Behavioural drivers of sustainable agricultural practices adoption in the EU: a systematic review
Abstract
Promoting the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices (SAPs) remains a central objective of the European Union, particularly under the evolving framework of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, understanding the factors that shape farmers’ decisions requires moving beyond purely economic explanations. This systematic review synthesizes evidence from 53 empirical studies conducted across EU Member States to identify how behavioural drivers —classified as dispositional, social, and cognitive according to the framework of Dessart et al. (2019) — shape farmers’ adoption of SAPs. Findings reveal that cognitive drivers, such as perceptions of risk, profitability, and self-efficacy, are most frequently examined, yet often interact synergistically with social influences and dispositional traits, including environmental values, innovation orientation, and institutional trust. The review underscores the need for agri-environmental policies that integrate behavioural insights and account for farmers’ lived experiences, social embeddedness, and bounded rationality to foster more effective and inclusive sustainability transitions.
Downloads
References
Ait Sidhoum A, Canessa C, Sauer J, 2023. Effects of agri-environment schemes on farm-level eco-efficiency measures: Empirical evidence from EU countries. J Agric Econ 74(2): 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12520
Alló M, Loureiro ML, Iglesias E, 2015. Farmers’ preferences and social capital regarding agri-environmental schemes to protect birds. J Agric Econ 66(3): 672–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12104
Aromataris E, Pearson A, 2014. The systematic review: An overview. Am J Nurs 114(3): 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000444496.24228.2c
Baaken MC, Bartkowski B, Rode J, 2023. Exploring farmers’ support needs for the adoption of agri-environmental practices: An application of the theoretical domains framework. Environ Res Commun 5(11). https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ad03b0
Barreiro-Hurle J, Dessart FJ, Rommel J, Czajkowski M, Espinosa-Goded M, Rodriguez-Entrena M, Thomas F, Zagorska K, 2023. Willing or complying? The delicate interplay between voluntary and mandatory interventions to promote farmers’ environmental behavior. Food Policy 120: 102481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102481
Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Bednář M, Biffi S, Domingo-Marimon C, Mesaroš M, Schüßler C, Šarapatka B, Tarčak S, Václavík T, Ziv G, Wittstock F, 2023. Adoption and potential of agri-environmental schemes in Europe: Cross-regional evidence from interviews with farmers. People Nat 5(5): 1610–1621. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10526
Block J, Michels M, Musshoff O, Hermann D, 2024. How to reduce the carbon footprint of the agricultural sector? Factors influencing farmers’ decision to participate in carbon sequestration programs. J Environ Manage 359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121019
Bonke V, Musshoff O, 2020. Understanding German farmer’s intention to adopt mixed cropping using the theory of planned behavior. Agron Sustain Dev 40(6). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-00653-0
Borges JR, Foletto L, Xavier VT, 2015. An interdisciplinary framework to study farmers decisions on adoption of innovation: Insights from Expected Utility Theory and Theory of Planned Behavior. Afr J Agric Res 10: 2814–2825. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9650
Bourceret A, Amblard L, Mathias J, 2022. Adapting the governance of social-ecological systems to behavioural dynamics: An agent-based model for water quality management using the theory of planned behaviour. Ecol Econ 194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107338
Brown C, Kovács E, Herzon I, Villamayor-Tomas S, Albizua A, Galanaki A, Grammatikopoulou I, McCracken D, Olsson JA, Zinngrebe Y, 2021. Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy 101: 105136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136
Calvet C, Le Coent P, Napoleone C, Quétier F, 2019. Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France. Ecol Econ 163: 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.03.026
Canessa C, Ait-Sidhoum A, Wunder S, Sauer J, 2024. What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature. Land Use Policy 140: 107094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107094
Canessa C, Venus T, Wiesmeier M, Mennig P, Sauer J, 2023. Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers’ Preferences and Biodiversity Levels. Ecol Econ 213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.107954
Castro Campos B, 2022. The Rules-Boundaries-Behaviours (RBB) framework for farmers’ adoption decisions of sustainable agricultural practices. J Rural Stud 92: 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.03.012
Chèze B, David M, Martinet V, 2020. Understanding farmers’ reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment. Ecol Econ, null: null. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.06.004
D’Alberto R, Targetti S, Schaller L, Bartolini F, Eichhorn T, Haltia E, Harmanny K, Le Gloux F, Nikolov D, Runge T, Vergamini D, Viaggi D, 2024. A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions. Land Use Policy 141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107120
de Krom MPMM, 2017. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Regionalisation and the role of bridging social capital. Land Use Policy 60: 352–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.026
Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Mozzato D, 2018. To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy 76: 460–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.026
Del Corso JP, Kephaliacos C, Plumecocq G, 2015. Legitimizing farmers’ new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy. Ecol Econ 117: 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.05.017
Delaroche M, 2020. Adoption of conservation practices: what have we learned from two decades of social-psychological approaches? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 45: 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.08.004
Dessart FJ, Barreiro-Hurlé J, van Bavel R, 2019. Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented review. Eur Rev Agric Econ 46(3): 417–471. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbz019
Drechsler M, 2021. Impacts of human behaviour in agri-environmental policies: How adequate is homo oeconomicus in the design of market-based conservation instruments? Ecol Econ 184: 107002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107002
Dupoux M, Gaudeul A, Baggio M, Bruns H, Ciriolo E, Krawczyk M, Kuehnhanss C, Nohlen H, 2025. Unlocking the full potential of behavioural insights for policy. JRC Publications Repository. https://doi.org/10.2760/7367599
Esposti R, 2024. Non-monetary motivations of the EU agri-environmental policy adoption. A causal forest approach. J Environ Manage 352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119992
Gaál M, Becsákné Tornay E, 2024. Hungarian farmers’ perceptions of environmental problems and their attitudes to collect relevant data. J Rural Stud 106: 103224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103224
Gatto P, Mozzato D, Defrancesco E, 2019. Analysing the role of factors affecting farmers’ decisions to continue with agri-environmental schemes from a temporal perspective. Environ Sci Policy 92: 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.001
Granado-Díaz R, Colombo S, Romero-Varo M, Villanueva AJ, 2024. Farmers’ attitudes toward the use of digital technologies in the context of agri-environmental policies. Agric Syst 221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104129
Gütschow M, Bartkowski B, Felipe-Lucia MR, 2021. Farmers’ action space to adopt sustainable practices: A study of arable farming in Saxony. Reg Environ Change 21(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01848-1
Häfner K, Piorr A, 2021. Farmers’ perception of co-ordinating institutions in agri-environmental measures – The example of peatland management for the provision of public goods on a landscape scale. Land Use Policy 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104947
Hannus V, Sauer J, 2021. It is not only about money—German farmers’ preferences regarding voluntary standards for farm sustainability management. Land Use Policy 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105582
Hannus V, Venus T, Sauer J, 2020. Acceptance of sustainability standards by farmers—Empirical evidence from Germany. J Environ Manage 267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110617
Huber R, Kreft C, Späti K, Finger R, 2024. Quantifying the importance of farmers’ behavioral factors in ex-ante assessments of policies supporting sustainable farming practices. Ecol Econ 224: 108303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108303
Huber R, Xiong H, Keller K, Finger R, 2022. Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio-economic modelling in an agent-based modelling framework. J Agric Econ 73(1): 35–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12447
Huber R, Zabel A, Schleiffer M, Vroege W, Brändle JM, Finger R, 2021. Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme. Ecol Econ 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107064
Kahneman D, Tversky A, 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185
Klebl F, Feindt PH, Piorr A, 2024. Farmers’ behavioural determinants of on-farm biodiversity management in Europe: a systematic review. Agric Hum Values 41: 831–861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-023-10505-8
Klebl F, Rhodes JR, Häfner K, Piorr A, 2025. Connecting habitats in European agricultural landscapes: Farmers’ spatial preferences for linear wildlife corridors. Landscape Urban Plan 258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105325
Kuehnhanss CR, 2019. The challenges of behavioural insights for effective policy design. Policy Soc 38(1): 14–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1511188
Kuhfuss L, Préget R, Thoyer S, Hanley N, 2016. Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus. Eur Rev Agric Econ 43(4): 609–636. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbv031
Lastra-Bravo XB, Hubbard C, Garrod G, Tolón-Becerra A, 2015. What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ Sci Policy 54: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.06.002
Le Coent P, Préget R, Thoyer S, 2021. Farmers Follow the Herd: A Theoretical Model on Social Norms and Payments for Environmental Services. Environ Resour Econ 78(2): 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00532-y
Lefebvre M, Midler E, Bontems P, 2020. Adoption of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices with Background Risk: Experimental Evidence. Environ Resour Econ 76(2–3): 405–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-020-00431-2
Leonhardt H, Braito M, Uehleke R, 2022. Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake. Agric Hum Values 39(1): 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-021-10242-w
Mack G, Ritzel C, Jan P, 2020. Determinants for the implementation of action-, result- and multi-actor-oriented agri-environment schemes in Switzerland. Ecol Econ 176: 106715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106715
Menozzi D, Fioravanzi M, Donati M, 2015. Farmer’s motivation to adopt sustainable agricultural practices. Bio-based Appl Econ 4(2): 125–147. https://doi.org/10.13128/BAE-14776
Mesa-Vázquez E, Velasco-Muñoz JF, Aznar-Sánchez JA, López-Felices B, 2021. Three Decades of Behavioural Economics in Agriculture. An Overview of Global Research. Sustainability 13(18): Article 10244. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810244
Michels M, Luo H, Weller von Ahlefeld PJ, Mußhoff O, 2023. Compliance with pre-harvest interval rules in apple production—A comparative analysis of green nudges among fruit growers and agricultural students in Germany. J Behav Exp Econ 102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101963
Mozzato D, Gatto P, Defrancesco E, Bortolini L, Pirotti F, Pisani E, Sartori L, 2018. The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature? Sustainability 10(9). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10093101
Muench S, Cechura L, Bavorova M, 2024. Exploring the Motives Behind the Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies among Farmers in the Czech Republic. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 29(8). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-024-10179-5
Muñoz-Ulecia E, Uldemolins P, Bernués A, de-Magistris T, Villamayor-Tomás S, Martín-Collado D, 2025. Fighting the pollinators decline in practice – Farmers’ willingness to accept an eco-scheme for their conservation in Aragon, Spain. Res Environ Sustain 20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2025.100208
Niskanen O, Tienhaara A, Haltia E, Pouta E, 2021. Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies. Land Use Policy 102: 105227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105227
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A, 2016. Rayyan—A web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, Moher D, 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pagliacci F, Defrancesco E, Mozzato D, Bortolini L, Pezzuolo A, Pirotti F, Pisani E, Gatto P, 2020. Drivers of farmers’ adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from northeastern Italy. Sci Total Environ 710: 136345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136345
Palm-Forster LH, Ferraro PJ, Janusch N, Vossler CA, Messer KD, 2019. Behavioral and Experimental Agri-Environmental Research: Methodological Challenges, Literature Gaps, and Recommendations. Environ Resour Econ 73(3): 719–742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-019-00342-x
Palm-Forster LH, Messer KD, 2021. Chapter 80—Experimental and behavioral economics to inform agri-environmental programs and policies. In: Barrett CB, Just DR (Eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol 5: 4331–4406. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesagr.2021.10.006
Paulus A, Hagemann N, Baaken MC, Roilo S, Alarcón-Segura V, Cord AF, Beckmann M, 2022. Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy 121: 106320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106320
Piñeiro V, Arias J, Dürr J, Elverdin P, Ibáñez AM, Kinengyere A, Opazo CM, Owoo N, Page JR, Prager SD, Torero M, 2020. A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes. Nat Sustain 3(10): Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y
Salazar-Ordóñez M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, Villanueva AJ, 2021. Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept. Land Use Policy 107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104348
Schaub S, Benni NE, 2024. How do price (risk) changes influence farmers’ preferences to reduce fertilizer application? Agric Econ 55(2): 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/agec.12824
Schaub S, Ghazoul J, Huber R, Zhang W, Sander A, Rees C, Banerjee S, Finger R, 2023. The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers’ participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes: A systematic review. J Agric Econ, null: null. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12538
Scherfranz V, Moon K, Kantelhardt J, Adler A, Barreiro S, Bodea FV, Bretagnolle V, Brönnimann V, de Vries JPR, Dos Santos A, Ganz M, Herrera JM, Hood ASC, Leisch F, Mauchline AL, Melts I, Popa R, Rivera Girón VM, Ruck A, Schaller L, 2024. Using a perception matrix to elicit farmers’ perceptions towards stakeholders in the context of biodiversity-friendly farming. J Rural Stud 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2024.103282
Schimmelpfennig R, Muthukrishna M, 2023. Cultural evolutionary behavioural science in public policy. Behav Public Policy: 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2022.40
Schulze C, Zagórska K, Häfner K, Markiewicz O, Czajkowski M, Matzdorf B, 2024. Using farmers’ ex ante preferences to design agri-environmental contracts: A systematic review. J Agric Econ 75: 44–83. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12570
Serebrennikov D, Thorne F, Kallas Z, McCarthy SN, 2020. Factors influencing adoption of sustainable farming practices in Europe: A systemic review of empirical literature. Sustainability 12(22): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12229719
Shukla P, Messer KD, Ferraro PJ, 2023. Applying behavioral science to agriculture, food, and agri-environmental policymaking. Food Policy 120: 102548. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2023.102548
Sok J, Borges JR, Schmidt P, Ajzen I, 2021. Farmer Behaviour as Reasoned Action: A Critical Review of Research with the Theory of Planned Behaviour. J Agric Econ 72(2): 388–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12408
Spörri M, Haller M, El Benni N, Mack G, Finger R, 2025. How farmers’ self-identities affect agri-environmental transition in Grassland Use: A mixed method study in the Swiss Alpine Region. Agric Hum Values 42(1): 319–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-024-10608-w
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR, 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
Todorova K, 2019. Factors affecting adoption behavior of farmers in Bulgaria—Agri-environment public goods for flood risk management. J Cent Eur Agric 20(4): 1248–1258. https://doi.org/10.5513/JCEA01/20.4.2368
Tyllianakis E, Will M, Václavík T, Ziv G, 2025. Drivers and Preferences of European Farmers for Agri-Environmental Public Goods Schemes: A Two-Stage Analysis. J Nat Conserv 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2025.126912
Vecchio Y, Agnusdei G, Miglietta P, Capitanio F, 2020. Adoption of Precision Farming Tools: The Case of Italian Farmers. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17030869
Villanueva AJ, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2015. The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land Use Policy 46: 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.009
Wang S, Höhler J, Ang F, Lansink A, 2023. Dutch dairy farmers’ adoption of climate mitigation measures—The role of socio-psychological and socio-demographical factors. J Clean Prod 427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139187
Wezel A, Vincent A, Nitsch H, Schmid O, Dubbert M, Tasser E, Fleury P, Stöckli S, Stolze M, Bogner D, 2018. Farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming. Land Use Policy 70: 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.020
Wittstock F, Paulus A, Beckmann M, Hagemann N, Baaken MC, 2022. Understanding farmers’ decision-making on agri-environmental schemes: A case study from Saxony, Germany. Land Use Policy 122: 106371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106371
Wuepper D, Bukchin-Peles S, Just D, Zilberman D, 2023. Behavioral agricultural economics. Appl Econ Perspect Policy. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13343
Zhang H, Potts SG, Breeze T, Bailey A, 2018. European farmers’ incentives to promote natural pest control service in arable fields. Land Use Policy 78: 682–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.017
Copyright (c) 2025 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
