An evaluation of the Yorkshire Sustainable Landscapes programme: Farmers’ perceptions and behaviour

Resources available to farmers within the pilot areas are:

• Sustainability benchmarking
• Soil analysis and testing
• Soil organic matter level testing
• Provision of Cover crop advice
• Provision of Cover crop seed to farmers within the pilot
• Option to change from on farm metaldehyde use to Ferric Phosphate where appropriate
• GPS driven soil quality management
• Gatekeeper – software and training from Farm Plan

The programme focused on how adoption of these various practices, techniques and services could benefit the farm business (profitability and resilience), but also how it could improve the environment by reducing the use of chemicals and ensuring that nutrients and pesticides that were used stayed on the field rather than reaching adjacent waterways.

The SLP initially operated in three main pilot areas within Yorkshire (see Figure 1) and has engaged with over 200 farmers in the last three years:  

• Topcliffe: Located 5 miles to the southwest of Thirsk and adjacent to the River Swale, the Topcliffe Pilot Area is within the River Swale catchment area which feeds into River Ouse and enters the North Sea via the Humber estuary. The pilot area has 19 farmer members, most of whom are undertaking arable farming activities.

• Shipton by Beningbrough: The Shipton by Beningbrough Pilot is located to the North West of York and geographically, the Pilot Area is located close to the River Ouse. The land tends to be slightly heavier than farmers experience at the Topcliffe pilot further north, however similar crop rotations are undertaken. The Pilot Area has a wide-ranging membership of 16 farming individuals with some members undertaking beef and pig operations, with knowledge alongside arable specialists.

• Elvington: The Elvington Pilot Area is centred at Grimston Grange in Heslington and situated to the south east of York. The Pilot Farms are located between the River Ouse to the west and the River Derwent to the East. The area is within a zone of particular importance in terms of regarding surface water management. Yorkshire Water have treatment facilities four miles away at Elvington where they extract water from the River Derwent prior to treatment and distribution elsewhere in Yorkshire. The Pilot Area has 18 members, all of them farm in the surrounding area with potatoes, carrots and other root crops included in their arable rotation.

Figure 1. Pilot areas in the Sustainable Landscape Program

Source: Sustainable Landscape Program Website, Accessed: August 2021.

Table 1. The characteristics of the interviewed farmers

Interviewee and Characterisation

Farmer 1 Male, 62, arable farm, owned farm (284 ha), other sources of income

Farmer 2 Male, 40s, arable farm, owned farm (165 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 3 Male, 28, arable and livestock farm, owned farms (162 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 4 Male, 50s, arable farm, owned and rented farms (175 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 5 Male, 53, arable farm, owned farm (230 ha), other sources of income

Farmer 6 Male, 40s, arable, owned farm (115 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 7 Female, 50s, arable and livestock farm, owned and rented farm (400 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 8 Male, 40s, arable and livestock farm, owned farm (120 ha), income from farming only

Farmer 9 Male, age not mentioned, arable farm, owned farm (265 ha), 95% of total income from farming

Farmer 10 Male, age not mentioned, arable farm, rented farm (500ha), other sources of income

Farmer 11 Male, 50s, arable farm, rented farm (223 ha), income from farming only

The script for the farmers’ interviews was designed after carrying out the framing interviews with the key developers of the SLP. The interview started with a brief introduction to the research team and the aim of the study.

The interviews contained two main parts: the main questions and the profiling questions. The main questions started with general questions regarding the SLP and the participants’ understandings of its aim, as well questions about their motivations for participating in it. Participants were then asked about the main initiatives of the programme and their understanding of and engagement in them. In the next series of questions, interviewees were asked if they had changed any of their farming practices/behaviours as a result of being involved in the SLP, and if yes in what way. Subsequently, interviewees were asked what they thought were the main reasons for why farmers (themselves and other participants) changed their behaviour/practices.

Although they had the freedom to answer this question with their own examples/options in mind, the interviewer was especially interested in factors such as experiential learning, peer-learning and social effects. The academic literature has shown how these factors influence the link between awareness raising and behavioural change for the adoption of best land management practices. Prompts regarding these factors were therefore introduced in the interview process. In the final set of questions, participants were asked about their views on Yorkshire Water, the programmes facilitators and advisors and the benefits they obtained from participating in the SLP.

The profiling questions referred to farm characteristics, such as farm type, size and category, and farmers’ socio-demographic information, such as gender, age and sources of income.

Data from the interviews were analysed using qualitative thematic analysis. This was done by carefully reading through the interview transcripts and identifying recurring topics that emerged from the text rather than on the basis of pre-defined topics. We identified statements that provided plausible explanations to the topics under consideration.

4.2. Farmers interviews

Results of the analysis of the interview with farmers are organised in a series of overarching themes, which are presented together with statements illustrating the main arguments within the themes.  

Motivations for participating in the SLP and what farmers hoped to achieve

The main reasons mentioned by farmers regarding their motivation for participating in the SLP and what they had hoped to achieve are focussed around the following factors:  learning new things, reducing the impact of farming on the environment and financial savings. This is illustrated by the following examples of statements made by the farmers:

  “I expected to be able to learn from experts but more from other farmers so then I can have new ideas, which I can implement on my own farms.’’ (Farmer 1)

 “We use different methods and so we would not damage the earth possibly and protect environment and water courses. We expect to achieve different sides of knowledge, learn different things and progress because things are changing faster than before.’’ (Farmer 3)

“It’s aims are to improve the local environment through our actions which will help companies, such as Yorkshire Water, with their environmental concerns and hopefully working in partnership will result in benefit both for us and them [Yorkshire Water] in terms of reducing our carbon footprint and reducing Yorkshire Water’s costs in terms of those associated with removing nitrate and chemicals from the water.’’ (Farmer 2)

“In our business we need to reduce labour costs and one way to do this is to adopt new techniques/technologies that allows us to run the farm with one person instead of two.’’ (Farmer 4)

 “I am always looking to learn, looking for best practice, for increased profitability and less impact on the environment and do better farming for each of them.’’ (Farmer 5) 

Farmers views on the good soil guide and sustainability index

Only a few farmers have applied both the advice in the good soil guide and the sustainability index on their farms. The farmers said they had attended the related meetings about them but were not applying them or that they already had similar measures in place and so did not see the benefit of replacing them with these new ones. Examples of quotes that illustrate this include:

“We do our own soil and nutrient monitoring anyway so we always do that so that was not a new thing to me.’’ (Farmer 10)

 “I have not applied any of those. I tested my soil with other methods.” (Farmer 2)

 “I have not used the good soil guide. I have done the sustainability index but have not been involved in subsequent monitoring.” (Farmer 8)

 However, questions around the Good Soil Guide and the Sustainability Index did show a general understanding of the need to preserve healthy soil, as revealed for example by this quote from Farmer 1: “The Good soil guide is about improving soil health, for example by not cultivating or disturbing it and if I don’t disturb the soil, I don’t disturb the soil life indeed and that is a part of sustainability as well”. It does not seem, though, that the specific tools presented by the SLP are the most valued by the farmers, as expressed in this quote: “Sustainability index is trying to measure how sustainable we are farming and that is looking at our attitude (cover crops, how much fertilizer we use). Personally, I am less interested in that, and I am more interested in what little steps I am making to improve the farm rather than been liable to an index’.’ (Farmer 11)

Has participation in the SLP changed farmers views?

The main themes extracted from the farmers interviews regarding how their views have changed as a result of participating in the SLP relate to continued learning, improved practices and environmental improvement. Some farmers felt they already had relevant knowledge on the areas covered by the SLP. This is coherent with the fact that the farmers participating in the SLP are a set of innovative, well-motivated farmers with a likely pre-existing interest in improving land management practices (eg “We were already on this path before participating in the SLP and been aware of what they were doing” Farmer 4). But in general, the participating farmers felt that they have increased their knowledge or filled some knowledge gaps:

“Involvement in this program definitely increased my knowledge. With focus on carbon, it also [resulted in] changes in my farming practices. You always learn in this kind of programme and one good thing is to learn from each other. I would not say there was anything which was contradicted but there was clear gap in my knowledge which have been filled so I could see where those gaps are, and I could fill them.” (Farmer 5).

Some even identified some contradictions between their previous knowledge and what they have learnt through the programme, as shown by these quotes:

“We learnt a little is better than a lot, do less and get more out of it because you save money, save the environment and water courses. We definitely improved. Contradiction was regarding the use of power harrow that we used to do it a lot before but now we don’t do it anymore.’’ (Farmer 3).

 “Contradiction happened, eg cultivation in general, after talking with advisors I do it entirely differently [now].’’ (Farmer 1)

Changes in farming practices as a result of involvement in the SLP

Farmers believe that their involvement in the SLP has resulted in some gradual change to their farming practices and that they have benefited from this. Examples include:

 “When I first joined, we were not doing any cover cropping and then we did it every year and we see the benefits of cover cropping [….]. We implement the cover cropping and reduce the amount of fertilizer being used. We halted using ploughing last year and we reduced the cultivation and now direct drill for cultivation.’’ (Farmer 10)

 “I have a pig unit so I try to use as much pig slurry as possible and I do not use as much nitrogen [fertiliser].’’ (Farmer 7)

 “I now certainly use much more cover crops. I certainly don’t use much fertilizer and we don’t put any phosphate. We certainly don’t use vast amount of nitrogen [fertiliser].” (Farmer 1)

 “We also completely switched from using Methaldehyde to ferric phosphate [for pest management].” (Farmer 2)

 “We [now] have [an] N tester and, this spring, by using it we realized that we were putting] on a lot of nitrogen previously.’’ (Farmer 3)

Reasons why farmers changed their practices

When asked about the reasons behind the adoption of new practices as a result of participating in the SLP, most farmers expressed arguments related to peer-learning and their overseas experience. For example, as stated explicitly by farmer 8: “Peer learning is absolutely important which was visiting other farms, see how other things works and to learn from other farmers and see how things work locally as well as nationally. In general farmers like to hear from other farmers.”

Interaction with advisors and experts was appreciated, but it was the informal interaction with other farmers that provided the key to the learning process, as illustrated by this sequence of quotes: 

 “Within groups people with required knowledge had told us how to do the things and to get involved. They encouraged us to use carbon capture and cover cropping as a means of boosting farming income and to make good environment and these things takes years for a farm to turns around to be sustainable.” (Farmer 4)

“Peer learning was of much importance because you see things and then you start to do them yourself.” (Farmer 3)

“The meetings and talking to other farmers were very important. Even if it is a meeting about something else, a chat after that to see what other people do and their ideas are very beneficial, experiential learning was definitely an important factor in this program; we had meetings and discussions about cover crops and advisors talked about that, so we came back [home] and started trying it in our own situation.”(Farmer 2)

The overseas experience provided additional evidence to farmers and increased their willingness to try the methods explored in the SLP, as programme, as evidenced in the following quotes:

“Travelling is good to see the problems that exist elsewhere and to see [how] people have dealt with common problems and so traveling is like a cross border peer to peer learning and it is useful and interesting.” (Farmer 5)

“In our trip to US, you usually see people in different environment and climate and the methods work for them and we think although they are not completely changeable but if it works for them can it work for us as well. It makes you think that I’m going [about it] the right way.’’ (Farmer 1)

Other factors motivating change

Farmers believe there are other factors which make them change their behaviour and result in changes to their farming practices. They expressed arguments relating to social responsibility and environmental concern as two important factors in this regard:  

“I am aware of social responsibility and as a farmer if I have been beneficiary then I do well and then my neighbours would look and start to be involved and this can then happen in a robust catchment system like we have in Yorkshire.” (Farmer 5)

“We take responsibility for our actions and we should accept changes such as climate change.’’ (Farmer 1)

“More pressure was from the environmental side that we want to preserve our environment, we wanted to look after our soils and to think about future generation regarding this too leave them with the soil that we grow food sustainably on. It was also that we could grow better crops with lower costs in terms of lower chemicals and fertilizers.” (Farmer 2)

The role and importance of facilitators and Yorkshire Water

Farmers gave importance to the role of facilitators in the process:  

“Facilitators were very important because they explained how the water got contaminated from what we put in the field and you never think about that or never think about what drained down [sic] to the field and then when they tell you, it makes you to think.” (Farmer 3)

“Facilitators are someone who you need to use the time and someone who can organise the program then you can get the information or the seeds that’s good so and otherwise the farms would not get involved.’’ (Farmer 5).

“The role of facilitators was definitely important. If you get a right [sic] speaker who inspires and has had a good experience then certainly it helps. If they say; this is what I would do then definitely yes, we do as well.” (Farmer 2)

 They also show a positive attitude towards Yorkshire Water after three years of being involved in the SLP, recognising an interest to work in partnership with farmers:

 “My opinion has changed regarding the role of Yorkshire Water as they want to work in partnership with farmers and they are certainly not saying: you must do this.” (Farmer 2)

“I have been very impressed by the role of Yorkshire Water during the programme. A genuine desire to help farmers move towards sustainable practices. It is a great credit to Yorkshire Water than they have funded the start-up of these groups.’’ (Farmer 1)

Benefits obtained from participating in the SLP

Most farmers said they had not observed any yield improvement yet as a result of being involved in the SLP. However, they do acknowledge a range of other benefits, in relation to expected profitability, environmental improvement and motivation. They see this as the beginning of a process for improvement on those matters:

“I had a great deal of benefit by participating in the programme because there have been practical discussions on farm about how to improve the soils and moving towards more sustainable farming and I have implemented those ideas to makes more steps going forward. It was more than my expectations but for all the farmers involved there are different stages of sustainable farming and we made small steps in the right direction.’’ (Farmer 11)

 “The yields have not increased yet, because it is just the starting point and may be better this summer but definitely yes with profitability because we don’t use contractor to drill now, and we don’t use that much fuel to drill because we don’t do it as much as we did before.” (Farmer 3)

“It certainly did not increase our yields but it gradually lowering our cost which increases profitability. We spend more time on thinking about management of soils and farm than on tractors. We certainly noticed a real change in biodiversity on the farm.” (Farmer 2)

As an example of motivation, farmer 1 indicates “It motivates me to continue in the right direction.”