(Un)willingness to contribute financially towards advice surrounding diffuse water pollution: the perspectives of farmers and advisors

Abstract

Purpose: This study explores whether farmers across England believe that advice on diffuse water pollution from agriculture (DWPA) which is currently provided for free at the point of delivery is credible, relevant, and legitimate (‘CRELE’) enough to justify paying towards. Methodology: A mixed-methods study consisting of an online questionnaire survey (n = 225) and telephone interviews of farmers (n = 60) and farm advisors (n = 50) was conducted. Findings: Across all methods (n = 330), 63.3% of participants (n = 208) responded negatively to the prospect of paying towards DWPA advice, with just 10% expressing a clear willingness to contribute. The main negative themes related to categorical unwillingness, financial constraints, the presence of alternative sources of advice, the accountability of farmers, and exclusion risk. Factors which may increase willingness included the delivery of high quality, farm-salient advice, or where compliance requires engagement. Practical implications: This paper concludes that governments should continue to provide free advice on DWPA if water quality goals are to be met. Originality/value: This is the first known European study which explores farmer willingness to pay towards advice for DWPA. Theoretical implications: The use of the ‘CRELE’ framework is novel as it is typically used to explore science-policy interfaces.