Summarise article: Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policyoriented review François J. Dessart*, Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé and René van Bavel
Executive summary
This 2019 review synthesises two decades of evidence on behavioural drivers of farmers’ uptake of environmentally sustainable practices and offers policy options tied to the EU Common Agricultural Policy, highlighting that treating farmers as purely rational economic actors leads to unrealistic expectations [1] [2]. The authors map cognitive, normative and dispositional influences on adoption and recommend behavioural-aware policy instruments—including redesign of agri‑environmental schemes and behavioural experiments—to increase uptake [1] [3].
1. What the paper set out to do — a policy‑oriented behavioural stocktake
Dessart, Barreiro‑Hurlé and van Bavel review empirical and theoretical work from roughly the last 20 years to identify which behavioural factors consistently influence farmers’ decisions about sustainable practices and to translate those findings into policy guidance for the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [1] [4]. The review is explicitly framed to help policy makers design instruments that reflect how farmers actually decide, not how standard economic models assume they decide [2].
2. Key behavioural categories identified — beyond price signals
The authors organise evidence around cognitive, normative and dispositional factors that shape adoption decisions: cognitive factors (perceptions of risk and uncertainty, heuristics), normative factors (social norms, peer effects) and dispositional traits (attitudes, values, objectives). This taxonomy shows that economic objectives are often negatively correlated with adoption of sustainable practices, so non‑price drivers matter materially [1] [5].
3. Why the “rational actor” model falls short for farmers
The paper argues that treating farmers as fully rational profit‑maximisers can produce unrealistic policy expectations because it ignores bounded rationality and social influences that alter choices in practice [2]. The authors therefore recommend policy tools that respond to observed behaviour patterns rather than assumptions of perfect calculation [2].
4. Policy levers the review highlights — targeted, behavioural designs
Based on the behavioural evidence, the review proposes redesigning agri‑environmental schemes (AES) and CAP measures to account for farmers’ preferences, risk perceptions and social contexts. Suggested approaches include tailoring contract design, experimenting with defaults and framing, and using peer learning to leverage social norms — essentially embedding behavioural insights in scheme architecture [1] [3] [6].
5. Evidence on scheme design and farmer preferences
The review synthesises choice‑experiment and empirical studies showing that farmers’ uptake of AES depends on scheme attributes and on how those attributes interact with farmers’ objectives and attitudes. The literature cited by the authors includes work on what farmers want from AES and the role of intensity of change in adoption decisions, underscoring that design details materially affect participation [6] [5].
6. Research methods and extensions referenced — experiments and multidisciplinary work
Dessart et al. draw on experimental approaches and cross‑disciplinary studies; they themselves have used behavioural experiments in subsequent CAP work. The review points readers to behavioural experiments and mixed methods as needed next steps for policy evaluation and design [7] [3].
7. Limits and gaps the authors note — what the review does not solve
While comprehensive in scope, the paper focuses on European evidence and CAP‑relevant policy translation; it therefore implicitly limits generalisability outside EU contexts. The provided sources do not include full text excerpts on evidence strength by region or long‑term impact evaluations of behavioural policy tweaks, so available sources do not mention broader global validation within this review [1] [8].
8. Competing perspectives and implications for policy makers
The review’s central contention—that behavioural realism improves policy outcomes—competes with simpler cost‑subsidy logics that prioritise economic incentives alone. The authors recommend combining incentives with behavioural design and experimentation, a stance that invites tradeoffs between administrative complexity and improved targeting [1] [2]. Policymakers must weigh those tradeoffs when translating the review’s prescriptions into CAP measures [1].
9. Why this matters now — CAP reform and practical uptake
The review was produced at a time of CAP reform debate; the authors aim to inform how the CAP can become more environmentally effective by aligning measures with farmers’ decision processes. That policy orientation makes this work immediately relevant for designers of agri‑environmental schemes and CAP instruments [1] [4].
10. Takeaway for researchers and practitioners
For researchers, the paper is a roadmap pointing toward experiments, context‑sensitive designs and interdisciplinary methods. For practitioners and CAP administrators, it is an operational call: embed behavioural insights into scheme design—choices, defaults, communication and peer mechanisms—to raise realistic expectations about adoption and improve environmental outcomes [3] [7].