The EU rural development policy has addressed challenges related to climate change in agriculture by introducing public voluntary schemes, which financially support the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Several factors, most of which are non-financial ones, drive adoption and continuation of these schemes by farmers. Despite the importance of these factors, only a few studies explore their role in the European context. This paper contributes to filling this gap from a twofold perspective. First, it investigates the role of the farming factors, technology accessibility, environmental features, policy design and social expertise at the territorial level on early adoption. Second, it sheds light on farmers' attitudes and motivations and on social pressure on their decision to continue or discontinue the practices, by surveying a sample of early adopters. Three schemes for the Veneto region rural development programme are considered: no-tillage, fertiliser reduction, and water and fertiliser reduction. The results highlight that non-financial factors should be considered in order to design more effective schemes to prompt farmers to adopt and continue such practices over the long run. The paper also stresses the need to complement financial support with proactive information-based instruments.

Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices (EFFPs) are tools aimed at providing ecosystem services or mitigating the environmental impacts of intensive agriculture. A large literature has explored the factors affecting the adoption of EFFPs by farmers. However, opposite effects of several factors on uptake have often emerged. We carried out a qualitative meta-analysis of the literature seeking to identify some geographical and temporal trends that can provide a rationale to explain these opposite results. To reach this goal, we analysed the literature and classified the following factors affecting farmers’ behaviour according to the theory of reasoned action and planned behaviour: farm, farmer, informational, and social factors. Our perspective in exploring the existing literature shows that the geographical context and the temporal period under analysis, considered as different adopters’ cohorts, can explain most of the opposite effects. For example, while the different effects of farm structural factors show specific geographical patterns, those of the management and economic factors follow temporal trends. The impact of some farmers’ socio-demographical characteristics and some social factors can be explained in terms of both geographical context and time. The broad trends we found cast light on the importance of further research adopting the same methodological approach in different geographical contexts and under a temporal perspective.

In Italy, wine is an integral part of most people’s habits and lifestyles. The advent of a traumatic event like the Covid pandemic brought profound changes to people’s lives: economic instability and normality disruption led consumers to revise their priorities and modify their consumption and purchase behavior. This study analyses the impact of socio-demographic, psychological, and context-related modifications induced by the pandemic on wine consumption and purchase patterns. Participants completed an online, structured survey, and the sample is constituted by Italian wine consumers. Logistic regression and descriptive techniques are applied to analyze data. Results highlight that wine consumption is a deeply rooted habit among Italian consumers, which resisted the great context modifications that occurred with the pandemic. Moreover, changes in wine consumption are connected to that of other alcoholic beverages. Significant short-term and potential long-term effects are discussed. Information collected is paramount to understanding wine consumers’ reactions and behavioral changes induced by the pandemic and effectively plan marketing strategies during new infection peaks.

Determinants, attitudes and willingness of private forest owners to produce goods and services: a review of the international literature. There is an information gap in the Italian literature with regards to private forest ownership, while several analysis are available on the characteristics and the management systems of public forest ownership. To address this gap, this paper presents the characteristics of private forest owners and their evolution in time by reviewing the international literature in the last three decades. The examined studies are reported according to four perspectives: (i) the available classifications and/or typologies of private forest owners; (ii) the determinants of different forest owners’ behaviors, especially in relation to their objectives; (iii) the attitudes of forest owners and the motivations behind their management decisions; (iv) the valuation of the willingness to accept monetary compensations in return for the provision of ecosystem services. The results show a very complex picture, varying both in space and time. However, some recurring features can be identified: (i) not only are forest owners motivated by timber production goals, but also by other reasons, often very diversified and detached from market considerations; (ii) a “multi-functional” forest owner is by no means less active, but, conversely, is more active than a forest owner whose sole objective is timber production; (iii) in general, the active owner is a farmer whose family has owned the forest for many generations (and in this case he/she is more market-oriented), or is a new entry in the forestry sector; (iv) the “passive” owner is usually elderly, non-farmer and resides far from the property. In addition, the “absent” owner is a common problem to several of the examined geographical contexts. Although the results of the review cannot be transferred as such, they represent a useful starting point for similar analyses in the Italian context. Examining the determinants and attitudes of private forest owners in Italy would indeed prove interesting, given that private forest ownership in Italy represents a relevant share of total forest area and that the implementation of new policy tools such as payments for ecosystem services requires active participation by all key actors, including forest owners.