Farmers’ perceived financial and non-financial costs of their biodiversity measures – exploring viewpoints with Q-methodology

Scherfranz, V., Schaak, H., Kantelhardt, J., Reimand, K., Braito, M., Bodea, F. V., Costache, C., Popa, R., de Vries, R., Kleijn, D., Kadulin, A., Melts, I., Hood, A. S. C. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3803-0603, Potts, S. G. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2045-980X and Schaller, L. (2025) Farmers’ perceived financial and non-financial costs of their biodiversity measures – exploring viewpoints with Q-methodology. Ecological Economics, 236. 108694. ISSN 1873-6106 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108694

Abstract/Summary

Farmers’ willingness to continue participation in their agri-environmental program and maintain biodiversity measures in the long term is shaped by the nature of costs they perceive during implementation. Research emphasizes the need to account for both financial and non-financial costs, but holistic assessments which both put these costs into relation and account for farmers’ varied perceptions remain lacking. To capture the plurality of perceived costs, as well as the plurality of viewpoints farmers have of these costs, we applied Q-methodology across four European study areas. Building upon scientific literature and expert interviews, we defined a Q-set comprising 41 cost aspects from four dimensions, i.e. financial, management-related, emotional and social costs. 34 farmers with different socio-demographic and farming background Q-sorted these cost aspects. Elicited viewpoints showed that participating farmers are either most impacted by perceived governance-related uncertainty, unproductiveness, lack of support, administrative burden, underpayment, or social non-conformity. Findings give indications of highly diverse needs when implementing a biodiversity measure, within and across study areas. The systematic insights into farmers’ cost perceptions and the structure established for this Qstudy can guide research and policymakers who aim to comprehensively explore and evaluate well-targeted ways to improve farmers’ experiences of biodiversity measures within agri-environmental programs.

Item Type	Article
URI	https://centaur.reading.ac.uk/id/eprint/123277
Identification Number/DOI	10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108694
Refereed	Yes
Divisions	Life Sciences > School of Agriculture, Policy and Development > Department of Sustainable Land Management > Centre for Agri-environmental Research (CAER)
Publisher	Elsevier
Download/View statistics	View download statistics for this item