Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
FrancoAngeli Journals

Regular Articles

Early View

Balancing environmental benefits and agricultural technologies – perspectives from German consumers

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/ecag2026oa21109
Submitted
settembre 30, 2025
Published
2026-04-07

Abstract

Societal and political voices call for stronger environmental protection, biodiversity conservation, and reduced pesticide use. Integrating digital farming technologies into farming systems like strip intercropping offers promising pathways toward more sustainable and efficient food production. The successful adoption of these innovations depends on acceptance by both farmers and consumers. To explore these intersections of technology, sustainability, and market dynamics from a consumer perspective, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) followed by consumer segmentation was conducted in Germany. The study examines preferences for different farming systems, focusing on autonomous machinery, landscape structure, food prices, and environmental factors. Sociodemographic variables, along with value- and attitude-based factors, were used to differentiate consumer segments. The study highlights social preferences for welfare-enhancing agricultural systems, such as strip intercropping, and demonstrates a societal demand for more sustainable agroecosystem outcomes, in terms of biodiversity, soil erosion prevention and reduced use of chemical-synthetic pesticides. Results show that the balance between environmental benefits and agricultural technology differs markedly across four consumer segments, underscoring the need to integrate ecological and technological dimensions in communication and policy for enhancing consumer acceptance and support sustainable transitions in agriculture.

References

  1. Alarcón-Segura, V., Grass, I., Breustedt, G., Rohlfs, M., & Tscharntk, T. (2022). Strip intercropping of wheat and oilseed rape enhances biodiversity and biological pest control in a conventionally managed farm scenario. Journal of Applied Ecology, 59(6), 1513-1523. Doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.14161.
  2. Albrecht, M., Kleijn, D., Williams, N. M., Tschumi, M., Blaauw, B. R., Bommarco, R., … Sutter, L. (2020). The effectiveness of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control, pollination services and crop yield: a quantitative synthesis. Ecology letters, 23(10), 1488-1498. Doi: 10.1111/ele.13576.
  3. Alcon, F., Marín-Miñano, C., Zabala, J. A., De-Miguel, M. D., & Martínez-Paz, J. M. (2020). Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agro-ecosystems: A choice experiment approach. Ecological Economics, 171, 106593. Doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106593.
  4. Ashwini, T. R., Potdar, M. P., Sivarajan, S., & Odabas, M. S. (2024). Transforming agriculture with smart farming: a comprehensive review of agriculture robots for research applications. In Balasubramanian, S., Natarajan, G., & Chelliah, P.R. (Eds.), Intelligent robots and drones for precision agriculture, 45-61. Springer Nature Switzerland. Doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-51195-0_3.
  5. Bazzani, C., Caputo, V., Nayga, R. M., & Canavari, M. (2017). Revisiting consumers’ valuation for local versus organic food using a non-hypothetical choice experiment: Does personality matter? Food Quality and Preference, 62, 144-154. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2017.06.019.
  6. Brandmeier, J., Reininghaus, H., Pappagallo, S., Karley, A. J., Kiær, L. P., & Scherber, C. (2021). Intercropping in high input agriculture supports arthropod diversity without risking significant yield losses. Basic and Applied Ecology, 53, 26-38. Doi: 10.1016/j.baae.2021.02.011.
  7. Brooker, R. W., Karley, A. J., Newton, A. C., Pakeman, R. J., & Schöb, C. (2016). Facilitation and sustainable agriculture: a mechanistic approach to reconciling crop production and conservation. Functional Ecology, 30(1), 98-107. Doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12496.
  8. Brunori, G. (2022). Agriculture and rural areas facing the “twin transition”: principles for a sustainable rural digitalisation. Rivista di Economia Agraria, 77(3), 3-14. Doi: 10.36253/rea-13983.
  9. Chen, G., Kong, X., Gan, Y., Zhang, R., Feng, F., Yu, A., … Chai, Q. (2018). Enhancing the systems productivity and water use efficiency through coordinated soil water sharing and compensation in strip-intercropping. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 10494. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-28612-6.
  10. Destatis (2023). Statistisches Bundesamt, Privater Konsum nach Haushaltsgröße und Ausgabenkategorien. Wiesbaden. -- https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Einkommen-Konsum-Lebensbedingungen/Konsumausgaben-Lebenshaltungskosten/Tabellen/privater-konsum-haushaltsgroesse-lwr.html.
  11. Destatis (2024). Statistisches Bundesamt, Genesis online: Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsfortschreibung auf Grundlage des Zensus 2022.
  12. Die Bundesregierung (2025). Transformation gemeinsam gerecht gestalten. Deutsche Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie Weiterentwicklung 2025. -- https://www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/975274/2335292/3962877378d74837d4f4c611749b6172/2025-05-13-dns-2025-data.pdf?download=1.
  13. Ditzler, L., & Driessen, C. (2022). Automating Agroecology: How to design a farming robot without a monocultural mindset?. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 35(1). Doi: 10.1007/s10806-021-09876-x.
  14. Edison, S. W., & Geissler, G. L. (2003). Measuring attitudes towards general technology: Antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 12(2), 137-156. Doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104.
  15. Fernqvist, F., & Ekelund, L. (2014). Credence and the effect on consumer liking of food – A review. Food Quality and Preference, 32, 340-353. Doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.10.005.
  16. Fragomeli, R., Zawadzki, W., Czajkowski, M., Annunziata, A., & Punzo, G. (2025). Italian farmers’ preferences for adopting agriculture 4.0 technologies: A choice experiment analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 525, 46601. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146601.
  17. Gabriel, A., & Gandorfer, M. (2022). Adoption of digital technologies in agriculture – an inventory in a european small-scale farming region. Precision Agriculture, 24(1), 68-91. Doi: 10.1007/s11119-022-09931-1.
  18. Gabriel, A., Garnitz, J., & Spykman, O. (2024). Public Perception of Biodiversity Landscape Elements and Autonomous Technologies in Small-Scale Production Systems. In Paparas, D., Gadanakis, Y., & Behrendt, K. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th Symposium on Agri-Tech Economics for Sustainable Futures. Global Institute for Agri-Tech Economics, 28-29th September 2024. Harper Adams University. HAU Publications, Newport, United Kingdom, 12-24.
  19. Gerhards, R., Andújar Sanchez, D., Hamouz, P., Peteinator, G. G., Christensen, S., & Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. (2022). Advances in site-specific weed management in agriculture – a review. Weed Research, 62(2), 123-133. Doi: 10.1111/wre.12526.
  20. Gilley, J. E., Kramer, L. A., Cruse, R. M., & Hull, A. (1997). Sediment movement within a strip intercropping system. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 52(6), 443-447. Doi: 10.1080/00224561.1997.12457185.
  21. Goeken, N., Kurz, P., & Steiner, W. J. (2021). Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Choice Models – Model Framework, Bayesian Inference, Model Selection, and Interpretation of Estimation Results. Marketing ZFP, 43(3), 49-64. Doi: 10.15358/0344-1369-2021-3-49.
  22. Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN-tinted classes: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 336-354. Doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.002.
  23. Hein, M., Goeken, N., Kurz, P., & Steiner, W. J. (2022). Using Hierarchical Bayes draws for improving shares of choice predictions in conjoint simulations: A study based on conjoint choice data. European Journal of Operational Research, 297(2), 630-651. Doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.05.056.
  24. Hensher, D. A., Rose, J. M., & Greene, W. H. (2015). Applied choice analysis. Second edition. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9781316136232.
  25. Holland, J. M., Douma, J. C., Crowley, L., James, L., Kor, L., Stevenson, D. R. W., & Smith, B. M. (2017). Semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation in Europe. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 37(31), 1290. Doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0434-x.
  26. Jean, I. R., Canavari, M., Cerdan, C., Consentino, F., & Peri, I. (2025). Integrating biodiversity information into consumer preferences for extra virgin olive oil: Evidence from a real choice experiment in France. Journal of Cleaner Production, 497, 145121. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145121.
  27. Jiménez-Guerrero, J. F., Gázquez-Abad, J. C., & Linares-Agüera, E. D. C. (2014). Using standard CETSCALE and other adapted versions of the scale for measuring consumers’ ethnocentric tendencies: An analysis of dimensionality. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 17(3), 174-190. Doi: 10.1016/j.cede.2013.06.003.
  28. Kolber, A., & Meixner, O. (2023). Effects of Multi-Level Eco-Labels on the Product Evaluation of Meat and Meat Alternatives – A Discrete Choice Experiment. Foods, 12(15), 2941. Doi: 10.3390/foods12152941.
  29. Kollmuss, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the Gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8 (3), 239-260. Doi: 10.1080/13504620220145401.
  30. Louviere, J. J., Islam, T., Wasi, N., Street, D., & Burgess, L. (2008). Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price?. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(2), 360-375. Doi: 10.1086/586913.
  31. Louviere, J. J., Hensher, D., & Swait, J. (2000). Stated Choice Methods. Cambridge University Press. Doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511753831.
  32. Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., Behrendt, K., Godwin, R., & Franklin, K. (2019). The Impact of Swarm Robotics on Arable Farm Size and Structure in the UK. Presented at the 93rd Annual Conference of the Agricultural Economics Society, 15-17 April 2019, University of Warwick.
  33. Morgan, G. B. (2014). Mixed mode latent class analysis: an examination of fit index performance for classification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 76-86. Doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.935751.
  34. Myshko, A., Checchinato, F., Colapinto, C., Finotto, V., & Mauracher, C. (2024). Towards the twin transition in the agri-food sector? Framing the current debate on sustainability and digitalisation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 452, 142063. Doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.142063.
  35. Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo Simulation Study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535-569. Doi: 10.1080/10705510701575396.
  36. Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about Latent Class Analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440-461. Doi: 10.1037/tps0000176.
  37. Paut, R., Sabatier, R., & Tchamitchian, M. (2020). Modelling crop diversification and association effects in agricultural systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 288, 106711. Doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.106711.
  38. Pfeiffer, J., Gabriel, A., & Gandorfer, M. (2020). Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany. Agriculture and Human Values, 38(1), 107-128. Doi: 10.1007/s10460-020-10145-2.
  39. SAS Institute Inc. (2023). SAS Studio (Version 3.82) [Computer Software], Cary, NC, USA.
  40. Sawtooth Software Inc. (2016). CBC/HBv5: Software for Hierarchical Bayes Estimation for CBC Data. Orem, Ut., USA.
  41. Sawtooth Software Inc. (2021a). The CBC/HB System Technical Paper V5.6. In: Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Provo, Ut., USA. -- https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/cbc-hb-technical-paper.
  42. Sawtooth Software Inc. (2021b). The Latent Class Technical Paper V4.8. In: Sawtooth Software Technical Paper Series. Provo, Ut., USA. -- https://sawtoothsoftware.com/resources/technical-papers/latent-class-technical-paper.
  43. Sawtooth Software Inc. (2024). Lighthouse Studio (Version 9.16.0.) [Computer Software]. Provo, Ut., USA.
  44. Schäufele-Elbers, I., & Janssen, M. (2023). Consumer segmentation based on three dimensions of sustainable food consumption: a simultaneous analysis of meat, organic food, and sweet snack purchases based on household panel data in Germany. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10, 1140636. Doi: 10.3389/fnut.2023.1140636.
  45. 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. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 75, 44-83. Doi: 10.1111/1477-9552.12570.
  46. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1-36. Doi: 10.1080/14792772143000003.
  47. Shimp, T. A., & Sharma, S. (1987). Consumer Ethnocentrism: Construction and Validation of the CETSCALE. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(3), 280. Doi: 10.2307/3151638.
  48. Sparrow, R., & Howard, M. (2021). Robots in agriculture: prospects, impacts, ethics, and policy. Precision Agriculture, 22(3), 818-833. Doi: 10.1007/s11119-020-09757-9.
  49. Spykman, O., Gabriel, A., Ptacek M., & Gandorfer, M. (2021). Farmers’ perspectives on field crop robots – Evidence from Bavaria, Germany. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 186, 106176. Doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2021.106176.
  50. Spykman, O., Emberger-Klein, A., Gabriel, A., & Gandorfer, M. (2022). Autonomous agriculture in public perception - German consumer segments’ view of crop robots. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 202, 107385. Doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2022.107385.
  51. Spykman, O., Ebertseder, F., Burmeister, J., Gehring K., & Henkel, A. (2023). Future Crop Farming. In Book of Abstracts (Posters) of the 14th European Conference on Precision Agriculture, 11-12, 2-6 July 2023, Bologna.
  52. Street, D. J., & Burgess, L. (2007). The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Doi:
  53. 1002/9780470148563.
  54. Swait, J. (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1(2), 77-89. Doi: 10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7.
  55. Terlau, W., & Hirsch, D. (2015). Sustainable Consumption and the Attitude-Behaviour-Gap Phenomenon – Causes and Measurements towards a Sustainable Development. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, 6(3), 159-174. Doi: 10.18461/ijfsd.v6i3.634.
  56. Vandermeer, J. H. (1989). The Ecology of Intercropping. Doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511623523.
  57. Voleti, S., Srinivasan, V., & Ghosh, P. (2017). An approach to improve the predictive power of choice-based conjoint analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 34(2), 325-335. Doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.08.007.
  58. Wilmes, R., Waldhof, G., & Breunig, P. (2022). Can digital farming technologies enhance the willingness to buy products from current farming systems? Plos One, 17(11), E0277731. Doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277731.
  59. Zeddies, H.H., Busch, G., & Qaim, M. (2024). Positive public attitudes towards agricultural robots. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 15607. Doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-66198-4.
  60. Zeddies, H. H., & Busch, G. (2025). Public acceptance of robots and autonomous crop farming – a cluster analysis of German citizens’ attitude and concerns. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 74, 1-28. Doi: 10.52825/gjae.v74i.2283.