One explanation could be that the higher likelihood for influence outweighed the effect of status, since relatively lower status farmers could still influence an entrepreneurial attitude towards organic. The status mechanism in the high threshold scenario can, therefore, explain why, e.g., entrepreneurs enter the organic market, and/or why homophily in farming styles in markets develop. An interesting result of the model, is that new entrants are important for the diffusion of organic farming. The influence of new entrants in this research went via two factors: their farming styles and their peer influence. A higher chance that the successor had the same farming style as his/her predecessor led to fewer organic farmers and organic pigs, irrespective of the parametrisation of the social influence mechanism in the model. This result was confirmed by the experts. Moreover, it is in line with previous research findings that associated organic farmers more often with an urban background , assuming that farmers with an urban background have a different farming style through different peers. It is also in line with the social identity theory , assuming that successors have a higher chance for different farming styles than their predecessors through different reference groups. More research in the farming styles of successors, including the diversity of farming styles and development of new rationales, would be interesting for gaining insight in diffusion of alternative farming practices. It should be noted that this result also means that when farmers have a smaller chance to have a successor, the number of organic farmers would decrease and the diversity of organic farmers’ farming styles as well. The importance of successors in conversion to organic is, however, in contrast with studies that found no correlation between age and early or late adopters of organic farming ,vertical farming racks or between age and farmers with a conservation identity.
The role of successors in adoption of alternative farming practices might, therefore, be different per context. Finally, in this research we used a predefined network for farmers, predefined characteristics for farmers and markets, including the distribution of markets and farming styles, and the instantiation of attitudes among farmers with a specific farming style. Different instantiations could have an effect on model results. For example, a distribution of age that better resembles reality , could affect more changes in farming styles in the model and, therefore, more organic farmers, or more quitters. Future empirical research on farmers’ characteristics including their network and/or sensitivity analysis on the instantiation of market parameters, attitude distribution, and pig farmer characteristics including their network can give more insight in the effects of different initial situations on diffusion of added-value markets. In addition, it would be interesting to gain more insight in social influence mechanisms among consumers that affect demand of organic meat, given a static price, through e.g. agent-based modelling. Currently it is challenging to find out how empirical and sociological knowledge can be brought to bear upon policy advice. In this research we used the social identity theory to gain better insight in the mechanisms behind social influence. As discussed above, this gives a good starting point for operationalizing social influence and in some parametrization scenarios similarities can be found in model outputs and trends in the pig farmer population. In others, contradictions still exist . Agentbased modelling serves as a good method to further explore how social identity theory affects decision-making and macro patterns, by identifying reference groups, status symbols per reference groups, and changes in reference groups. Specific model operationalisations should, however, still be explored further, such as the value for thresholds, and the effect of only positive social influence versus positive and negative social influence. If policy makers aim to promote alternative farming strategies, they have several policy instruments at their disposition.
There are legal instruments for labelling and certification. There are financial instruments, such as payments for conversion and continued organic production, investment grants, and biodiversity offsets to penalise intensive farming practices through taxes. Finally, there are communicative instruments that focus on changing social norms in society . Since supply is in reality is largely regulated by an organic slaughterhouse, and consumer prices are kept stable by supermarkets, the level of demand for organic meat cannot be addressed via consumer price, and the price elasticity of demand cannot be exploited. This is a constraint on diffusion of organic farming, since our results suggest that price elasticity of demand is an important mechanism to increase the trend in demand to stimulate diffusion of organic farming. Given the importance of the trend in demand for organic pork meat, two alternative financial policy instruments can be suggested. Both need further research to support the policy instrument that best fits organic farming diffusion. First, structural payments to organic pig farmers can decrease the cost price for organic pigs. A decrease in production costs should lead to a decrease in farm gate price, which in turn might lead to a decrease in consumer price. Given the high price elasticity of demand for organic pork meat , a lower consumer price for organic pork should lead to a high increase in demand for organic pork. Increase in demand then leads to increase in supply.If we assume that conventional pork consumers can be triggered by price changes to start consuming organic pork,biodiversity offsets to penalise conventional pork can equalize prices between conventional pork and organic pork. This does require more empirical research into cross-price elasticities of organic meat in comparison to conventional meat. Also, two communicative policy instruments can be interesting given the currently regulated market. First, communicative policy instruments can be developed that target consumer demand by, e.g., explaining the benefits of organic farming to consumers as to try and change social norms among consumers in favour of organic pork instead of conventional pork . The second direction for policy is to focus on new entrants, as this might contribute to diversity in farming styles in the farmer population and therewith diffusion of alternatives.
Communicative policy instruments can focus on improving the image of farming within society for the younger generation. Financial policy instruments can focus on easing the entrance of young farmers into the farmer population. Both are interesting directions to further explore. The European Green Deal includes an action plan aimed at promoting the efficient use of resources by moving to a clean and circular economy and aimed at restoring biodiversity and reducing pollution. The European Commission has developed guidelines to support the achievement of these objectives by “investing in environmentally friendly technologies” and by “supporting industry in innovation” . Precision farming has the potential to meet the challenges posed by the public ambition to produce more while consuming fewer resources . PF has been defined as “a concept of agricultural management based on observation, measurement and response to inter- and intra-field variability in crops or livestock aspects” . Not only are European institutions supporting it as a fundamental practice for the development of agricultural sustainability in the future, but they are also focusing on the political need to act to improve farming practices, for which it is necessary to “boost investments and uptake of new technologies and digital-based opportunities such as precision agriculture” . Studies have addressed the crucial role that data management will play in making farmers’ work more efficient through the use of combined technologies , remote sensors, smart tractors and operational focuses . In addition to these strictly technical factors, socio-ethical and environmental variables linked to the application of technological innovation , in terms of good or negative impacts on agriculture in the future, should be considered . Today, new responsibilities have been assigned to agri-food systems along with the challenge posed to innovation processes to produce a desired scenario, especially in environmental and socio-ethical terms for the agriculture of the future . In this sense, the need to boost a more responsible adoption of innovation paths is emphasised within the field of responsible research and innovation . Only a few studies have examined the extent to which RRI principles have been applied to PF . In particular, the development of a framework of responsible innovation in agriculture requires the study of 4 dimensions : anticipation, inclusion, reflexivity, and responsiveness. Anticipation is related to the ability of research and innovation policy to anticipate an unfavourable scenario in terms of potential environmental and socioethical risks, while reflexivity has been defined as the promotion of new reflection processes around innovation processes by including all prospective actors to reduce negative impacts while enhancing positive outcomes.
Furthermore, the inclusion of stakeholders and bottom-up governance strategies have been proposed as principles for promoting engagement in innovation processes and innovation trust. The last principle, responsiveness, includes the ability to support a change of course within innovation processes once new knowledge, emerging challenges or needs have been discovered. The RRI literature has risen to prominence in relation to numerous technologies that have high potential but considerable uncertainty. However, applications to precision farming technologies are limited . Analysing the desirability of PF through the RRI lens may be very useful since scholars have highlight the notable difficulty in the transfer and adoption of TI. As a demonstration, many authors have described several barriers to adoption, from the costs incurred to the difficulty of use , which can be fully captured by the concept that Vecchio et al. defined as the “complexity” perceived by farmers. Starting from these considerations, the aim of this study is to understand farmers’ perspective on the theme. Specifically, “In my opinion, precision farming is…” is the relevant issue from which this research starts. To answer this question, it is necessary to emphasise that the optimisation of production processes involves many dimensions of farms, such as the technological, economic, institutional, and behavioural dimensions . These aspects can be interpreted as pieces of a conceptual puzzle, vertical rack system of which some have been widely investigated, while others have not. In the field of research on agricultural innovation, the aspects involved in the sphere of the self of the farmer, that is, “a set of behavioural aspects such as motivation, emotion, relationships, perception and cognition” , have been less explored. Only a few authors have explored this dimension, mainly addressing the theme of perception . These studies have described perception as a functional variable in the adoption process, defining the main links with other pieces of the puzzle. In the complex adoption framework, our aim is precisely to colour the picture of farmers’ sphere of self and, more specifically, farmers’ perceptions. This study, however, intends to attribute to perception a character of exceptionality due to its subjective nature as an element belonging to the cognitive sphere. For this reason, this work proposes to study the adoption process by proposing a theoretical framework in which perception is isolated and analysed on a different level than that of the other pieces of the puzzle. Such analysis enables us to capture the views of farmers by overcoming the inevitable bias caused by the design of surveys aimed at establishing functional links . To that end, our survey focuses exclusively on farmers’ perceived meaning of the term “precision farming”. Furthermore, we accept the relevance of subjectivity in filling the content of the sphere of the self. Going into the cognitive sphere in the context of the self means carrying out an in-depth investigation. As with any survey and methodology chosen, it involves having biases but at the same time being able to collect very detailed information that is difficult to capture with quantitative techniques and tools. Although the results obtained cannot be generalised, they represent important insights and enrich the knowledge of the subject under analysis. Consistent with these aims, we use the Q methodology , theorised by Stephenson in 1935 and defined by Brown as a “bridge”. According to Durning and Ellis et al. , the QM is useful for analysing the transition between positivism and post-positivism aimed at the study of subjectivity. It mixes qualitative approaches, which are necessary to capture the multiple facets of subjectivity that escape numerical reduction, with quantitative techniques that help to measure results.