1. Introduction
Agriculture is vital, as a producer of food and biomass, for developing the bioeconomy. The bioeconomy aims for economic growth and job creation by applying biological and physical laws to the production and use of natural resources to provide environmentally sustainable goods and services. This objective can be achieved in the rural economy if sustainable agricultural practices are used. As the agricultural sector expands, the benefits to the local, rural economy are substantial through increased rural incomes leading to better living conditions and lifestyles of villagers. Further, the use of sustainable agricultural techniques can maintain healthy soil and a healthy ecosystem overall.
Farmers’ markets are an important source of income for many farmers. This direct-to-consumer marketing approach dates back centuries and allows dwellers to shop locally grown produce and products. Farmers’ markets in North America, where the focus tends to be on how to incorporate small rule farms into economic development, differ from those in Europe, where social justice and environmental sustainability are of interest [1]. In North America and Western Europe, farmers’ markets lost importance with consumers as supermarkets, processed food, and industrialized agriculture took prominence. However, in the past decade or two, farmers’ markets have experienced a resurgence as consumer awareness of the importance of farming for producing their food and how their food is produced and grown, the quality of their food, maintaining rural lifestyles and traditions [2,3,4], local knowledge [4], environmental concerns, and living a healthy lifestyle has increased. In contrast, Eastern European farmers’ markets have remained important and have only had competition from supermarkets and processed food in the past ten to fifteen years. Farmers’ markets have remained important because incomes are low by European standards but the produce and products at the markets are of good quality and help maintain cultural traditions.
One country where farmers’ markets remain important is Romania. Agriculture is an important part of Romanian history and culture. Romania was once a leader in agricultural production in Europe; however, since the Revolution in 1989, agricultural production has not reached the heights of the communist era [5,6]. At that time, Romanian agricultural production was primarily industrial and large-scale on cooperative farms [7,8]. After the Revolution, the land seized by the communist government was restored to its original owners, but in small lot sizes. Roughly 75% of farms in Romania are two hectares or less and just 0.3% of farms are larger than 100 hectares [9]. Additionally, much of the infrastructure, such as irrigation, buildings, or processing plants, was either left to deteriorate or stolen. Consequently, many farmers were left to grow crops with little to no manmade inputs common in industrial agriculture. As a result, farmers grew crops organically or ecologically.
The agricultural sector in Romania today is varied but changing rapidly. Today, industrial farming with modern farming techniques, while not the norm, is increasing. The food produced uses mechanized farming equipment, chemical fertilizers, and pesticides and is sold on the commercial market, much of which is exported. However, the commercial family farm in Romania is the lowest in numbers in Europe [10,11]. The largest two segments of Romanian agriculture are subsistent and semi-subsistent farming [10] and their importance cannot be questioned [12]. Unfortunately, these households are not eligible for Common Agricultural Policy assistance [13,14]. Subsistent farmers are very poor and cannot afford to purchase external inputs, such as agricultural chemicals. Semi-subsistent farmers consume part of their production and sell the other part at the market. The food semi-subsistent farmers grow is generally organic. However, semi-subsistent peasants are using a new variety of vegetables that store longer, although they have less taste. Furthermore, they have started using chemicals, according to European Union agricultural standards, on their crops.
The importance of the agricultural sector to the Romanian economy cannot be overstated. The agricultural sector accounts for more than 4% of the Romanian GDP, the largest share in the European Union, and more than 21% of employment [15]. These data do not account for subsistence farmers, who are unaccounted for in economic statistics. In addition, the agricultural sector is important because many of the traditions, culture, and heritage of the country are central to the rural lifestyle.
In Romania, the piaţa is very likely the most important market. At the piaţa, people can purchase nearly everything, from foodstuffs to everyday household products. The piaţa brings the community together, centering around traditional, rural life. As a result, not only do urban dwellers benefit from quality, inexpensive produce, but the sellers benefit by interacting with the community and improving their economic situation. However, there is increased competition as supermarket and hypermarket chains have entered the market, bringing different products. In addition, these foreign super and hypermarkets are marketing organic produce. While, as shown above, organic produce is nothing new to Romanians, the marketing of these goods is.
Therefore, understanding the farming practices of sellers at the piaţa can be important for developing economic development policies. Knowing the characteristics and practices of the farmers selling at the piaţa can help decision-makers develop policy that will increase the sales of agricultural products, resulting in the development of rural Romania. Discerning the reasons why and how farmers practice sustainable agriculture is vital for several reasons. First, increasing the expansion of sustainable agricultural practices will help improve the environment in Romania, which is struggling from deforestation and air and water pollution. Moreover, given the interactive nature of the piaţa consumers will learn more about these agricultural practices and how their personal choices directly impact environmental conditions and ultimately their food and health.
Second, organic, or ecological as they are sometimes referred to in Europe, products are demanded in Western Europe. As the public has become more educated on the connection between their personal health and the food they consume, organic food is more in demand. As a result, Romanian farmers could command a higher price for their products, increasing the income they earn, which will ultimately accelerate economic growth in rural areas. In the European Union, organic products are, in general, 10% to 20% more expensive than nonorganic products [16].
Lastly, sustainable agriculture produce sold at the piaţa is important for consumers. The food and products sold are, in comparative terms, good quality and low cost. This is important because the senior population, largely living on fixed, low incomes, needs a place where they can purchase quality food and products within their budget constraints. Often, these seniors have been shopping at the market for many years, developing a relationship with the sellers, learning which producer has the best quality and how the produce is grown. Surveys of consumers cite quality and price as the most important factors for purchasing farm goods [17]. Farmers’ markets are important economic drivers for farmers, helping increase their incomes, interact with their customers and develop customer loyalty. One possible key to unlocking the economic potential of the agricultural sector in Romania is to increase awareness of the importance of sustainable production and biodiversity for Romanian bioeconomy development, as well as for the overarching issue of climate change.
This paper uses primary data collected from surveys of sellers at farmers’ markets throughout Romania to illustrate the importance of understanding their environmental attitudes as an instrument for bioeconomy development. Multiple linear regression analysis and logistic regression analysis is used to provide deeper insight into what factors could further grow the rural economy sustainably. Suggestions for public policy that would encourage the growth of the agricultural sector in Romania conclude the paper.
2. Literature Review
Research on the motivations for why farmers choose to produce sustainably or organically has gotten more attention over the years. Sullivan et al. [18] explored the attitudes of farmers about farming and the environment. They observed that organic farmers are more cognizant and appreciative of nature and believe that people ought to live in accordance with nature. Furthermore, organic farmers state more satisfaction with their lives, greater concern for ethical living, and a deeper perception of community. McCann et al. [19] built upon previous research using in-depth interviews of organic and conventional farmers to find that organic farmers are more aware of and concerned about environmental issues and have a higher rate of adopting conservation practices. Both groups of farmers are worried about the economic risks of farming. They conclude that government programs can be an effective way of educating farmers about environmental awareness. Fairweather [20] pursued the issue in New Zealand to find that farmers who are concerned for the environment, did not want chemicals in food, either personally experienced bad health from chemicals in food or knew a family member that did, wanted a better financial return, and were concerned about their soil quality were more likely to farm organically. He concluded that policies to educate farmers on the benefits of organic farming and the negative aspects of conventional farming would be needed to increase the number of farmers using organic techniques. Furthermore, education on farm finances, profitability, and the economics of organic production would also assist in increasing the number of organic farms. Similarly, there is a line of research that suggests that educating farmers about the benefits of organic farming and providing them training is needed by policy makers [21,22,23].
Other research has concentrated on the characteristics of organic farms and organic farmers. Egri [24] found that organic farmers have fewer years of experience, operate smaller farms, and use less hired labor than conventional farmers. Furthermore, organic farmers differ greatly in their attitudes and use of synthetic agrichemicals. Mzoughi [25] found that social and moral concerns increase the probability of adopting organic farming. In contrast, farmers who are concerned about economic matters, such as cutting production costs, are less likely to adopt organic farming. Ayuya et al. [26] observed that certified organic smallholder farmers are less likely to be poor than their counterparts.
The literature on sustainable and organic farming in Romania is limited. The financial aspects of organic farming have been researched in Romania. Burja and Burja [27] suggested that sustainable agricultural practices could lead to increased economic competitiveness for the country. Barbu and Bara [28] found that organic farming can be an engine for development in Romania because farmers can get higher prices for their products exported to the European Union and the lack of consumer information and education on the quality and advantages of organic products.
Therefore, the literature has described the characteristics of organic farmers and that small-scale organic farming is economically viable. As a result, the next important aspect to discuss is the market where farmers can sell their products. Alternative food networks, exemplified by community-supported agriculture, cooperatives, short food supply chains, and civic food networks, have been studied from theoretical and conceptual perspectives [29,30,31,32,33]. One type of alternative food network that has seen rapid growth and become very widespread and popular is the farmers’ market [17,34].
Research has shown why consumers shop at farmers’ markets. Govindasamy and Nayga Jr. [35] found that consumers who eat more vegetables than they did five years ago have some college education or higher, have incomes less than $40,000, and live in either an urban or suburban area are more likely to shop at a farmers’ market. Caucasians are less likely to shop at the farmers’ market than other ethnicities. Onianwa et al. [36] observed that the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to shop at these markets. Furthermore, they found that families with children were more likely to shop at farmer-to-consumer direct markets as their income increased. As farmers’ markets have trended towards local, less industrialized agriculture, they have received increasing consumer interest [4].
The literature has illustrated that there is demand for products at farmers’ markets. Additionally, farmers’ markets are an important outlet for small, local farmers [37]. For policymakers trying to increase sustainable agriculture, the question that must be answered is how to increase the number of small-scale farmers producing sustainably and getting them access to alternative food networks such as farmers’ markets. Therefore, understanding the characteristics of the sellers at the markets is vital. Farmers have a complex set of motives, both economic and non-economic, for selling at farmers’ markets, such as building relationships with customers and vendors, income generation, maintaining a lifestyle, and introducing and presenting products to the market [38,39,40,41]. Other research has shown that farmers obtain satisfaction from interacting with consumers and other farmers and have a higher profile at farmers’ markets [38,42,43,44,45]. Using the farmers’ market for marketing can be beneficial financially for farmers and expose them to bigger customers [43,44,45,46]. Arabska [17] found that farmers’ markets are appropriate for small producers or a test-market for new products.
In addition to understanding the characteristics of the farmers, understanding why these farmers sell at the farmers’ markets is also important. Griffin and Frongillo [45] found that farmers have economic and social motivations, such as interaction with customers, for selling at farmers’ markets. Farmers also took pride in raising awareness about their products. Govindasamy et al. [47] inferred that more than 60% of farmers selling at farmers’ markets are satisfied with their financial returns.
However, most of the literature on farmers’ markets has focused on North America and Western Europe and markets that are promoted by local and regional governments [48,49,50]. The Romanian version of the farmers’ market, the piaţa, is different. These markets typically sell food items such as fruits and vegetables, milk, cheese, bread, pastries, and everyday products such as clothes, cleaning products, and personal hygiene products. The markets also do not receive promotion or support from local and regional governments. Farmers’ markets can be an informal business incubator to nurture entrepreneurship, diversification, and help farm operations grow [51], while on the consumer side, they can provide easy access to natural, healthy products for their everyday meals [52]. As a result, the farmers’ market is one of the most important forms of commerce in Romania [53] and there is potential for the growth of the bioeconomy and rural economies. Dragos and Veres [53] explored the characteristics of consumers shopping at farmers’ markets and their preferences for commercialized agricultural products. They discovered that farmers’ markets can, despite increased competition from supermarkets and hypermarkets, keep a stable market share because of prices, proximity to consumers, and the freshness and diversity of products offered. As a result, the farmers’ markets in Romania are vital.
However, there is little, if any, research exploring the preferences of sellers at farmers’ markets in Romania. This research seeks to fill that gap in the literature by building on previous literature to examine the sellers at farmers’ markets and how the data can be used to develop public policy to grow the bioeconomy and for rural economic development.
3. Research Methods
Primary data was collected from farmers surveyed at farmers’ markets throughout Romania. Participants were chosen if the seller was the farmer or someone from the farm that produced the products. If the seller purchased the product from a farm with the intent to sell it at the farmers’ market they were excluded. One hundred eighty-two surveys were collected from seven different regions in Romania (Figure 1). Forty-nine surveys were completed in the București-Ilfov region, 11 in Centru Romania, 20 in Nord-Est, 34 in Sud-Est, 23 in Sud-Muntenia, 37 in Sud-Vest Oltenia, and 8 in Vest.
The survey consisted of fifty-seven questions, broken into four sections. The first section of the survey collected information on household characteristics, such as gender, age, marital status, education, number of people in the household, and income and expenses. The second section of the survey asked questions on farm assets. These questions were used to obtain information on the number and types of animals that are on the farm, how much land is on the farm and how much is used for agriculture, where the farm is located, how far the farm is from the market, the number of employees, and the location of where they sell their produce. The third section of the survey focused on farming techniques. Farmers were asked if they farmed organically and, if so, for how long, if their livestock is free-range, if they farm with machinery, if they own agricultural machinery, whether they are part of an association or cooperative, what inputs to production they use and how much they spend on them annually, if they receive subsidies, the social connections they have with the community and customers, and if they have invested in their farm and how. The last section of the survey asked about farming preferences. Farmers were asked about the environment, the use of external inputs for production and genetically modified seed, organic agriculture, and European Union regulations and subsidies. A copy of the survey can be found in the Supplementary Materials.
The information from the surveys provided different types of data requiring various forms of analysis. Two types of regression analyses are used. Some of the data collected from the surveys are continuous variables that require multiple linear regression analysis to be used. However, robust multiple linear regression was used for the analysis of total agricultural income because the income reported varied greatly. Robust regression minimizes the impact of outliers on the coefficient estimates, so the use of this technique is appropriate given the data.
Other data collected are categorical variables. For this type of data binary, logistic regression analyses are used. Binary logistic regression models were conducted: (1) is the farmer concerned about environmental conditions; (2) would the farmer use man-made inputs to double agricultural output; and (3) would the farmer use man-made inputs to double agricultural production if they polluted groundwater and destroyed the soil nutrients. These scenarios and variables are used to determine the level of commitment to the environment by the farmers. The farmers can say they are concerned about the environment but how does that concern translate to their crop output, which results in revenue changes? All these dependent variables are nominal variables that required either yes or no answers. These discrete choice models are used to explain and predict how the choices in each of the models change under different demographics and/or attributes of the covariates.
4. Results
4.1. Survey Results
Some descriptive statistics from the survey are shown in Table 1 below.
The average household size is 3.5 people. Interestingly, 1.77 household members on average are employed and 1.9 household members are employed in agriculture. This result suggests that the children and other family members assist in the agricultural work of the household.
Only 30% of the farmers selling their products at the market have had agricultural training. The average number of years of experience in farming respondents have is nearly 21, and they sell their produce at a market an average of 36 km from their farm.
More than 92% of respondents said that all the produce they sell is produced by them. The average monthly household income from agriculture is RON 5852. The average monthly off-farm income is RON 370. Most of the agricultural income comes from crops, followed by meat, milk, and eggs, respectively. On average, RON 318 is received per head of animal as a subsidy and RON 234 is received per square meter as a subsidy for their operations. Most farmers do not receive government subsidies, counter to many large-scale farmers in the rest of Europe.
Table 2 shows, on average, the various annual expenditures the farmers have.
Additionally, only 11% of respondents stated that they were part of a co-op, and double, 22%, stated that they are part of a farm or agricultural association. Both a co-op and an association are similar, with the differences typically in governance and objective of the organization. However, co-ops in Romania are strongly linked to communist times by the population, and, consequently, a lot of farmers do not want to be allied to one. However, an association does not have that negative connotation. As a result, more people stating that they are part of an association should not be surprising. In Romania, there are approximately 1700 cooperatives with more than 670,000 members. These cooperatives employ more than 14,500 employees and account for an economic turnover of more than EUR 300 million [54].
To put the percentages of Romanian farmers in a co-op or an association into context, cooperatives have a market share in agri-food supply chains in western countries of at least 40%. In the EU, the market share for the entire agricultural sector is greater than 50% for Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Sweden. In Spain, roughly 15% of the population is part of a cooperative and in France, nearly 75% of farms are in a cooperative. Participation in cooperatives also varies greatly with respect to the sector. For example, in Denmark and France, pig meat cooperatives are roughly 86% and 94%, respectively [55]. There are nearly 180,000 cooperatives in the EU accounting for more than 17% of the population in Europe as a member of a cooperative. Furthermore, cooperatives employ more than 4.5 million employees and have an annual turnover of more than 1 € billion [54].
The average land owned by the respondents is 16 hectares. This result is surprising given that after the Revolution, when land was returned to its rightful owners, agricultural parcels were largely 5 hectares or less. This finding indicates that land is being bought and consolidated with other parcels to have higher production outputs. This result also suggests that in very rural areas that the parcels are bigger, regardless of the land consolidation that is occurring. Additionally, most of the land owned is used for crop production. The average amount of land used for pasture is slightly more than 3 hectares. Cattle and chicken are the most owned farm animals, followed by turkey, sheep, pigs, and goats. Nearly 58% of respondents produce and market milk and 42.6% cheese. Almost 40% of the farmers produce and sell beef and 26.47% sell pork. A growing agricultural commodity in Romania is wine. Approximately 15% of those surveyed said they produce and market wine.
In the past five years, respondents have invested in their farms for various purposes (Table 3).
These investment figures also support the claim above that land is being purchased by farmers and consolidated into larger lots for higher levels of production because more hectares necessitate agricultural machinery and buildings.
Respondents also answered questions about farming techniques (Table 4).
Those that responded that they farm organically use natural inputs rather than manmade ones. Regarding sustainable agricultural practices, some techniques are much more widely used than others (Table 5).
Crop rotation, composting, and manure are techniques used by subsistent and semi-subsistent farmers that are passed down for generations, whereas cover crops, biological pest management, and no-till practices are not as readily known.
Farmers were also asked about their social connections with their community and customers. Farmers’ markets have transformed from just a place to sell food; they are places for social interactions, an established marketing system with a lot of potential for sustainable development [17]. For direct-to-consumer sales, the interactions and connections that farmers have with their community are important for developing consumer loyalty and increasing sales. More than 60% of the farmers claimed to be more involved with their community by selling locally and just under 60% feel that they make social connections with their customers.
Farmers were next asked a series of questions about the environment. When asked if they are concerned with environmental conditions, slightly more than 77% responded positively. While this percentage may seem high, the answers to follow-up questions seem to contradict their previous answer (Table 6).
These results indicate that the farmers are thinking short-term, seeking higher income regardless of the impact on the environment. This immediate satisfaction of the farmers takes priority over the wealth and environmental conditions of future generations. This assertion is supported by the survey results on groundwater pollution which indicate that if the farmers are immediately and directly impacted, both financially and environmentally, they are less likely to use external inputs.
Questions asking about their plans to farm organically in the future were also asked. Over the next five years, 48.3% of respondents said they will increase their organic production, only 4.5% said they will decrease organic production, 16% said they will either stop all agricultural production or sell their farm, and the rest did not know their plans. This response has several implications. First, farm sizes are likely to increase to accommodate greater production, indicating that there is a consolidation of farm parcels from the small hectare size to bigger parcels. Second, there appears to be increased awareness and marketing of organic produce. Lastly, farmers realize that there is and will be greater demand for organic produce and are planning future production accordingly.
There were mixed responses to questions about government regulations and subsidies. Only 35% stated that they get agricultural subsidies from the Romanian government. Furthermore, just 45% are aware that if they make direct sales of produce, they are not eligible for European Union subsidies. When asked about agricultural regulations, 56% said they are aware of the European Union’s environmental, food safety, and animal guidelines. These responses show a lack of awareness of farmers on the rules and regulations that they must conform to and the absence of educational outreach by the Romanian government to inform farmers of the resources available to them from the Romanian government and the EU.
4.2. Total Agricultural Income Linear Regression Model
Table 7 presents the results of the multiple linear regression model that examines total agricultural income.
The model has a relatively low R-squared value of 0.2273 but this is attributable to the choice variables used as descriptors. The only geographic location that was statistically significant was for those respondents living in Centru (Central); the Bucharest-Ilfov region was left out in all the models to avoid dummy variable bias. The Centru location is positively related to total agricultural income. The Centru region is most known for cultivating two-row barley, potatoes, and some vegetable crops such as onions, tomatoes, and cabbages. These crops result in higher revenue and the Centru region is known for good soil, which leads to higher output. The gender indicates that if the respondent is male, the total agricultural income is much higher. This finding suggests that male farmers in Romania are more successful financially, which is not a surprise, as males are more dominant in the agricultural sector and are likely to have bigger operations. Respondents were asked whether they compost or not. If the respondent stated that they do not compost, their agricultural income is expected to be less. Composting can reduce the production costs of the farmer and benefit the health of the soil for better crop output. Therefore, those farmers that do not compost are likely to have lower incomes. When asked if they are concerned about the environment, those farmers that stated ‘yes’ have considerably more agricultural income than those that answered they are not concerned. This result is due to the obvious reliance agriculture has on the condition of the environment. Those farmers that are concerned with the environment are more likely to take care of the nutrients in the soil on their land, resulting in greater output and better-quality produce. Lastly, respondents were asked about how they classify the quality of their soil. Respondents were asked about their soil quality on a Likert Scale, ranging from Excellent to Bad. ‘Excellent’ was dropped in the analysis to avoid dummy variable bias. All the other choices had negative coefficients, with only ‘good soil quality’ statistically significant at the 90% level, indicating that ‘good soil quality’ is negatively related to total agricultural income. The sign on the coefficient was expected to be positive because good soil quality is an important factor for quality, abundant produce that will command the highest price.
As a result, multicollinearity was suspected in the quality of land and region. Therefore, the regression was performed again taking the region dummy variable out of the analysis. The signs on the coefficients did not change and the magnitudes of the coefficients remained similar. Since the signs did not change, two additional analytical methods were used. An interaction term with total agricultural income and total land was created to eliminate any relationship issues between the soil quality and size of the farm. Robust multiple regression was also used to eliminate any influence of outliers from the farm size. Three independent variables were statistically significant; if the farmer composted or not, if the farmer received subsidies, and location except for Muntenia (South Central). Additionally, all the variables had negative coefficients. For composting and receiving agricultural subsidies, a negative relationship was expected. However, the negative coefficients for all the location variables were not expected and do not make sense.
Due to the signs on the coefficients remaining incorrect, multicollinearity was still suspected. Therefore, the log of total agricultural income was used as the dependent variable with a robust regression analysis with fixed weights. The log of total agricultural income was used to make it more normally distributed and because the log turns the regression coefficients into semi-elasticities. Gender, if the respondent was male, was with the expected positive coefficient. Respondents who stated that they do not compost were with the expected negative coefficient. Concern for the environment had an expected positive coefficient. The magnitude of the coefficient for this variable was the largest indicating that farmers realize the importance of environmental factors, such as soil and water, to agricultural output. The regional dummy variables saw a change in the signs of the coefficients. The Centru, Sud-Est (Southeast), and Sud-Vest (Southwest Oltenia) regions had positive coefficients, while the other regions did not. This result is consistent with expectations as these regions are the agricultural powerhouse of Romania and are known for higher output than other regions. Lastly, the coefficients for soil quality also changed to their expected positive signs. ‘Good’ and ‘Neutral’ soil quality had positive coefficients, although only ‘Neutral’ was statistically significant. ‘Excellent’ soil quality was left out to avoid dummy variable bias. Therefore, due to the change in the signs of the coefficients, the results of the robust regression indicate that any issues with multicollinearity have been corrected.
4.3. Environmental Attitudes Logistic Regression Models
Respondents were also asked questions about their attitudes towards the environment. A binary logistic model is used to examine farmers’ concern for the environment (Table 8). First, the farmers were asked if they are concerned for the environment. One important finding is that those respondents that said they have received agricultural training are less likely to be concerned for the environment. This result is expected because agricultural training largely entails and relies on industrial practices, such as large machinery and external inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. The only other variable in this model was the location variable. Not surprisingly, there are different attitudes toward the environment depending on where the farmer lives. Respondents living in the southeast are much more likely to be concerned about the environment. The likely reason for this result is the connection to the Black Sea and the Danube Delta in Tulcea County, Dobrogea. Agriculture has a long history in the Danube Delta where large areas were drained and converted to agricultural land. This degradation of the Delta continued with increasing pollution from agriculture, resulting in algae growth in the water. Additionally, the fish population has decreased substantially due to overfishing. The Danube Delta is a UNESCO World Heritage Site, protecting large parts of the region. Therefore, farmers living in this region are acutely mindful of environmental awareness and the importance of a healthy ecosystem. Such environmental awareness is generally absent in the other regions of Romania which explains why the southeast is the other statistically significant region.
In relation to these factors, a series of questions based on a scenario were asked of the respondents to determine their feelings toward the environment. The results of these analyses are in the next section.
4.3.1. Scenarios: Doubling Output
Respondents were asked if they knew that they could double their output would they use (1) fertilizers; (2) pesticides; and (3) genetically modified seeds.
Fertilizers
Table 9 presents the results for the ‘Doubling Output with Fertilizers’ scenario.
Those farmers that own the most agricultural land and already use fertilizers are less likely to use fertilizers to double their output. This is an interesting finding because one would assume that larger agricultural landholders would be more of an industrial operation and use fertilizers to double output. However, this result suggests that these farmers understand the negative aspects of manmade fertilizers and that they can make more profit by producing and selling organic or ecological produce to Western European nations. Respondents that stated that they use a no-till technique are also less likely to use fertilizers to double their output. The most conceivable reason for this is that these farmers are knowledgeable about the environment and know the risks of using fertilizers since they are using a sustainable agricultural approach. Lastly, farmers that use genetically modified seeds are more probable to use fertilizer if they can double their output. The most likely reason for this result is that these farmers are probably less environmentally inclined since they are using genetically modified seeds and are also looking for any method to increase their production and profit.
Pesticides
When asked about doubling their output by using pesticides, farmers are largely opposed to the idea (Table 10).
Similar to the case of fertilizers, the more a farmer currently spends on pesticides, the less likely they are to use more to double their output. This result suggests that farmers learn that more pesticides are not better and are detrimental to their land, plants, and the environment. Farmers from the Sud-Est are in the Danube Delta, an environmentally protected zone, and are aware of and under environmental restrictions to protect the Delta. Farmers that use manure and spend more on plants are probably less likely to use pesticides because they cannot afford them, and they do not find benefits in pesticides for their applications. However, farmers that spent more on seeds are more likely to use pesticides, likely because they believe the pesticides will protect their seedlings.
Genetically Modified Seeds
When presented with the scenario, farmers that spent more on plants and already use genetically modified seeds were less likely to use genetically modified seeds to double their outputs (Table 11).
Farmers that purchase plants have little use for seeds. Farmers already using genetically modified seeds likely have learned the drawbacks of the seeds, such as having to purchase the seeds every year due to patents and not yielding the crop output projected by the seed companies. Farmers in the Sud-Est, Sud-Muntenia, and Vest are also less likely to use genetically modified seeds to double their outputs. As stated previously, farmers in the Sud-Est are in an environmentally protected zone and are more sensitive to genetically modified organisms. Sud-Muntenia and Vest regions are also in the Danube region, so farmers in these regions are also likely to be more aware of genetically modified organisms and their impact on the environment.
Farmers more likely to use genetically modified seeds are those with more income that spend more on fuel and make a social connection with their customers. Those farmers with more income can afford to purchase the seeds every year, and farmers that spend more on fuel also have more income. The most probable reason farmers that make a social connection with their customers are more likely to use genetically modified seeds to double their output is that they have built brand loyalty with their customers and they can also talk to their customers to explain their use of the seeds.
4.3.2. Scenarios: Double Production but Polluting Groundwater and Destroying Soil Nutrients
The second environmental concern scenario examines whether respondents knew that they would be polluting their groundwater and destroying the nutrients in their soil over time, would they double their production output using: (1) fertilizers; (2) pesticides; and (3) genetically modified seed?
Fertilizers
The results of this analysis provide input as to the feelings of farmers towards fertilizers and the environment (Table 12).
All the variables in this model are statistically significant at the 99% confidence level. The more a farmer spends on plants every year decreases the likelihood that they will use fertilizers under the proposed scenario. The magnitude is small, so the farmers spending more are much less likely to use fertilizers if their groundwater were to be polluted or their soil nutrients destroyed. This result is expected because farmers spending more on plants will want to maintain their soil nutrients to ensure a sustainable, quality, productive output of produce. An interesting finding of this model is that farmers that use fertilizers on their farms are less likely to use fertilizers under the scenario proposed. This result suggests that farmers know that applying more fertilizer will not be beneficial in terms of both additional production or for their water or soil quality. Lastly, farmers who compost are more likely to use fertilizers in the scenario proposed. The likely reason for this result is that most of these respondents are unlikely to currently use fertilizers as they are probably small-scale farmers that would like to double their production for additional food and revenue. The juxtaposition of the respondents who currently use fertilizers and those who farm with compost is very important and interesting. These results illustrate that those farmers that use fertilizers understand the harm that they cause to the environment and that more fertilizer does not translate to an additional output of produce.
Pesticides
Next, respondents were asked if they would use pesticides if they could double their production but would harm their water quality and the nutrients in their soil (Table 13).
Like the findings above for fertilizer use, farmers that spend more on purchasing plants are less likely to use pesticides given the proposed scenario. The most plausible reason is that they understand that more pesticides will not translate to sustainable increases in output over time. Farmers that irrigate are also less likely to use pesticides to double their output given the proposed environmental damage. The most likely reason for this is that farmers realize that additional pesticides will not be useful. Lastly, farmers that are concerned for the environment are more likely to use pesticides to double their output even if it means harming their soil nutrients and water quality. Initially, this result appears to be a mistake. However, of the 138 respondents that said they are concerned for the environment, 69 stated they would use pesticides to double their production at the expense of water and soil quality. These responses indicate a disconnect between the environment and revenue from production. Farmers state their concern for the environment but when they must choose between the environment and revenue, they choose money.
Genetically Modified Seeds
Lastly, in this scenario, respondents were asked about genetically modified seeds (Table 14).
Like the results above, those farmers that spend more money on purchasing plants are less likely to use genetically modified seeds. The most plausible reason for this result is that there is resistance toward genetically modified organisms in Europe. Adding merit to this analysis of the proposed scenario is that those farmers that currently use genetically modified seeds are less likely to use them in the proposed scenario, suggesting a strong bias against GMOs. Also, if a farmer feels more involved in the community by selling their products locally, the likelihood they will use genetically modified seeds is reduced. Again, given the strong negative feeling toward GMOs in Europe, this result makes sense because the farmer is in touch with what the community thinks. However, there are some variables that increase the likelihood that a farmer will use genetically modified seeds. The more hired labor a farmer employs the greater the probability that the farmer will use genetically modified seed. The magnitude of the variable is small indicating that the farms hiring the most workers are likely to use genetically modified seeds. The reason for this result is probably because those farms are large-scale farms where environmental sustainability is not as important as the quantity of food produced. Moreover, those farmers that use herbicides and bio-pest management are also more likely to use genetically modified seeds in the scenario. The farmers using these techniques might be willing to use GMO seeds because they will not have to purchase herbicides or pest management given that seeds have them built in. Additionally, the farmers probably believe that their yield will be greater with these seeds than with external applications of weed and pest controls. Lastly, those respondents that said they make social connections with their customers are more likely to use genetically modified seeds in the proposed scenario. The most plausible reason for this result is that the farmers are building relationships and loyalty to their products. Relationship building is particularly important for the farmers because consumers at the market trust certain sellers for their quality products. As a result, the farmers’ market creates the setting for closer relationships between the seller and the consumer [56].
5. Discussion
The development of the world bioeconomy is necessary for attaining sustainable development goals. In particular, the agricultural sector needs major reforms as it is one of the most energy-intensive and environmentally degrading sectors. For these reforms to take place, public policies must be created to encourage and support sustainable, local agriculture. As the sustainable agriculture market expands, so does the bioeconomy, raising the incomes and living conditions of workers, especially in rural regions, in an environmentally friendly manner.
An important sustainable agricultural outlet is the farmers’ market. In middle- and lower-income countries, the farmers’ market is important because people can usually purchase quality, low-cost produce and the sellers can generate income for their families and themselves. As a result, farmers’ markets can be a very important piece of the rural economic development puzzle. In Romania, agriculture remains one of the most important economic sectors, yet the rural economy needs development.
This paper has presented data from surveys of farmers selling their products at farmers’ markets in Romania to provide important information on their farm status and the practices they use. Understanding the sustainable agricultural practices and attitudes of the farmers is important for developing the public policies necessary to expand the rural and bioeconomies. The results of the analyses of the data provided key insights into the techniques and attitudes of farmers in Romania.
There are several important findings from the analyses that need further discussion. First is the disconnect that exists between the beliefs of farmers concerning the environment and their responses to specific environmental scenarios and production output. Farmers that use some sustainable agricultural techniques and have more experience are more likely to use environmentally damaging fertilizers and pesticides to double their production levels. Yet, farmers that compost and state they are concerned about the environment have more income. This detachment of beliefs, actions, and income is alarming. In fact, only 13.7% of the farmers concerned about the environment said they would not use external inputs for production. However, many farmers are willing to accept damage to the environment to preserve or increase their income because they are mostly semi-subsistence, labor-intense farmers. These farmers may understand the link between farming, income, and the environment, but might be forced to ignore the environmental impacts of poverty or other reasons.
Second, agricultural training decreases the likelihood that a farmer will be concerned about the environment. As stated previously, this result is not surprising given that agriculture is largely industrial in nature and the training will be based on this model. Educating farmers on sustainable farming methods and environmental education as part of agricultural training in Romania would ensure that farmers know of the negative aspects of industrial farming and the benefits of sustainable techniques for both the environment and their potential revenues. This requirement would help expand the bioeconomy in the country.
Lastly, the more a farmer feels connected to their community, the less likely they are to use genetically modified seeds. However, a farmer that feels they have a social connection with their customers is more likely to use genetically modified seeds. This result is an important distinction. The community connection that farmers experience is one of having something in common, being active by volunteering or engaging in the community. As part of the community, that farmer will know the thoughts and concerns of the people, such as their attitudes towards genetically modified foods. This type of relationship can be more meaningful than the social connection, which is shallower. A social connection is one that is enjoying the companionship of others in a friendly, gregarious manner. Achieving a social connection is done through interpersonal relationships. A farmer that has developed a social connection with their customer will develop a loyalty where that customer will come back regularly to purchase produce, and the farmer might even provide them the best produce they have, perhaps even saving product for them if they know the customer is coming. However, a social connection is not as deep or profound as a community connection, therefore the farmer who has a community connection will try to protect the people in that group whereas one with a social connection might not. As a result, a community relationship will reduce the likelihood of a farmer using genetically modified seeds, whereas a social relationship will not.
Given these results, there are several public policy recommendations that the Romanian government could implement that would help expand the rural economy and the bioeconomy. First, the Romanian government should require sustainable agricultural techniques to be part of all agricultural training. This training would ensure that farmers would understand the importance of the environment to their futures, so that they must consider the long-term consequences of their farming actions, not just be concerned about their short-term revenues. Second, and similarly, if farmers are to increase their production levels there will need to be improved infrastructure, such as roads and processing plants [16], to allow the farmers to get the food to the market. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the Romanian government should promote their agricultural system and the importance of local, organic, sustainable agriculture. This marketing would make consumers more aware of the advantages of organic agriculture for the environment, the local economy, and their personal health. As a result, the demand for organic agriculture would increase, improving the rural economy and encouraging more farmers to use sustainable practices.
6. Conclusions
Developing sustainable agriculture is vital to the climate change response because of the vulnerability of agriculture to the effects of climate change and because agriculture is a key contributor to the problem. As a result, sustainable agriculture must maintain or increase production and farm income while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and manmade inputs, thereby improving resilience to climatic and economic shocks to the system. The IPCC has found that restoring cultivated organic soils, cropland management, grazing land management, and other sustainable practices have high economic potential [57]. Ultimately, this approach will reduce the vulnerability of the agricultural system and, by extension, of the bioeconomy. Coupling sustainable agricultural practices with resilience is required for mitigating climate change. Additionally, effective government policies need to be implemented to achieve a sustainable agricultural system. Due to the increased frequency and intensity of climatic events, government policies should value innovation and rapid adjustments by both the government and the farmers in response to weather extremes.
To create a bioeconomy that is sustainable and reduces the vulnerability of people and the environment to shocks, the beliefs of farmers must be understood. Developing public policy that meets the multiple objectives of protecting the environment, reducing vulnerability, and developing the bioeconomy is difficult but necessary. This strategy will require investment in infrastructure, technology, and communication systems to get production to consumers and information to both farmers and consumers. The findings detailed in this paper are important because they illustrate the challenges and opportunities that policymakers must overcome to develop a sustainable agricultural system and bioeconomy in the era of climate change. The ability to develop effective public policy will only occur through understanding the attitudes of farmers about the environment and their production processes.
Visualization, A.I.; Writing—original draft, J.M.P., R.I.I. and L.L.A. All authors whose names appear on the submission have made substantial contributions to the study conception and design. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the information obtained does not have any identifiers to human subjects.
Informed verbal consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available because they were obtained through a survey.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Regions of Romania as Classified by the European Union. Source: Own processing and labeling of the regions using the original https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Regiuni_de_dezvoltare.svg, accessed on 25 August 2022.
Descriptive Statistics.
| Variable | Mean | Standard Deviation | Standard Error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 48.13 | 10.21 | 0.7568 |
| Years of education | 10.17 | 2.98 | 0.2337 |
| Number of people in the household | 3.53 | 1.42 | 0.1056 |
| Hours of agricultural work during the growing season | 10.31 | 2.66 | 0.1975 |
| Hours of agricultural work during the off-season | 5.93 | 2.39 | 0.1775 |
| Total agricultural income (RON) | 5113.40 | 8092.16 | 599.8307 |
| Income from crops (RON) | 1893.88 | 2905.80 | 217.7992 |
| Income from meat (RON) | 1300.44 | 3304.69 | 245.6356 |
| Income from milk (RON) | 1169.60 | 3961.99 | 293.6826 |
| Income from eggs (RON) | 465.64 | 973.34 | 72.7505 |
| Weekly household expenditures (RON) | 715.07 | 902.80 | 66.9200 |
| Land owned (ha) | 16.08 | 77.66 | 5.7564 |
| Agricultural land owned (ha) | 16.49 | 93.85 | 6.9760 |
| Number of employees | 2.29 | 5.15 | 0.3896 |
| Number of employees during the growing season | 3.99 | 6.52 | 0.4931 |
Annual expenditures by type (RON).
| Type of Expenditure | Average Amount (RON) |
|---|---|
| Hired labor | 8234 |
| Feed | 2809 |
| Fuel | 2781 |
| Purchased livestock | 2777 |
| Utilities | 2605 |
| Veterinary care | 1742 |
| Fertilizer | 998 |
| Herbicides | 572 |
| Pesticides | 452 |
| Plants | 413 |
| Genetically modified seed | 117 |
Note: Pesticides are used to destroy insects or organisms harmful to plants or animals, whereas herbicides are used to destroy unwanted vegetation, such as weeds.
Annual investment by type (RON).
| Type of Investment | Average Amount (RON) |
|---|---|
| Purchased agricultural machinery | 11,295 |
| Land | 9965 |
| Feed | 8846 |
| New buildings | 7972 |
| Livestock | 7540 |
| Renovating their farm buildings | 4507 |
| Rented agricultural machinery | 2658 |
Farming techniques used (%).
| Farming Techniques | Yes |
|---|---|
| Farm manually | 67.6% |
| Irrigation | 57.3% |
| Use herbicides | 54.6% |
| Farm organically for an average of nearly 15 years | 53.6% |
| Use fertilizers | 53.1% |
| Use pesticides | 51.2% |
| Livestock is free-range | 49.4% |
| Use their own tractor | 45% |
| Use someone else’s tractor | 39.9% |
| Use genetically modified seed | 6.9% |
Use of sustainable agricultural practices (%).
| Sustainable Agricultural Practices | Yes |
|---|---|
| Manure | 64.4% |
| Crop rotation | 58.8% |
| Compost | 42.4% |
| Cover crops | 29.2% |
| Biological pest management | 15.2% |
| No-till practices | 14.9% |
Results for environmental scenarios (%).
| Follow-Up Questions | Yes |
|---|---|
| If you could double your output by using: | |
|
66% |
|
55% |
|
53.5% |
|
80% |
|
26% |
| If you would have to increase the usage of these inputs to maintain your production levels: | |
|
59% |
|
48.4% |
|
48.1% |
|
76.9% |
|
23.9% |
| If you knew that the groundwater would be polluted and the nutrients in the soil destroyed but you could double your production by using: | |
|
30.6% |
|
19.5% |
|
19.9% |
|
53.9% |
|
14% |
Results for Model Total Agricultural Income.
| Variable | Coefficient | SE | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 4575.29 * | 2520.38 | 0.07 |
| Centru | 11,535 ** | 2877.92 | 0.0001 |
| Nord-est | 1901.95 | 2171.13 | |
| Sud-est | 185.93 | 1856.36 | 0.92 |
| Sud-Muntenia | −1498.79 | 2338.52 | 0.52 |
| Sud-Vest Oltenia | −85.42 | 1803.35 | 0.96 |
| Vest | −5018.79 | 3455.74 | 0.15 |
| Gender | 2331.65 * | 1288.61 | 0.07 |
| Compost | −3907.89 ** | 1291.36 | 0.0029 |
| Good Soil Quality | −2665.05 * | 1615.41 | 0.1 |
| Neutral Soil Quality | −1034.2 | 2267.76 | 0.65 |
| Bad Soil Quality | −3293.06 | 4818.47 | 0.49 |
| Concern for the Environment | 2929.03 ** | 1533.28 | 0.05 |
| Model R2 | 0.2273 |
* significant at 90% confidence level; ** significant at 95% confidence level.
Results for Model Concern for the Environment.
| Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.2 | 0.38 | 0.59 |
| Centru | −0.59 | 1.14 | 0.61 |
| Nord-est | 1 | 0.64 | 0.11 |
| Sud-est | 1.12 | 0.6 | 0.06 |
| Sud-Muntenia | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.19 |
| Sud-Vest Oltenia | 0.8 | 0.57 | 0.16 |
| Vest | −10.48 | 153.2 | 0.95 |
| Agricultural Training | −1.78 | 0.58 | 0.002 |
| Model R2 | 0.3 |
Results for the ‘Doubling Output with Fertilizers’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.1395 | 0.23965 | 0 |
| Agricultural land owned (Yes = 1) | −0.11363 | 0.05728 | 0.0473 |
| Do they use fertilizers (Yes = 1) | −0.00163 | 0.00055 | 0.00323 |
| Do they use genetically modified seeds (Yes = 1) | 0.0013 | 0.00062 | 0.03773 |
| Do they use no-till practices (Yes = 1) | −1.2368 | 0.6772 | 0.0678 |
| Model R2 | 0.26182 |
Results for the ‘Doubling Output with Pesticides’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 2.62519 | 0.61564 | 0.00002 |
| Amount of money spent on pesticides | −0.0012 | 0.00062 | 0.05128 |
| Amount of money spent on seed | 0.00014 | 0.00008 | 0.06665 |
| Amount of money spent on plants | −0.0006 | 0.00028 | 0.03046 |
| Centru Region | −1.01987 | 1.26625 | 0.42058 |
| Nord-Est Region | 1.20289 | 0.7473 | 0.10748 |
| Sud-Est Region | −1.20529 | 0.64432 | 0.0614 |
| Sud-Muntenia Region | −0.98483 | 0.81395 | 0.2263 |
| Sud-Vest Oltenia Region | −0.78741 | 0.61941 | 0.20365 |
| Vest Region | 0.49333 | 1.06068 | 0.64185 |
| Do they use pesticides (Yes = 1) | −1.74393 | 0.51293 | 0.00067 |
| Do they use manure (Yes = 1) | −1.50019 | 0.51583 | 0.00363 |
| Model R2 | 0.34512 |
Results for the ‘Doubling Output with Genetically Modified Seeds’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.08538 | 0.74007 | 0.14248 |
| Total agricultural income | 0.00014 | 0.00006 | 0.02819 |
| Amount of money spent on plants | −0.0017 | 0.00044 | 0.00011 |
| Amount of money spent on fuel | 0.00023 | 0.00011 | 0.03015 |
| Centru Region | −1.85421 | 1.59443 | 0.24486 |
| Nord-Est Region | −0.99534 | 1.01642 | 0.32745 |
| Sud-Est Region | −2.95691 | 0.90434 | 0.00108 |
| Sud-Muntenia Region | −2.79159 | 1.0751 | 0.00942 |
| Sud-Vest Oltenia | −0.7899 | 0.92755 | 0.39444 |
| Vest Region | −2.68272 | 1.23522 | 0.02987 |
| Do they use genetically modified seeds (Yes = 1) | −5.69244 | 1.54365 | 0.00023 |
| Do they make social connections with their customers (Yes = 1) | 1.12396 | 0.5914 | 0.05737 |
| Model R2 | 0.4046 |
Results for the ‘Double Production but Polluting Groundwater and Destroying Soil Nutrients with Fertilizers’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | 1.05258 | 0.34502 | 0.00228 |
| Amount of money spent on plants | −0.00052 | 0.00019 | 0.00622 |
| Do they use fertilizers (Yes = 1) | −1.96767 | 0.44007 | 0.00001 |
| Do they use compost (Yes = 1) | 1.05176 | 0.41214 | 0.01071 |
| Model R2 | 0.30197 |
Results for the ‘Double Production but Polluting Groundwater and Destroying Soil Nutrients with Pesticides’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.15716 | 0.42648 | 0.71249 |
| Amount of money spent on plants | −0.0006 | 0.00018 | 0.0011 |
| Do they irrigate (Yes = 1) | −0.85069 | 0.50729 | 0.09356 |
| Are they concerned with environmental conditions (Yes = 1) | 1.57207 | 0.46585 | 0.00074 |
| Model R2 | 0.22834 |
Results for the ‘Double Production but Polluting Groundwater and Destroying Soil Nutrients with Genetically Modified Seeds’ scenario.
| Independent Variable | Regression Coefficient | Standard Error | Wald p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | −0.56623 | 0.52436 | 0.28021 |
| Amount of money spent on plants | −0.00118 | 0.00032 | 0.00023 |
| Do they use genetically modified seeds (Yes = 1) | −0.00172 | 0.00046 | 0.00019 |
| Amount of money spent on hired labor | 0.0001 | 0.00003 | 0.00373 |
| Do they use herbicides (Yes = 1) | 1.53135 | 0.6545 | 0.0193 |
| Do they use biological pest management (Yes = 1) | 1.94776 | 1.13416 | 0.08591 |
| Do they feel more involved in the community by selling their products locally (Yes = 1) | −1.32034 | 0.68566 | 0.05415 |
| Do they make social connections with their customers (Yes = 1) | 1.81103 | 0.66911 | 0.0068 |
| Model R2 | 0.33949 |
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at:
References
1. Fonte, M. Knowledge, Food and Place. A Way of Producing, A way of Knowing. Sociol. Rural; 2008; 48, pp. 200-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00462.x]
2. Fabris, G. Il Nuovo Consumatore Verso il Postmoderno; Franco Angeli: Milano, Italy, 2003.
3. Henseleit, M.; Kubitzki, S.; Teuber, R. Determinants of Consumer Preferences for Regional Food. Proceedings of the 105th European Association of Agricultural Economics; Bologna, Italy, 8–10 March 2007.
4. Vecchio, R. Local Food at Italian Farmers’ Markets: Three Case Studies. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food; 2010; 17, pp. 122-139.
5. FAOSTAT. Crop Statistics; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2018.
6. EUROSTAT. Crop Production (apro_cp); European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
7. Rizov, M.; Swinnen, J.F.M. The Growth of Individual Farming in Romania. Romanian Agriculture and Transition toward the EU; Davidova, S.; Thomson, K.J. Lexington Books: Oxford, UK, 2003.
8. Ciutacu, C.; Chivu, L.; Andrei, J.V. Similarities and Dissimilarities between the EU Agricultural and Rural Development Model and Romanian Agriculture. Challenges and Perspectives. Land Use Policy; 2015; 44, pp. 169-176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.08.009]
9. EUROSTAT. Key Farm Variables: Area, Livestock (LSU), Labour Force and Standard Output (SO) by Agricultural Size of Farm (UAA), Legal Status of Holding and NUTS 2 Regions; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2018.
10. Feher, A.; Gosa, V.; Raicov, M.; Harangus, D.; Condea, B.V. Convergence Of Romanian and Europe Union Agriculture–Evolution and Prospective Assessment. Land Use Policy; 2017; 67, pp. 670-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.06.016]
11. Otiman, P.I. Sustainable Development Strategy of Agriculture and Rural Areas in Romania on Medium and Long-Term–Rural Romania XXI. Agric. Econ. Rural. Dev.; 2008; 5, pp. 4-18.
12. Popescu, G.H.; Istudor, N.; Nica, E.; Andrei, V.J.; Ion, R.A. The Influence of Land-use Change Paradigm on Romania’s Agro-food Trade Competitiveness—An Overview. Land Use Policy; 2017; 61, pp. 293-301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.032]
13. Bartolini, F.; Viaggi, D. The Common Agricultural Policy and the Determinants of Changes in EU Farm Size. Land Use Policy; 2013; 31, pp. 126-135. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.10.007]
14. European Parliament. No. 1307/2013 and Council Regulation of 17th December 2013 of Establishing Certain Rules Regarding the Direct Payments to Farmers under Support Schemes Within the Common Agriculutral Policy and Repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009. 2013; Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32013R1307 (accessed on 25 August 2022).
15. Commission, E. Agriculture in the European Union and the Member States—Statistical Factsheets. 2016; Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/factsheets/index_en.htm (accessed on 31 August 2016).
16. Enache, E.; Tudose, G.; Vechiu, C. Organic Products—A Chance to Make the Agriculture of Romania in the European Union and a Solution to Economic Crisis. Rom. Econ. Bus. Rev.; 2009; 4, pp. 133-140.
17. Arabska, E. Farmers’ Markets as a Business Model Encouraging Sustainable Production and Consumption. Visegr. J. Bioecon. Sustain. Dev.; 2018; 7, pp. 2-6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/vjbsd-2018-0001]
18. Sullivan, S.; McCann, E.; de Young, R.; Erickson, D. Farmers’ Attitudes About Farming and the Environment: A Survey of Conventional and Organic Farmers. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics; 1996; 9, pp. 123-143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF03055298]
19. McCann, E.; Sullivan, S.; Erickson, D.; De Young, R. Environmental Awareness, Economic Orientation, and Farming Practices: A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Farmers. Environ. Manag.; 1997; 21, pp. 747-758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s002679900064] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9236288]
20. Fairweather, J.R. Understanding How Farmers Choose between Organic and Conventional Production: Results From New Zealand and Policy Implications. Agric. Hum. Values; 1999; 15, pp. 51-63. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007522819471]
21. Chouichom, S.; Yamao, M. Comparing Opinions and Attitudes of Organic and Non-organic Farmers Towards Organic Rice Farming System in North-Eastern Thailand. J. Org. Syst.; 2010; 5, pp. 25-35.
22. Duram, L.A. Factors in Organic Farmers’ Decisionmaking: Diversity, Challenge, and Obstacles. Am. J. Altern. Agric.; 1999; 14, pp. 2-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300007955]
23. Lapple, D.; Kelley, H. Understanding the Uptake of Organic Farming: Accounting for Heterogeneities Among Irish Farmers. Ecol. Econ.; 2013; 88, pp. 11-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.12.025]
24. Egri, C.P. Attitudes, Backgrounds and Information Preferences of Canadian Organic and Conventional Farmers: Implications for Organic Farming Advocacy and Extension. J. Sustain. Agric.; 1999; 13, pp. 45-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J064v13n03_05]
25. Mzoughi, N. Farmers Adoption of Integrated Crop Protection and Organic Farming: Do Moral and Social Concerns Matter?. Ecol. Econ.; 2011; 78, pp. 1536-1545. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.016]
26. Ayuya, O.I.; Gido, E.O.; Bett, H.K.; Lagat, J.K.; Kahi, A.K.; Bauer, S. Effect of Certified Organic Production Systems on Poverty Among Smallholder Farmers: Empirical Evidence From Kenya. World Dev.; 2015; 67, pp. 27-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.005]
27. Burja, C.; Burja, V. Adapting the Romanian Rule Economy to the European Agricultural Policy from the Perspective of Sustainable Development; Munich Personal RePEc Archive: Munich, Germany, 2008.
28. Barbu, S.F.; Bara, E. Organic Farming, a Chance for Romanian Agriculture. Res. J. Agric. Sci.; 2010; 42, pp. 412-417.
29. Michel-Villarreal, R.; Hingley, M.; Canavari, M.; Bregoli, I. Sustainability in Alternative Food Networks: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030859]
30. Watts, D.C.H.; Ilbery, B.; Maye, D. Making Reconnections in Agro-food Geography: Alternative Systems of Food Provision. Prog. Hum. Geogr.; 2005; 29, pp. 22-40. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1191/0309132505ph526oa]
31. Sage, C. Social Embeddedness and Relations of Regard: Alternative Good Food Networks in South-west Ireland. J. Rural Stud.; 2003; 19, pp. 47-60. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(02)00044-X]
32. Renting, H.; Marsden, T.; Banks, J. Understanding Alternative Food Networks: Exploring the Role of Short Food Supply Chains in Rural Development. Environ. Plan. A; 2003; 35, pp. 393-411. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1068/a3510]
33. Renting, H.; Schermer, M.; Rossi, A. Building Food Democracy: Exporing Civic Food Networks and Newly Emerging Forms of Food Citizenship. Int. J. Sociol. Agric. Food; 2012; 19, pp. 289-307.
34. Murphy, A. Farmers’ Markets as Retail Spaces. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag.; 2011; 39, pp. 582-597. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551111148668]
35. Govindasamy, R.; Nayga, R.M., Jr. Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Market Visits by Type of Facility: A Logit Analysis. Agric. Resour. Econ. Rev.; 1997; 26, pp. 31-38. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1068280500000812]
36. Onianwa, O.O.; Wheelock, G.; Mojica, M.N. An Analysis of the Determinants of Farmer-to-Consumer Direct-Market Shoppers. J. Food Distrib. Res.; 2005; 36, pp. 130-134.
37. Guthrie, J.; Guthrie, A.; Lawson, R.; Cameron, A. Farmers’ Markets: The Small Business Counter-revolution in Food Production and Retailing. Br. Food J.; 2006; 108, pp. 560-573. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00070700610676370]
38. Veidal, A.; Flaten, O. Why Do Farm Entrepreneurs Sell at Farmers’ Markets? Insights from Norway. The Handbook of Research on Entrepreneurship in Agriculture and Rural Development; Alsos, G.; Carter, S.E.L.; Welter, F. Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2011; pp. 199-217.
39. Bowler, I.; Clark, G.; Crockett, A.; Ilbery, B.; Shaw, A. The Development of Alternative Farm Enterprise: A Study of Family Labour Farms in The Northern Pennines of England. J. Rural Stud.; 1996; 12, pp. 285-295.
40. Getz, D.; Carlsen, J. Characteristics and Goals of Family and Owner-operated Businesses in the Rural Tourism and Hospitality Sectors. Tour. Manag.; 2000; 21, pp. 547-560.
41. Alsos, G.A.; Ljunggren, E.; Pettersen, L.T. Farm-based Entrepreneurship: What Triggers the Start-up of New Business Activities?. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev.; 2003; 10, pp. 435-443. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14626000310504747]
42. Kambara, K.M.; Shelley, C.L. The California Agricultural Direct Marketing Study; California Institute for Rural Studies: Davis, CA, USA, 2002.
43. Hunt, A.R. Consumer Interactions and Influences on Farmers Market Vendors. Renew. Agric. Food Syst.; 2007; 22, pp. 54-66. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1742170507001597]
44. MacLeod, M. The Origins, Operation and Future of Farmers’ Markets in Scotland. J. Farm Manag.; 2008; 13, pp. 177-203.
45. Griffin, M.R.; Frongillo, E.A. Experiences and Perspectives of Farmers from Upstate New York Farmers’ Markets. Agric. Hum. Values; 2003; 20, pp. 189-203. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024065526440]
46. Lyson, T.A.; Gillespie, G.W., Jr.; Hilchey, D. Farmers’ Markets and the Local Community: Bridging the Formal and Informal Economy. Am. J. Altern. Agric.; 1995; 10, pp. 108-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0889189300006251]
47. Govindasamy, R.; Italia, J.; Zurbriggen, M.; Hossain, F. Producer Satisfaction with Returns From Farmers’ Market Related Activity. Am. J. Altern. Agric.; 2003; 18, pp. 80-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/AJAA200238]
48. Figueroa-Rodriguez, K.A.; Alvarex-Avila, M.C.; Castillo, F.H.; Rindermann, R.S.; Figueroa-Sandoval, B. Farmers’ Market Actors, Dynamics, and Attributes: A Bibliometric Study. Sustainability; 2019; 11, 745. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11030745]
49. Carey, L.; Bell, P.; Duff, A.; Sheridan, M.; Shields, M. Farmers’ Market Consumers: A Scottish Perspective. Int. J. Consum. Stud.; 2011; 35, pp. 300-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2010.00940.x]
50. Savoie-Roskos, M.R.; Wengreen, H.; Gast, J.; LeBlanc, H.; Durward, C. Understanding the Experiences of Low-Income Individuals Receiving Farmers’ Market Incentives in the United States: A Qualitative Study. Health Promot. Pract.; 2017; 18, pp. 869-878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1524839917715438]
51. Feenstra, G.W.; Lewis, C.C.; Hinrichs, C.C.; Gillespie, G.W., Jr.; Hilchey, D. Entrepreneurial Outcomes and Enterprise Size in US Retail Farmers’ Markets. Am. J. Altern. Agric.; 2003; 18, pp. 46-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1079/AJAA2003046]
52. Capota, T. Capitalizing on Local Food Pride. Traditional Products Movement across Romania’s Food Market. Proceedings of the XXVI European Society for Rural Sociology Congress. Places of Possibility? Rural Societies in a Neoliberal World; Aberdeen, UK, 18–21 August 2015.
53. Dragos, C.; Veres, V. Romanian Farmers’ Market. A Multinomial LogitModel Approach. Proc. Rij. Sch. Econ.; 2007; 25, pp. 291-308.
54. Cocolina, C.Q. The Power of Cooperation: Cooperatives Europe Key Figures 2015; Cooperatives Europe: Brussels, Belgium, 2016.
55. Candemir, A.; Duvaleix, S.; Latruffe, L. Agricultural Cooperatives and Farm Sustainability—A Literature Review. J. Econ. Surv.; 2021; 35, pp. 1118-1144. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joes.12417]
56. Hinrichs, C. Embeddness and Local Food Systems: Notes on Two Types of Direct Agricultural Market. J. Rural Stud.; 2000; 16, pp. 295-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00063-7]
57. Lipper, L.; Zilberman, D. A Short History of the Evolution of the Climate Smart Agriculture Approach and Its Links to Climate Change and Sustainable Agriculture Debates. Climate Smart Agriculture: Building Resilience to Climate Change; Lipper, L.; McCarthy, N.; Zilberman, D.; Asfaw, S.; Branca, G. Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 13-30.
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Iorgulescu, Raluca I 2 ; Albu, Lucian Liviu 2 ; Ionica, Andrei 3 1 Albany College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences, Albany, NY 12208, USA
2 Institute for Economic Forecasting, Romanian Academy, 050711 Bucharest, Romania
3 Dipartimento di Economia, Universita degli Studi di Perugia, 06123 Perugia, Italy