures devoid of natural features has become a global concern [5].

Given these challenges, farmers are increasingly recognized as key agents of landscape management [1,6]. Tilman et al. emphasize that farmers are the principal managers of the world’s usable land and that their decisions will shape it for decades to come, possibly irreversibly [2]. Accordingly, research on agricultural landscape management has gained momentum across the globe [7,8,9,10,11].

However, unlike other environmentally friendly farming practices, such as the use of organic fertilizers, reduced tillage, or biological pest control, which are generally well accepted by farmers, landscape management practices remain relatively uncommon, even in highly developed countries [12]. Wezel et al. [12] estimate only a moderate potential for the wider adoption of such practices in the coming decades.

Insufficient scientific guidelines have contributed to misinformed land management decisions, including the removal of windbreaks, which has diminished the ecological functionality of agricultural landscapes across vast areas [13]. Yet, farmers are not only land users; they are also a key component of the soil–environment–human system. Their awareness, perspectives, and willingness to implement landscape-based solutions are crucial. To identify current limitations, opportunities, and pathways for more effective land management, it is necessarily to explore farmers’ attitudes toward agricultural landscape practices.

To this end, agricultural landscape management has long been the subject of various regulatory frameworks that define the rights and responsibilities of landowners and land users. Landscape planners and policy-makers are increasingly focused on managing agricultural landscapes not only to support agricultural productivity, but also to preserve and enhance the ecological, aesthetic, and cultural value of rural areas [1].

1.1. Benefits of Landscape Management Practices

Sustainable agriculture involves achieving high and stable yields of appropriate quality while minimizing environmental impacts. This requires that farmers be adequately compensated not only for their produced food but also for their provided ecosystem services [2]. It is therefore unsurprising that society is increasingly interested in incentivizing farmers to deliver ecosystem services through various support measures [14].

The need to “green” agriculture has been recognized and promoted by the European Union for decades [15]. Through green direct payments, farmers are encouraged to adopt practices aligned with the EU’s environmental and climate goals [16]. Among these are practices aimed at enhancing rural landscapes, such as crop diversification, the maintenance of permanent pastures, and the establishment of so-called ecologically focused areas (EFAs). EFAs aim to improve biodiversity through fallowing, the creation and maintenance of field margins, hedgerows, trees, buffer strips, cover crops, catch crops, and nitrogen-fixing crops, and agroforestry practices [17].

Agroforestry, in particular, involves planting and maintaining tall vegetation, primarily trees, while ensuring that agricultural activities can continue alongside them [18]. These practices encompass silvopasture, alley cropping, windbreaks, riparian and upland buffers, and forest farming [18], all of which are often referred to as semi-natural habitats or nature-based solutions [19].

Despite strong scientific interest, landscape management practices are not consistently defined or labeled in the literature, leading to a variety of terms such as riparian buffer zones, natural and semi-natural habitats, and agricultural landscape features. In this paper, the term “landscape elements in agriculture” refers to any vegetative belt or individual woody plant (tree or shrub) that is established and maintained by a farmer on arable land over several years. In addition to these elements, fallow land and the conversion of arable land into grassland are also considered key components of agricultural landscape management.

All of these practices offer multiple benefits. Most notably, they enhance biodiversity by increasing landscape heterogeneity, which in turn supports greater species richness [6] by providing habitats for wild species [2,14,20]. According to Wezel et al. [12], landscape elements such as hedgerows and shelterbelts can serve as overwintering sites and alternative food sources for beneficial insects and other beneficial predators, thereby reducing the need for chemical pest control. These features also reduce nutrient runoff [2,21] and can lower pesticide drift by up to 80–90% [20], contributing significantly to improved water quality [14].

Landscape elements also support soil conservation, as an irreplaceable, non-renewable resource for agriculture. They prevent wind and water erosion [2,12,18,20], enhance microbial activity [22] and increase nutrient levels in the soil [14,21]. Windbreaks, for example, protect soil and crops up to 15 times the height of the tallest trees in the belt, substantially reducing soil loss [23]. They also contribute to the development of deeper A and A+AB soil horizons, making the soil more fertile [24]. Moreover, forest and grassland ecosystems can mitigate flood damage by slowing runoff and snowmelt and helping to evenly distribute snow cover [2,20,21].

Well-managed landscape elements also improve agricultural productivity by shielding crops from storms [21], lodging [25], and excessive solar radiation [12], as well as by reducing evapotranspiration [18] and improving microclimate conditions [21]. For example, Kort [25] found that windbreaks can increase winter wheat yield by 3.5% in drier regions and years. Brandle et al. [26] report that reducing wind erosion alone can raise overall agricultural productivity by 15–20%.

In addition to their ecological and agronomic benefits, trees on farmland can be used for timber and firewood production [12]. Some studies suggest that agroforestry systems, by more efficiently using light and nutrients, can yield more food and wood than conventional systems where these outputs are produced separately on farmland and in forests, respectively [27].

In the context of climate change, planting trees, shrubs, hedges, and other landscape features on farmland is particularly valuable, as these features can sequester carbon in above- and below-ground biomass in the long term. Importantly, the afforestation of agricultural land allows for carbon capture without converting it into forest land. Within the European Union, agriculture has the potential to reduce carbon emission by 37%, with agroforestry accounting for up to 90% of that potential [27].

Landscape elements also enhance the aesthetic and recreational value of rural areas [18,20], supporting the development of rural tourism and activities such as hunting. Additionally, they provide shelter for livestock, reduce noise [20], prevent the spread of unpleasant odors [18], and help keep roads and parking areas clear of snow [20].

Altogether, these benefits demonstrate that effective landscape management supports global-, regional-, and farm-level sustainability goals, making it a crucial component of modern, resilient agricultural systems [26].

1.2. Agricultural Landscape Challenges in Vojvodina

Land use is a major component of global environmental change, yet relatively few studies have focused on land use changes in Central and Eastern Europe [28], where several regions exhibit heavily deforested agricultural landscapes. Notable examples include the Central Bărăgan Plain [29], Mazovia in Poland [30], and South Moravia in the Czech Republic [31]. One such region, and the focus of this study, is Vojvodina, the northern Autonomous Province of Serbia. Located within the fertile Pannonian plain, Vojvodina represents the most developed agricultural region in the country. It is characterized by its flat topography, abundant high-quality arable land, and continental climate with frequent strong winds. The average annual precipitation is between 550 and 600 mm [32], occasionally dropping below 400 mm [33], with rainfall often poorly distributed relative to crop needs. Temperature fluctuations and prolonged dry periods further complicate production.

With over 70% of its surface covered by erosion-prone arable land, and forest cover at just 6.37%—far below European standards [34]—the region is highly susceptible to wind erosion [35]. The crop structure, consisting primarily of annual crops, results in extended periods during the year when the arable land remains bare, after harvesting the current crops and before planting new ones. Savić et al. [36] estimate that approximately 2.5 million tons of sediment are displaced annually from Vojvodina’s farmland by wind, carrying with it around 75,000 tons of humus, 5000 tons of nitrogen, 11,000 tons of phosphorus, and 13,000 tons of potassium. Additionally, certain amounts of pesticides and heavy metals are also dispersed, making wind erosion a significant vector of non-point-source agricultural pollution [36], affecting not only the soil [37] but also the air and water [38].

Despite these concerning findings, the conventional agricultural landscape of Vojvodina, marked by the strong geometric order of its parcels, remains a near-continuous “sea of arable land”, with few, if any, natural landscape elements (trees, bushes, or non-agricultural vegetation). In this context, a shift toward more sustainable land use practices is imperative. While this transition requires action at multiple scales, including changes in agricultural policies [39], it also critically depends on farmers’ perspectives. Since any move toward greater sustainability hinges on their willingness to adapt, understanding farmers’ attitudes toward landscape management is essential for identifing potential barriers and limitations. Acknowledging the view that farmers are the main stewards of the land [2] and recognizing that the well-being of the entirety of society depends on their attitudes, beliefs, experiences, and decisions, this study aims to point out certain ideas and possibilities for changes in agricultural landscape practices initiated “from the bottom up”.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sampling Strategy

To collect primary data, a survey was conducted with a sample of 400 agricultural producers from all districts in the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The sample was proportionally distributed according to each district’s share of the total number of family agricultural holdings (FAHs) (Figure 1).

The Register of Agricultural Holdings in Serbia has been maintained since 2004. Although registration is not mandatory, it is a prerequisite for receiving state subsidies, making it widely used among serious and commercially active farmers. However, due to data protection regulations, contact information from the Register is not accessible to third parties. Consequently, a simple random sample could not be constructed, and a combination of quota and convenience sampling was used instead.

According to the 2012 Census of Agriculture [40], there were 25,253 FAHs in Vojvodina with more than 10 hectares of arable land. Farms smaller than 10 hectares were excluded from the survey as the aim was to focus on farms where agricultural production constitutes the primary source of income, thereby excluding part-time or hobbyist farmers. This aligned with broader policy goals targeting commercial agriculture, which play a key role in the rural economy. This threshold of 10 hectares was further justified by the comparable number of FAHs over this size reported in both the Register and the Census, in contrast to smaller holdings where discrepancies arise due to lower registration rates.

An upper limit of 200 hectares was also applied, excluding large-scale farms operating under industrial models or those transitioning toward legal entity status. This criterion reflected policy priorities aimed at supporting small and medium-sized farms, which play a key role in sustainable agriculture, local food systems, and rural development. Accordingly, the study focused on family-run farms that are most likely to be affected by such policies and that best represent the prevailing agricultural structure in Vojvodina.

The final sample included agricultural producers engaged either entirely or partially in arable farming, which represents the dominant land use type in the region. The sample size was determined using the formula proposed by Bartlett et al. [41], based on a 5% significance level. The yielded required sample size was 379 farmers, or approximately 1.5% of the target population. To account for potential non-responses and ensure adequacy, a slightly larger sample of 400 farmers was targeted. Quotas were defined using the administrative division of Vojvodina into 45 municipalities. The overall sample size was allocated across the municipalities in proportion to the share of FAHs within each, thus establishing the number of farmers to be surveyed per municipality.

Within each municipal quota, participants were selected through convenience sampling due to the unavailability of a comprehensive database. Given the common reluctance among farmers to engage in surveys, respondents were recruited through personal networks and recommendations. Farmers were approached via agricultural advisory service employees, previous respondents (snowball sampling), and direct encounters at agricultural events.

Since random sampling was not feasible, the survey group may have differed significantly from the non-respondents, introducing potential selection bias and limiting representativeness. Furthermore, snowball sampling may have clustered respondents with similar characteristics or views, reducing diversity within the sample. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the convenience-based approach resulted in higher-quality data, as it fostered participant willingness and encouraged more candid responses.

2.2. Survey Administration and Questionnaire Design

The survey was conducted between April 2017 and January 2018 using a questionnaire developed by the authors, consisting of both open- and closed-ended questions. It formed part of a broader, multi-phase research project investigating environmental awareness and agri-environmental practices among farmers in Vojvodina [42]. The questionnaire was structured into several carefully defined sections to ensure a logical flow and an ease of understanding for respondents.

Given the practical challenges of directly observing farmers’ behavior and practices, a self-reported survey approach was employed. While acknowledging the potential for social desirability and response biases, the authors determined that the method’s cost-effectiveness and logistical advantages outweighed these limitations. Respondents were offered multiple modes of participation: in-person interviews, telephone interviews, or completing the questionnaire as a hard copy or electronically. The majority of the responses were collected via telephone interviews (85%), followed by face-to-face interviews (11%) and manually completed questionnaires (4%).

Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary, and respondents were assured anonymity. Only aggregated results were used, exclusively for scientific purposes. No sensitive personal data were collected. In accordance with the Code of Academic Integrity of the University of Novi Sad (adopted on 30 January 2020), special ethical approval was not required for this voluntary and anonymous research. The sample consisted of approximately 98% male respondents, which reflects well the gender composition of the farming population in the region. The average age of participants was 41.77 years. Most respondents (73.5%) reported high school as their highest level of education. More detailed descriptive statistics of the sample are available in Despotović et al. [43].

The section of the questionnaire addressed in this paper focused on the presence of landscape elements within arable land, farmers’ understanding of the benefits such elements and fallow land can provide, and their views on converting arable land into grassland. The discussion was initiated with the following question:

Are there shrubs, other tall vegetation, or grassy uncultivated areas along the edges of some or all of your plots? (Response options: Yes/No)

Respondents were then asked to express their opinions regarding the usefulness of uncultivated vegetation and their willingness to integrate such elements into their agricultural landscape:

Do you consider such vegetated strips on plots to be useful? (Response options: Yes/No) Why?

Would you plant trees or shrubs on your plots? (Multiple response options)

The next set of questions explored respondents’ understanding of fallow land, their motivation to adopt this practice, and their openness to converting arable land into grasslands:

Do you consider leaving the land fallow to be useful? (Response options: Yes/No) Why?

Would you agree to let part of your land lie fallow for a minimum of 3 years? (Multiple response options)

Would you convert arable land into pastures and meadows? (Response options: Yes/No) Why?

Upon reviewing the completed questionnaires, responses from nine participants were excluded from further analysis due to incomplete answers, specifically, the omission of two key questions. The questionnaire was designed to capture genuine opinions, with an emphasis on qualitative, descriptive responses rather than quantitative data. Accordingly, the answers were not subjected to statistical analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Landscape Elements

More than half of the respondents in the sample (56.5%) reported that there were no shrubs or any other tall vegetation or grassy uncultivated areas on their plots. This corresponds to approximately 10,228 hectares of an endless “sea of arable land” within this relatively small sample alone, reflecting a broader trend described by Dožić [44], who noted that in some areas of Vojvodina there may be no trees within a 10 to 25 km radius [37]. Figure 2a illustrates a typical landscape of the Vojvodina plain, characterized by a grid of neatly arranged, geometrically shaped plots entirely devoid of any type of natural vegetation, resulting from decades of agricultural intensification. The remaining landscape elements are largely confined to the edges of major roads, rivers, and canals, as well as to specific types of agricultural estates known as salaši (singular: salaš), which are unique to the region. These estates once functioned as farmsteads where families lived, cultivated surrounding land, and raised livestock. Today, however, most have been abandoned or repurposed for tourism (Figure 2b).

Interestingly, a majority of respondents (61%) considered the presence of landscape elements (such as trees and shrubs) on their plots to be useful. The perceived benefits of trees (and to lesser extent, shrubs) were most commonly associated with providing shade for rest, offering protection from wind, producing oxygen, serving as landmarks, and supporting biodiversity by providing habitats for wildlife, birds, and insects.

However, despite these recognized benefits, many respondents also noted that such elements interfere with agricultural operations. This tension is illustrated in the following statements:

“It is useful because birds catch mice, but it obstructs work”.

(A farmer from Stapar, the West Bačka District, 39 years old.)

“It is useful as protection from erosion, but it hinders machine manipulation.”

(A farmer from Adaševac, the Srem District, 26 years old.)

“It complicates the process of manipulating large machines,

but it has its benefits because it affects the microclimate of the plot and

reduces the impact of winds that lead to erosion”.

(A farmer from Šid, the Srem District, 25 years old.)

These responses reflect the complex trade-offs perceived by farmers, who recognize the ecological and practical value of landscape elements while also confronting the operational challenges they pose in the context of modern, mechanized agriculture. To effectively address both aspects of this trade-off, it is essential to focus on the strategic integration of landscape elements that minimally interfere with agricultural productivity while maximizing ecosystem services. Offering expert consultations to farmers to develop optimal landscape designs, combined with demonstrations of successful practices, could encourage them to adopt greening strategies on their plots.

Similar findings have been reported in other contexts. In a study of farmers’ perceptions of on-farm tree planting in Nigeria, Olatujoye et al. [46] found that 60% of respondents believed that tree planting negatively impacted their farming activities, which limited the wider adoption of the practice.

This aligns with broader observations that farmers engaged in intensive agricultural production tend to favor the use of high-capacity machinery, enlarge their plots, and remove all physical obstacles (such as trees, shrubs, hedges, and stones) to maximize efficiency. Primdahl et al. [1] also noted this trend, while Egoz et al. [47] describe such an environment as a “mechanized landscape”, shaped primarily by a productivist orientation.

Farmers, who view such landscape elements unnecessary, often justify their position by claiming that these elements not only represent obstacle to their work but also shade crops, drain soil moisture, and provide shelter for pests. Crop shading caused by shelterbelts, and the associated reduction in yields, was also identified as the primary concern of farmers by Kirgiz [39]. Other authors [12] have also noted certain disadvantages of landscape elements on plots, such as competition with crops for space, sunlight, moisture, and nutrients, as well as the potential to create habitats for pests.

Establishing landscape elements on farmland offers many benefits. However, it can also lead to increased costs, due to the need for investment in their creation and maintenance [12,48], and reduced income, as it may decrease the area available for cultivated crops [21].

To better understand farmers’ perspectives, our survey asked whether they would agree to introduce specific landscape elements on their plots and under what conditions. Various compensation options were presented. The results are summarized in

Table 1. Respondents’ willingness to engage in agricultural landscape management.

Would You Plant Trees/Shrubs on Your Plots?	Frequency	% *
Yes, without any compensation, I would do it for my land/environment	63	16.1
Yes, if the government compensates me for the profit lost according to the yields achieved on that plot	45	11.5
Yes, if the government provides me with free seedlings and other material	115	29.4
Yes, if I receive a higher subsidy per hectare than those who do not do this on their plots	10	2.6
I wouldn’t, it would obstruct my work on those plots	72	18.4
I wouldn’t, I see no reason why I would do that	72	18.4
Something else	14	3.6
Total	391	100.0

* Percentage of respondents who selected each response option out of total survey participants.

.

The findings show that although a majority of farmers (59.6%) are willing to establish landscape elements, most expect financial or material compensation. This highlights the critical role of incentive-based schemes in facilitating broader adoption. Only one in four would do so solely for the environmental benefits. Such a finding underscores the tension between pro-environmental attitudes and practical decision-making, reinforcing the need for interventions that reduce the perceived risk or financial burdens associated with adopting such practices. In this context, the results can also be interpreted through the lens of the value–action gap, a well-documented phenomenon in environmental behavior research [49], where individuals express support for ecological goals but are reluctant to act without clear, immediate personal benefits.

This underscores the importance of environmental policies that not only raise awareness but also align with farmers’ economic realities and motivations. Providing free planting materials, targeted subsidies, or formal recognition for ecosystem service contributions could meaningfully increase adoption.

However, not all farmers share this perspective. More than one-third of respondents (36.8%) indicated they would not plant trees or shrubs on their plots even if incentives/compensations were provided. Among them, equal numbers felt that such plantings would disrupt production or simply saw no benefit in doing so.

Some farmers feel that a single tree or a row of trees on a plot serves no purpose, as expressed in their comments:

“Everyone should plant and maintain, this should not be done individually”.

(A farmer from Stara Pazova, the Srem District, 54 years old.)

“The government should organize it on public land”.

(A farmer from Totovo Selo, the North Banat District, 41 years old.)

From these statements, an external locus of control is evident; i.e., farmers feel that their individual actions cannot significantly contribute to environmental protection and that higher management levels need to coordinate farmers’ activities. This perspective aligns with the views of some authors who argue that creating natural or semi-natural landscape elements requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders, as they do not consider this measure feasible and effective at the individual farm level [12]. To meet farmers’ expectations and enhance legitimacy, interventions promoting landscape elements should involve collective initiatives, such as community programs or publicly coordinated planting campaigns.

However, Weibull et al. [6] argue that this type of agricultural landscape, even if applied to an individual farm, can positively affect biodiversity. In these cases, individual trees and bushes on plots provide habitats for numerous organisms, offering food and shelter for wild animals. Even simple vegetative barriers, such as a row of trees, can significantly contribute to environmental protection by reducing pesticide drift [20]. Furthermore, individual trees and shrubs can be used for timber and firewood, while certain species, like fruit trees, can generate additional income for the farm [23].

These findings should encourage farmers, especially in countries like Serbia, where environmental frameworks are less developed, to take individual action. While awaiting broader governmental support and coordinated efforts, they can still contribute to environmental protection on their own farms. Small-scale initiatives, such as planting trees or creating vegetative barriers, can have a meaningful impact, even in the absence of comprehensive policies or widespread government involvement.

Farmers cultivate a sense of belonging to their land, nature, and community. By caring for the land, learning from past generations, and engaging in collective efforts, their farm becomes a source of pride and fulfillment [50]. In this relational values context, the decisions regarding how the farm will be managed are also developed, and farmers become motivated by a sense of responsibility for preserving their land and heritage. However, if farmers do not recognize that their decisions are truly negatively impacting the environment, they will not perceive themselves as personally responsible, and thus, behavioral change will not occur, in accordance with the Value–Belief–Norm theory [51]. This framework outlines various causal variables of environmentally significant behaviors—attitudinal factors, personal capabilities, contextual factors, and habit and routine—supporting the findings of the present study.

3.2. Fallow Land

Although the benefits of leaving land fallow for improving soil quality have been recognized for centuries, the majority of the respondents (70.3%) do not consider this practice useful or necessary for preserving soil fertility. Their views suggest a preference for continuous cultivation or alternative soil management methods:

“Fallow land is not useful, it is better to sow something.”

(A farmer from Novo Miloševo, the Central Banat District, 28 years old.)

“There is no need to let land lie fallow, fertility can be maintained by crop rotation.”

(A farmer from Stara Pazova, the Srem District, 54 years old.)

The most commonly cited reason for rejecting fallow practices was the spread of weeds. Some respondents expressed concern that weeds from fallow plots could spread to neighboring farms, potentially damaging crops and disrupting good relations with neighboring landowners:

“Weeds are a problem and neighboring plots would be infested.”

(A farmer from Kelebija, the North Bačka District, 39 years old.)

Others were more concerned with the difficulty of clearing the land after the fallow period.

“How to get the land back after?!”

(A farmer from Belegiš, the Srem District, 61 years old.)

Similar concerns have been reported in other studies. Ruppert et al. [39], for instance, identified potential conflicts with neighbors as a key barrier to the adoption of sustainable land management practices. The Theory of Planned Behavior suggests that behavior is shaped by three main components: beliefs about the likely outcomes of an action (which influence attitudes), perceptions of social expectations (subjective norms), and perceived behavioral control (how much control individuals believe they have over performing the behavior) [52]. The third component is crucial in this context: farmers are less likely to adopt fallow practices if they perceive them as difficult to manage or believe that the associated risks, such as weed infestation or social tension, exceed their capacity to handle them. A lack of perceived control thus becomes a substantial barrier to behavioral change [53].

Despite the expressed concerns, many farmers acknowledged the agronomic benefits of fallowing. They agreed that it allows the soil to rest, reduces the depletion of nutrients and moisture compared to intensive cultivation, and prevents structural damage from heavy machinery. Some also recognized its role in limiting nutrient loss through irrigation and enhancing soil microbiological activity. Nevertheless, the perceived risk of weed infestation and the effort required to bring fallow land back into production remain significant obstacles. These concerns appear to outweigh the recognized benefits for many farmers, discouraging them from adopting the practice.

More than half of the surveyed farmers (51.2%) stated that they would not leave their land fallow under any circumstances, while a very small number (0.5%) would do so without compensation (

Table 2. Respondents’ willingness to adopt fallow land practices.

Would You Accept Letting Part of Your Land Lie Fallow for a Minimum of 3 Years?	Frequency	% *
Yes, without any compensation	2	0.5
Yes, if the government compensates me for the profit lost according to the average yields in my municipality and the average sowing structure I had in the previous 5 years	159	40.7
Yes, if the government compensates me for the profit lost according to the maximum yields in my municipality and the average sowing structure I had in the previous 5 years	27	6.9
I wouldn’t under any circumstances	200	51.2
Something else	3	0.8
Total	391	100.0

* Percentage of respondents who selected each response option out of total number of survey participants.

).

These results indicate that most farmers in Vojvodina do not share the perspective of Egoz et al. [47], who argue that leaving land unsown is not a misuse of agricultural resources but rather a meaningful expression of land stewardship.

Given the strong opposition to fallowing expressed by more than half of respondents, even when compensation was offered, exploring alternative approaches that align with farmers’ current economic priorities and production goals is necessary. Practices such as cover cropping, crop rotation with legumes, or the integration of low-maintenance perennial species could offer some of the ecological benefits of fallowing without requiring land to remain completely unsown. New information that challenges traditional farming practices can trigger cognitive dissonance among farmers, especially when it questions the legitimacy of long-held methods. Rather than revising their behavior, some farmers may reduce this internal conflict by rejecting the new knowledge and reinforcing traditional practices as adequate. Such resistance, rooted in a desire for consistency, can slow the transition to sustainable land management [54]. For this reason, land management alternatives that are more consistent with farmers’ beliefs should be prioritized over those advocating for a complete shift in practices. In addition, policy interventions should consider flexible support schemes that combine direct payments with technical assistance and long-term education about soil health and biodiversity. Tailored programs that address both environmental goals and farmers’ practical concerns could improve acceptance, especially in regions like Vojvodina where land is viewed primarily as a production asset.

3.3. Grassland Conversion

The situation is similar when it comes to converting arable land into grassland. Despite being recognized in the literature as one of the most effective preventive anti-erosion measures [55], the majority of farmers in Vojvodina included in this sample (87.2%) were unwilling to convert their arable land into grassland.

“The arable land is to be cultivated.”

(A farmer from Lugovo, the West Bačka District, 30 years old.)

Based on the respondents’ answers, it is clear that their attitude is driven primarily by a desire to maintain or improve the quality of their arable land. They view using the land in a less intensive manner as a waste of resources.

“It is a pity to convert arable land into grassland.”

(A farmer from Banatsko Novo Selo, the South Banat District, 46 years old.)

“It is a pity that the arable land does not give yield. It is clear which land is for grassland.”

(A farmer from Uljma, the South Banat District, 63 years old.)

“I didn’t buy the land to convert it into grassland.”

(A farmer from Senta, the North Banat District, 41 years old.)

“We have 7 acres of pasture, we would like to plow that too, but the quality of the soil is poor.”

(A farmer from Kanjiža, the North Banat District, 55 years old.)

Additionally, respondents believe that arable land generates higher profits, which is why they are reluctant to use it in a less profitable way.

“It is not profitable.”

(A farmer from Ravno Selo, the South Bačka District, 23 years old.)

“Because there is higher production intensity, and consequently, higher profit on arable land.”

(A farmer from Krčedin, the Srem District, 30 years old.)

Such attitudes are not surprising, given that farmers traditionally view themselves as producers of food and energy [56]. Within this paradigm, their self-evaluation and how they perceive their status among peers are closely tied to ideas of what constitutes good production practice and rational agriculture. These professional values are inevitably reflected in the appearance of the landscape where the agricultural production takes place [1].

As Egoz et al. [47] suggest, the agricultural landscape reflects the farmer’s identity, and social acceptance and respect among farmers is often based on the community’s perception of how well a farm is managed. In other words, the visual appearance of the farm is, in many cases, a means of signaling the farmers’ success [47].

This is further confirmed by the views of the surveyed farmers on the desirable appearance of the landscape:

“The view should be unobstructed as far as the eye can see.”

(A farmer from Boka, the Central Banat District, 31 years old.)

“We are used to using every corner (of the field, author’s comment).”

(A farmer from Kruščić, the West Bačka District, 54 years old.)

These perspectives highlight how farmers often assess both their own and others’ fieldwork based on aesthetic criteria, such as the orderliness of rows, the absence of weeds or other vegetation outside the cultivated crop, the neat trimming of plot edges, etc. [1].

As with the previously discussed recommendations, understanding the underlying drivers of farmers’ reluctance to convert arable land into grassland is essential for designing context-specific and acceptable interventions that prioritize the ecological and economic benefits of grassland use. From the standpoint of farm-level economics, the introduction of incentive-based schemes, such as agri-environmental payments or compensation for ecosystem service provision, could increase farmers’ motivation and acceptance. In developing countries, where financial support is limited, efforts should focus on reshaping how farmers define and value “good agricultural practice” in the context of grassland establishment on their farms. Changing the perception of grasslands from being seen as unproductive and reputation-damaging to being recognized for their long-term agronomic and environmental benefits requires focused, sustained knowledge-transfer efforts. This could combine theory and hands-on training through demonstration farms [57] that present effective grassland use for hay production, grazing, or beekeeping, supported by clear management guidelines.

Consistent communication strategies, including the use of digital media to highlight best practices and success stories, particularly targeting younger generations of farmers, are also vital. Introducing local awards or recognitions for sustainable grassland management may gradually change how farming success is socially perceived. In many rural areas, it is likely that social norms will change long before their influence on individual farming practices weakens. The tendency to conform to what the majority of people in a community do or approve of remains a significant factor in the adoption of sustainable practices, despite individuals’ personal beliefs and pro-environmental attitudes [58]. Thus, it must be acknowledged that transforming deeply rooted perceptions and norms within agricultural communities is inherently slow and shaped by generational change, community dynamics, and repeated exposure to alternative practices.

3.4. Adapting Policies and Practices for Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes

In developed countries, environmental awareness among producers has gradually evolved. A few decades ago, for instance, weeds in fields were seen as a sign of poor farming practices and unprofessionalism. Today, however, the presence of weeds on plots (on a smaller scale) is considered tolerable. It signals that the farmer has not overused herbicides [1,59], indicating that they are implementing socially responsible production practices that are not only economically viable but also environmentally sustainable.

Unfortunately, the responses from the surveyed agricultural producers in Vojvodina do not support this more optimistic perspective. The productivist paradigm, which primarily views farmers as food producers, remains deeply entrenched. As a result, there is little indication of an imminent shift toward more natural or ecologically sustainable agricultural landscapes in the province. This highlights the urgent need for both institutional and so-called “soft” policy interventions to encourage change in landscape management. At the same time, financial incentives and technical support, such as the provision of free seedlings and access to qualified extension services, are crucial to supporting farmers who are willing to consider not only their individual interests but also the broader societal and environmental good. In contrast to the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [9], Serbia’s agricultural policy remains insufficiently comprehensive. Governmental incentives to support sustainable practices are still largely absent, and agri-environment schemes remain in their infancy, posing a significant barrier to the recognition of non-commodity outputs, the promotion of multifunctional agriculture, and the transition toward a more intensive yet environmentally responsible arable landscape.

Positive experiences from other countries demonstrate how different strategies can improve agricultural landscape management. A notable example is the Burren Programme in Ireland [60,61], developed under the Locally Led Agricultural Environmental Scheme (LLAES). In this program, farmers take the lead in selecting and partially funding conservation activities tailored to their specific farms. Its distinguishing feature is a payment model linked to outcomes; i.e., financial compensation is determined by environmental performance of the land, with higher scores resulting in greater rewards [62]. In Switzerland, agricultural policy requires that at least 7% of each farm be allocated to ecological compensation areas (ECAs) such as low-intensity grasslands, hedgerows, or wildflower strips [63]. While this baseline is compulsory, many farmers voluntarily allocate more land to ECAs, encouraged by the prospect of receiving higher direct payments for exceeding the minimum requirement [64]. In 2016, The Netherlands introduced a new collaborative agri-environmental scheme in which certified farmer collectives take joint responsibility for implementing measures locally [65]. This cross-farm approach enhanced biodiversity efforts through flexible management, simplified administration, and stronger compliance [66]. It also built mutual trust, reinforced a sense of local identity, and encouraged farmers to view the landscape as a product of their collective efforts and care.

Given the slow progress in developing agri-environmental schemes, the potential of farmer-to-farmer participatory training should be harnessed to promote the adoption and long-term use of sustainable land management practices [67]. This approach is increasingly recognized in the literature. In contexts where resources are limited and financial incentives are lacking, extension services should play a key role in organizing and facilitating such participatory trainings. This approach offers a cost-effective way to reach a wide range of farmers and encourage the uptake of sustainable practices. Transformative Learning Theory suggests that individuals revise their perspectives through a process of critical self-reflection, dialogue, and experiential learning [68,69]. Participatory trainings can therefore provide fertile ground for such transformation, fostering new understandings of the agricultural landscape and its ecological implications.

The ecological value of the landscape can provide personal satisfaction to farmers, but only if they are able to recognize and understand key ecological processes within (agro)ecosystems, and this knowledge must be acquired. For instance, farmers with greater understandings of a particular habitat are often more motivated to improve the surrounding landscape [70].

Today, features of the agricultural landscape, such as biodiversity, can have a greater influence on the perceived social value of rural areas than expected productivity, further underscoring the importance of landscape planning in rural development strategies.

Rising public expectations for multifunctional rural areas are helping to build awareness that farmers provide more than just food, feed, raw materials, and energy. Through their management decisions, they also deliver significant ecosystem services [71]. Therefore, in the future, farmers may demonstrate their skills and commitment not only through well-maintained and orderly plots, but also by adopting practices that reflect responsible landscape stewardship.

3.5. Decision-Making Support

The predominantly negative or unclear attitudes expressed by farmers toward the adoption of more sustainable landscape management practices (establishing agricultural landscape management elements, fallow land, and/or the conversion of cropland to grassland) may partly reflect a lack of available accessible information and the complete absence of practical guidance, such as a tree/shrub/perennial species selection guide.

To support better landscape management in Vojvodina, farmers need clear insight into the potentials and constraints involved in selecting plant material suitable for continental climate conditions. In particular, familiarity with the most common species found in rural landscapes is essential for making informed decisions. An understanding of both native and non-native vegetation in the region is therefore critical.

The natural vegetation of the Vojvodina region belongs to the Aceri tatarici-Quercion Zol. et Jak. alliances [72], with bitter oak (Quercus cerris), durmast oak (Quercus petraea), Italian oak (Quercus pubescens), European ash (Fraxinus ornus), silver lime (Tilia argentea), Tatarian maple (Acer tataricum), field maple (Acer campestre), service tree (Sorbus domestica), and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) recognized as native “climate trees”. However, a considerable presence of invasive alien species, either self-established or intentionally planted as windbreaks, is also noticeable (Acer negundo, Morus alba, Robinia pseudoacacia, Sambucus nigra, and Ulmus pumila). The current continental climate is gradually shifting toward a semi-arid regime, which is increasingly characteristic of Serbia and other parts of the Balkans. In this changing environment, plant selection should be guided by empirical evidence covering a wide range of traits, including negative ones. Nevertheless, a growing trend among tree nurseries is the promotion of allochthonous “climate trees“, often emphasizing only their positive characteristics while overlooking the invasive potential linked to their adaptability.

A comprehensive study by Trifković et al. [73] emphasized the importance of windbreaks in land consolidation efforts, highlighting their role as a natural method of combating wind erosion. While the study outlined construction requirements, it omitted specific recommendations for suitable plant species. In practice, agricultural and industrial buffer zones in Serbia are often established using fast-growing but highly invasive species, which may ultimately cause more harm than good to the surrounding agricultural land. For instance, Kalozi and Đorđević [74], in their investigation of buffer zones around factories, reported the dominance of seven woody species, including self-established specimens of R. pseudoacacia and M. alba, both invasive in continental climates. Invasiveness is not limited to woody species. Perennial flowering plants used in pollinator or prairie strips can also be invasive, further limiting the range of suitable species for sustainable landscape management. Education is therefore crucial, not only for farmers but also for extension service practitioners. However, knowledge gaps remain. In a study by Whitehair et al. [75] only 32% of the respondents indicated that training in “weed versus prairie species identification” would be beneficial, while a far larger share (78%) prioritized training in the “economics/cost assessment of prairie strips”.

In open rural areas, plant species with strong anchorage and nitrogen fixation capabilities play an important role in soil enrichment and stabilization. Nitrogen-fixing species, especially those in the Fabaceae family (such as locust trees, blue rain, Judas tree, sophora, etc.), work in symbiosis with Rhizobium bacteria to assimilate atmospheric nitrogen and convert it into an ammoniacal form. Additionally, 24 genera from eight dicotyledon families are known to form actinorhizal associations that serve similar soil-enriching functions [76]. These genera (with their respective families in parentheses), listed from the most primitive to the most advanced, include: Coriaria (Coriariaceae), Cercocarpus, Chamaebatia, Cowania, Dryas, Purshia, Rubus (Rosaceae), Datisca (Datiscaceae), Comptonia, Myrica (Myricaceae), Alnus (Betulaceae), Elaeagnus, Hippophae, Shepherdia (Elaeagnaceae), Ceanothus, Colletia, Discaria, Kentrothamnus, Retanilla, Talguenea, Trevoa (Rhamnaceae), Allocasuarina, Casuarina, and Gymnostoma (Casuarinaceae).

Using plant species that offer multiple measurable benefits is likely to increase farmer acceptance. Particularly suitable candidates include native species from the European and Pannonian region, such as A. campestre, Carpinus betulus, Celtis australis, Corylus colurna, Prunus mahaleb, Q. pubescens, Quercus robur, Rosa sp., and Salix purpurea. In contrast, when decisions are based solely on a single trait, such as nitrogen fixation, they could unintentionally favor highly invasive species like Elaeagnus angustifolia, Hippophae rhamnoides, or R. pseudoacacia. This highlights the critical need for accurate and comprehensive information when making species recommendations.

A key challenge in promoting landscape elements (such as vegetated strips) lies in assessing their wide-ranging impacts. Farmers need clear guidance on both measurable and less tangible ecosystem services, as well as potential disservices that may result from introducing individual or combined perennial landscape management elements (Figure 3). Strengthening the communication link between academia and farmers is essential. In a study by Haddaway et al. [77], Serbia, alongside Colombia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey, was found to have contributed only a single publication on vegetated agricultural strips (landscape management elements), and that study addressed just 1 out of the 19 recognized ecosystem services (biodiversity enhancement). For example, easily measurable services with direct benefits include biomass and honey production, while semi-measurable ones encompass wind erosion control (of both soil and snow cover) and nutrient retention. Other ecosystem services, though valuable, remain abstract or difficult for farmers to quantify without long-term education and institutional support. A systematic, sustained approach to farmer outreach is therefore indispensable.

While native species primarily provide ecosystem services, alien species often produce a mix of services and disservices. These disservices may include nutrient depletion, allelochemical exudation [78], damage to soil and infrastructure, and serving as hosts for invasive pests and diseases. In urban areas, some of these alien plants are managed effectively and even used beneficially [79,80]. However, in rural environments, their uncontrolled spread frequently results in self-sustained communities that suppress autochthonous dendroflora [81].

Recognizing these dynamics supports the evaluation of the well-known triple-helix model (which involves collaboration among academia, industry, and the government to promote economic and social progress) towards a more comprehensive quadruple-helix approach. This extended model includes the environment as a fourth and essential component in advancing sustainable development. In this context, prioritizing ecosystem-based education, rather than narrowly focused species identification, may offer greater long-term value for both farm advisors and the farmers they support [75].

To improve the sustainability and resilience of agricultural landscapes, interdisciplinary collaboration is crucial. Bringing together social scientists, plant breeders, geneticists, landscape architects, horticulturalists, and agricultural engineers can ensure better-informed plant selection and more durable landscape planning. Such collaboration must consider global environmental challenges, food insecurity concerns, and emerging trends in rural land management.

4. Conclusions

The territory of Vojvodina holds significant potential for the large-scale integration of diverse agricultural landscape elements. However, our survey results suggest that many farmers do not yet fully recognize the long-term environmental impact of the prevailing “mechanized agricultural landscapes” across the region. More importantly, their willingness to adopt alternative practices, such as establishing vegetative elements, fallowing, or grassland conversion, remains limited. The strong utilitarian orientation of agricultural production has fostered a deep appreciation for the current anthropogenic landscape where efficiency and profit often outweigh ecological considerations.

In this context, it is essential that decision-makers account for the complex realities farmers face (economic, social, and perceptual) when designing measures to promote sustainable agricultural landscapes. Our findings reflect a clear value–action gap; while some farmers express support for ecological goals, many hesitate to act unless incentives or compensations are offered. Therefore, aligning environmental values with practical, economic benefits is key. While individual action remains important, structured support at the policy level could help scale these practices across agricultural landscapes, especially in systems like those in Serbia where coordinated environmental planning is still evolving. Policies should go beyond awareness-raising to include concrete, context-specific incentive mechanisms that acknowledge and reward farmers’ openness to change.

Institutionalizing sustainable practices will require a multi-pronged approach. This includes clear policy frameworks, stable budgetary support, accessible technical assistance, and stronger roles for extension services and farmer education. Locally tailored programs, such as providing free planting materials, compensating for short-term losses, or rewarding ecosystem service contributions, can reduce resistance and foster trust. Close collaboration among policy-makers, researchers, and agricultural advisors is essential to ensure coherent and consistent messaging.

Efforts should also be made to strengthen farmers’ sense of environmental stewardship. The availability and quality of land as a vital, non-renewable resource depend directly on how it is managed. While agriculture will remain centered on food, feed, and energy production, farmers also have the potential to act as providers of essential ecosystem services. Promoting this dual identity can help reposition agricultural practices within broader societal and environmental goals.

Encouraging a shift in perception, from viewing landscape elements as obstacles to recognizing them as nature-based solutions for climate resilience, can support this transition. Ongoing education and peer-led training initiatives can further guide the move from a linear, input–output model toward a more regenerative and circular approach.

While this study offers valuable insights into farmers’ attitudes toward agricultural landscape practices in Vojvodina, several limitations remain. Specifically, due to the non-probabilistic nature of the sample and self-reported survey approach, our findings should not be generalized beyond this context. Moreover, this study did not explore the deeper psychological, institutional, or cultural drivers behind farmers’ reluctance to adopt sustainable practices.

Future research should aim to identify the internal and external factors shaping farmers’ decision-making. Internal factors may include personal values, risk perceptions, and levels of environmental awareness, while external factors could involve market conditions and policy frameworks. A deeper understanding of these elements is essential for tailoring interventions that are not only effective, but also respectful of farmers’ needs, motivations, and constraints, ultimately enabling more sustainable and inclusive rural landscape planning.