Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Context
- (1)
- Knowledge transfer. Further substantive support for producers is planned, which should be related to advisory activities, showing good practices, and conducting scientific research aimed at solving current problems arising in organic farming. On the other hand, to encourage consumers to purchase organic products, it is necessary to conduct ongoing information, education, and promotion activities, which will introduce the principles of organic production and its benefits for consumers, and popularize the organic production logo of the European Union.
- (2)
- Introducing innovation in organic production. Continued support for the organic farming sector is planned through scientific research aimed at solving problems specific to this type of production. It is also crucial that the primary production of organic food takes place in Poland and Hungary and that the production of processed food develops dynamically. The processing of organic products will allow achieving higher income and positively impact building trade relations and increasing employment in rural areas. In addition, it is necessary to help producers join groups, which will strengthen their position in the supply chain, raise the level of production and allow them to better respond to market demand.
- (3)
- Support for organic producers. Organic producers should have easier access to funds allocated for investments on the farm through additional bonuses in their applications for subsidies. These investments are necessary for the development and enhancement of the competitiveness of the Polish and Hungarian organic farming sectors. In addition, support should be provided to compensate for costs related to control and certification.
- (4)
- Increasing confidence in the organic farming system. Ongoing supervision over the compliance of organic production with its principles, objectives, and labeling of these products is planned.
2.2. Study Design
- regression coefficients,
- mean parameters,
- covariance,
- constant.
- —single-base index
- —chain index
- —base-period phenomenon
- —phenomenon during the period considered
- —phenomenon in the period immediately preceding the period under study.
3. Results
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- The main motives for setting up organic farms in Poland and Hungary are the favorable location of the farm, the possibility of receiving funding, the willingness to introduce innovation in one’s own farm, environmental protection, and the fashion for organic products.
- The main barriers to establishing the farms mentioned above in the two studied countries are the need to adapt their farm to EU requirements, the need use unique plant protection products and only natural fertilizers, low yields, a lack of appropriate advice, and a high degree of bureaucracy.
- Further education of farmers is necessary for organic farming to develop by creating a network of demonstration farms and processing plants, developing information and promotion materials with good practices, and organizing courses, industry meetings, and conferences at which the results of research related to organic farming will be presented. Farmers should benefit from free advice from agricultural advisors who will help them adapt their farms to EU requirements. An important aspect is improving the quality of the regulations and simplifying the administrative burden related to organic farming.
- National authorities, local governments, and farmers should also actively promote organic farming to consumers, which will bring benefits to the entire economy.
- In addition, it is necessary to diversify distribution channels, e.g., creating organic food markets, where consumers can buy fresh products directly from the producer for a lower price, and the farmer has a permanent outlet, the creation of purchasing cooperatives, socially supported farming systems, and online sales networks. However, it is vital to ensure that such places do not become a market for agricultural produce of unknown origin.
- Networking with the various actors in the organic food sector is recommended. Collaborative integration is an opportunity to exchange information, expand knowledge and solve problems together. Farmers have to deepen their knowledge and skills regarding production technology, market conditions (e.g., new forms of sales and distribution channels, promotional activities), and formal and legal procedures and strengthen their competitive advantage over other market participants.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Palupi, E.; Jayanegara, A.; Ploeger, A.; Kahl, J. Comparison of Nutritional Quality between Conventional and Organic Dairy Products: A Meta-Analysis. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2774–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suwala, G. Żywność Ekologiczna w świadomości Polaków. Zesz. Nauk. Akad. Ekon. Krakowie 2006, 705, 57–75. [Google Scholar]
- Talwar, S.; Jabeen, F.; Tandon, A.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. What Drives Willingness to Purchase and Stated Buying Behaviour Toward Organic Food? A Stimuluse Organisme Behaviore Consequence (SOBC) Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 293, 125885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Central Statistical Office in Poland. Available online: bdl.stat.gov.pl/BDL/dane/podgrup/tablica (accessed on 6 July 2021).
- Zdrojewska, I. The Report on Organic Farming in Poland in 2017–2018; IJHARS (Agricultural and Food Quality Inspection): Warsaw, Poland, 2019; pp. 24–37. [Google Scholar]
- FiBL. Organic Food in Poland and Hungary in 2000–2020; The Statistics.FiBL.org website maintained by the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL): Frick, Switzerland, 2021; Available online: www.fao.org/faostat/en/?#data/QC (accessed on 6 July 2021).
- Central Statistical Office in Hungary. Available online: www.ksh.hu/stadat_files/mez/en/mez0038.html (accessed on 6 July 2021).
- Danner, H.; Menapac, L. Using Online Comments to Explore Consumer Beliefs Regarding Organic Food in German-Speaking Countries and the United States. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 83, 103112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boizot-Szantai, C.; Hamza, Q.; Soler, L.G. Organic Consumption and Diet Choice: An Analysis Based on Food Purchase Data in France. Apettite 2017, 117, 17–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dash, M.; Samantaray, A.; Dash, M. Consumer’s Perception Towards Organic Food Products. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 2014, 4, 110–113. [Google Scholar]
- Bryla, P. Organic Food Consumption in Poland: Motives and barriers. Appetite 2016, 105, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Siepmann, L.; Nicholas, K.A. German Winegrowers’ Motives and Barriers to Convert to Organic Farming. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. Barriers to the Development of Organic Farming: A Polish Case Study. Agriculture 2020, 10, 536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hermaniuk, T. Organic Food Market in Poland—Main Characteristics and Factors of Development. Sci. Ann. Econ. Bus. 2016, 63, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zorn, I.; Lippert, C.; Dabbert, S. An Analysis of the Risks of Non-Compliance with the European Organic Standard: A Categorical Analysis of Farm Data from A German Control Body. Food Control 2013, 30, 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Racula, A. Analysis of Organic Farming Sector in Romania. Int. J. Comp. Manag. 2012, 13, 449–455. [Google Scholar]
- Barabanova, Y.; Zanoli, R.; Schlüter, M.; Stopes., C. Transforming Food & Farming, an Organic Vision for Europe in 2030; IFOAM EU Group: Brussels, Belgium, 2015; pp. 3–31. [Google Scholar]
- Blanco-Penedo, I.; Sjöström, K.; Jones, P.; Krieger, M.; Duval, J.; Soest, F.; Sundrum, A.; Emanuelson, U. Structural Characteristics of Organic Dairy Farms in Four European Countries and Their Association with the Implementation of Animal Health Plans. Agric. Syst. 2019, 173, 244–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casolani, N.; Nissi, E.; Giampaolo, A.; Liberatore, L. Evaluating the Effects of European Support Measures for Italian Organic Farms. Land Use Policy 2021, 10, 105225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat, Organic Crop Area by Agricultural Production Methods and Crops (from 2012 Onwards). Available online: ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/org_cropar/default/table?lang=en (accessed on 15 April 2021).
- Drabarczyk, K.; Wrzesińska-Kowal, J. Rozwój Rolnictwa Ekologicznego w Polsce. Ekon. Organ. Gospod. Żywnościowej 2015, 111, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Brzezina, N.; Biely, K.; Helfgott, A.; Kopainsky, B.; Vervoort, J.; Mathijs, E. Development of Organic Farming in Europe at the Crossroads: Looking for the Way Forward through System Archetypes Lenses. Sustainability 2017, 9, 821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gombos, M. The Possibilities and Challenges of Sustainable Agriculture in Hungary—Searching for Pathways for a Feasible Conversion in the Agricultural Sector; Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2017; pp. 11–49. [Google Scholar]
- ÖMKi. Összefoglaló. In Az Ökológiai Gazdálkodás Hazai Helyzete—Hol Tartunk a Fenntarthatóság Felé Vezető Úton? ÖMKi: Budapest, Hungary, 2017; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, C.; Zheng, Y.; Cao, Z. An Analysis of Factors Affecting Selection of Organic Food: Perception of Consumers in China Regarding Weak Signals. Appetite 2021, 161, 10145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jóźwiak, W. Rolnictwo Węgierskie Poszukuje Drogi Rozwoju. Zagadnienia Ekon. Rolnej 2012, 4, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
- Kaliński, J. Transformations of the Spatial Structure of Peasant Farms in Poland after 1918. Kwart. Kol. Ekon. Społecznego. Studia I Pr. 2018, 3, 121–143. [Google Scholar]
- Fałkowski, J. Zamiany Liczby Gospodarstw Rolnych w Polsce w Okresie Transformacji. Gospod. Nar. 2010, 237, 89–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi. Ramowy Plan. Działań dla Żywności i Rolnictwa Ekologicznego w Polsce na Lata 2021–2027; Ministerstwo Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Wsi: Warsaw, Poland, 2021; pp. 2–12. [Google Scholar]
- Rynek Żywności Bio i Kosmetyków Naturalnych w Polsce 2019. Analiza Rynku i Prognozy Rozwoju na Lata 2019–2024; PMR Market Experts: Kraków, Poland; Available online: mypmr.pro/products/19073 (accessed on 6 July 2021).
- Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing. Council Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 (Journal of Laws UE L 150 p. 1 of 14.6.2018) (Rozporządzenie Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady (UE) 2018/848 z dnia 30 maja 2018 r. w sprawie produkcji ekologicznej i znakowania produktów ekologicznych i uchylające rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 834/2007) (Dz. Urz. UE L 150 str. 1 z 14.6.2018 r.). 30 May.
- Horváth, D.; Szűcs, V. AZ Európai Bizottság Víziója a Fenntartható Mezőgazdaságról és Élelmiszeriparról, Avagy mit Tartalmaz a Termőföldtől az Asztalig Stratégia; Namzeti Agrargazdasagi Kamara: Budapest, Hungary, 2021; pp. 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium. Nemzeti Akcióterv az Ökológiai Gazdálkodás Fejlesztéséért, Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium; Vidékfejlesztési Minisztérium: Budapest, Hungary, 2014; pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
- Manly, B.F.J. Multivariate Statistical Methods: A Primer; Chapman and Hall/CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2005; pp. 156–183. [Google Scholar]
- Sobczyk, M. Statystyka; Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN: Warszawa, Poland, 2004; pp. 325–344. [Google Scholar]
- Kukuła, K.; Luty, L. The Ranking of EU Countries Due to Selected Indicators Characterizing Organic Farming. Metod. Ilościowe Bad. Ekon. 2015, XVI, 225–236. [Google Scholar]
- Golinowska, M.; Kruszyński, M.; Janowska-Biernat, J. Tendencje w Rozwoju Rolnictwa Ekologicznego na Świecie w Latach 1999–2012. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2013, 58, 155–161. [Google Scholar]
- Smoluk-Sikorska, J. The Condition of Organic Farming and Market of Its Products in the European Union. J. Agric. Rural Dev. 2010, 4, 87–95. [Google Scholar]
- Turczak, A. Perspektywy Rozwoju Rolnictwa Ekologicznego w Polsce. Zesz. Nauk. Firma Rynek 2014, 1, 59–72. [Google Scholar]
- Batyk, I.M. Działalność Pozarolnicza Gospodarstw Ekologicznych w Województwie Warmińsko-Mazurskim. Infrastruct. Ecol. Rural. Areas 2012, 2, 43–52. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
- Erdelyi, O. Sustainability and Organic Farming in the Light of Conventions Theory. The Example of the Hungarian Organic Sector; Stockholm Environment Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010; pp. 14–17. [Google Scholar]
- Luty, L. Rolnictwo Ekologiczne—Rozwój w Wybranych Krajach Unii Europejskiej. Metody Ilościowe w Badaniach Ekonomicznych 2019, XVII, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- Brodzińska, K. Organic Farming—Trends and Directions of Changes. Sci. J. Wars. Univ. Life Sci. Probl. Word Agric. 2014, 14, 27–36. [Google Scholar]
- Miś, T.; Zając, D. Problemy Rozwoju Rolnictwa Ekologicznego w Regionie o Rozdrobnionej Strukturze Obszarowej. Zagadnienia Doradz. Rol. 2017, 2, 47–61. [Google Scholar]
- Heinze, S.; Vogel, A. Reversion from Organic to Conventional Agriculture in Germany: An Event History Analysis. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2017, 66, 13–25. [Google Scholar]
- Läpple, D.; Kelley, H. Understanding the Uptake of Organic Farming: Accounting for Heterogeneities among Irish Farmers. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flaten, O.; Lien, G.; Ebbesvik, M.; Koesling, M.; Valle, P.S. Do the New Organic Producers Differ from the ‘Old Guard’? Empirical Results from Norwegian Dairy Farming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2006, 21, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Darnhofer, I.; Schneeberger, W.; Freyer, B. Converting or Not Converting to Organic Farming in Austria: Farmer Types and Their Rationale. Agric. Hum. Values 2005, 22, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kis, S. Results of a Questionnaire Survey of Hungarian Organic Farms. Stud. Agric. Econ. 2007, 106, 124–148. [Google Scholar]
- Jasiński, J.; Michalska, S.; Śpiewak, R. Report IRWIR PAN. Rolnictwo Ekologiczne Czynnikiem Rozwoju Lokalnego. Analiza Wybranych Przypadków; IRWIR PAN: Warszawa, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Dezsény, Z.; Drexler, D. The Development and State of Organic Ariculture in Hungary. Hungarian Research. OCROFS News 2014, 2, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
- Juchniewicz, M.; Nahtman, G. 2018 Standard Results of Farms Covered by the Polish FADN. Part 2. Analysis of Standard Results; Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics: Warsaw, Poland, 2020; pp. 9–12. [Google Scholar]
- Smoluk-Sikorska, J.; Łuczka, W.; Kalinowski, S. The State of Organic Food Processing in Poland. In Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors, Proceedings of the 26th International Scientific Conference Agrarian Perspectives; Czech University of Life Sciences Prague: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017; pp. 349–354. [Google Scholar]
- Domagalska, J.; Buczkowska, M. Organic Farming—Opportunities and Perspectives. Probl. Hig. Epidemiol. 2015, 96, 370–376. [Google Scholar]
- Tandon, A.; Jabeen, F.; Talwar, S.; Sakashita, M.; Dhir, A. Facilitators and inhibitors of organic food buying behaviour. Food Qual. Prefer. 2021, 88, 104077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Soroka, A. Motives and Barriers of Organic Food Demand among Polish Consumers: A Profile of the Purchasers. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 2040–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dąbrowski, D.; Radwańska, K.; Sokół, J.L.; Zbucki, Ł.; Isakova, Y. Czynniki Decydujące o Funkcjonowaniu I Rozwoju Gospodarstw Agroturystycznych w Dolinie Bugu na Przykładzie Województwa Podlaskiego. In Obszary Przyrodniczo Cenne w Rozwoju Turystyki; Jalinik, M., Bakier, S., Eds.; Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Białostckiej: Białystok, Poland, 2020; pp. 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vukasovic, T. Consumers’ Perceptions and Behaviors Regarding Organic Fruits and Vegetables: Marketing Trends for Organic Food in the Twenty-First Century. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2016, 28, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trafialek, J.; Czarniecka-Skubina, E.; Kulaitiené, J.; Vaitkeviciene, N. Restaurant’s Multidimensional Evaluation Concerning Food Quality, Service and Sustainable Practices: A Cross-National Case Study of Poland and Lithuania. Sustainability 2020, 12, 234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pondel, H. Organic Farming in the Opinion of the Farmers from Wielkopolska. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2006, 51, 139–143. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, J.; Shen, M.; Gao, Z. Research on the Irrational Behavior of Consumers’ Safe Consumption and Its Influencing Factors. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kushwah, S.; Dhir, A.; Sagarm, M.; Gupta, B. Determinants of Organic Food Consumption. A Systematic Literature Review on Motives and Barriers. Appetite 2019, 143, 104402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Truong, V.A.; Lang, B.; Conroy, D.M. Are Trust and Consumption Values Important for Buyers of Organic Food? A Comparison of Regular Buyers, Occasional Buyers, and Non-Buyers. Appetite 2021, 161, 105123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Soroka, A.; Wojciechowska-Solis, J. Consumer Motivation to Buy Organic Food Depends on Lifestyle. Foods 2019, 8, 581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Mazurek-Kusiak, A.; Kobyłka, A.; Sawicki, B. Assessment of Nutritional Behavior of Polish Pupils and Students. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 2296–2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Barska, A. Exploring the Preferences of Consumers’ Organic Products in Aspects of Sustainable Consumption: The Case of the Polish Consumer. Agriculture 2021, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sierra, L.; Klonsky, K.; Strochlic, R.; Brodt, S.; Molinar, R. Factors Associated with Deregistration among Organic Farmers in California; University of California SAREP: Davis, CA, USA, 2008; Available online: sarep.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk5751/files/inline-files/2008_Deregistration_factors.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2021).
- Kołoszko-Chomentowska, Z.; Stalgiene, A. Annals of the Polish Association of Agricultural and Agribusiness Economists. Annals PAaAE 2019, XXI, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szlovicsák, K. (Ed.) Biokultúra Hírlevél. A biogazdálkodók, környezetkímélők és egészségkedvelők tájékoztatója; Magyar Biokultúra Szövetség: Budapest, Hungary, 2017; pp. 5–9. [Google Scholar]
- Kociszewski, K. Barriers and Factors Favourable for Functioning of Organic Farms in the Light of Nationwide Questionnaire Survey. Rocz. Nauk. 2014, XVI, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pelletier, J.E.; Laska, M.N.; Neumark-Sztainer, D.; Story, M. Positive Attitudes toward Organic, Local, and Sustainable Foods Are Associated with Higher Dietary Quality among Young Adults. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2013, 113, 127–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gombos, M.; Párdi, P. Transition towards Sustainability in Budapest through the Case of a Degrowth Fueled Social Cooperative; Aalborg University: Aalborg, Denmark, 2016; pp. 5–6. [Google Scholar]
- Frank, E.; Berg, M.V.; Decock, C.; Maat, H.; Srivastava, A. Does Organic Farming Provide a Viable Alternative for Smallholder Rice Farmers in India? Sustainability 2018, 10, 4424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Year | Organic Agricultural Productionin Tons | Absolute Increase (n) | Relative Increase (in %) | Dynamics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single-Base Indices 2012 = 100 | Chain Indices | Single-Base Indices 2012 = 100 | Chain Indices | |||
2012 | 96,214 | |||||
2013 | 119,596 | 23,382 | 23,382 | 24.3 | 24.3 | 1.243 |
2014 | 126,978 | 30,764 | 7382 | 32.0 | 6.2 | 1.062 |
2015 | 104,141 | 7927 | −22,837 | 8.2 | −18.0 | 0.820 |
2016 | 116,178 | 19,964 | 12,037 | 20.7 | 11.6 | 1.116 |
2017 | 132,460 | 36,246 | 16,282 | 37.7 | 14.0 | 1.140 |
2018 | 196,424 | 100,210 | 63,964 | 104.2 | 48.3 | 1.483 |
2019 | 212,692 | 116,478 | 16,268 | 121.1 | 8.3 | 1.083 |
annually on average | 138,085 | annually on average | 1.120 |
Year | Organic Agricultural Production in Tons | Absolute Increase (n) | Relative Increase (in %) | Dynamics | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Single-Base Indices | Chain Indices | Single-Base Indices | Chain Indices | |||
2012 = 100 | 2012 = 100 | |||||
2012 | 235,543 | |||||
2013 | 260,936 | 164,722 | 25,393 | 171.2 | 10.8 | 1.108 |
2014 | 290,023 | 193,809 | 29,087 | 201.4 | 11.1 | 1.111 |
2015 | 305,062 | 208,848 | 15,039 | 217.1 | 5.2 | 1.052 |
2016 | 355,199 | 258,985 | 50,137 | 269.2 | 16.4 | 1.164 |
2017 | 414,062 | 317,848 | 58,863 | 330.4 | 16.6 | 1.166 |
2018 | 517,472 | 421,258 | 103,410 | 437.8 | 25.0 | 1.250 |
2019 | 714,842 | 618,628 | 197,370 | 643.0 | 38.1 | 1.381 |
annually on average | 386,642 | annually on average | 1.172 |
Crops | Hungary | Poland | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tons | % | Tons | % | |
cereals for the production of grain | 101,473 | 49.6 | 271,901 | 41.0 |
rye and winter cereal mixtures | 4614 | 2.3 | 103,480 | 15.6 |
barley | 5969 | 2.9 | 5428 | 0.8 |
oats and spring cereal mixtures | 3149 | 1.5 | 62,652 | 9.4 |
grain maize and corn-cob-mix | 22,940 | 11.2 | 17,031 | 2.6 |
rice | 2286 | 1.1 | 0 | 0.0 |
dry pulses and protein crops for the production of grain | 3963 | 1.9 | 25,567 | 3.9 |
root crops | 7040 | 3.4 | 17,069 | 2.6 |
fresh vegetables | 23,815 | 11.6 | 70,398 | 10.6 |
strawberries | 55 | 0.0 | 7443 | 1.1 |
fruits from temperate climate zones | 24,353 | 11.9 | 82,460 | 12.4 |
grapes | 5109 | 2.5 | 279 | 0.0 |
summary | 204,766 | 100 | 663,708 | 100,0 |
Factor | Model of Discriminant Analysis: Wilks’s λ: 0.238; F (8.791) = 316.89; p < 0.001 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilks’s λ | F | p | Tolerance | Poland p = 0.5 | Hungary p = 0.5 | |
favorable location | 0.303 | 216.940 | <0.001 * | 0.952 | 5.349 | 2.857 |
subsidy/political support | 0.285 | 155.519 | <0.001 * | 0.937 | 4.817 | 2.701 |
willingness to innovate | 0.257 | 63.498 | <0.001 * | 0.782 | 3.111 | 1.643 |
willingness to protect nature | 0.243 | 18.422 | <0.001 * | 0.776 | 2.265 | 1.474 |
fashion for organic products | 0.243 | 16.935 | <0.001 * | 0.973 | 1.566 | 2.055 |
healthy food production | 0.239 | 3.167 | 0.076 | 0.912 | 2.184 | 1.875 |
desire to produce high-quality products | 0.238 | 0.364 | 0.546 | 0.921 | 0.524 | 0.478 |
tradition | 0.243 | 0.025 | 0.874 | 0.970 | 6.864 | 6.894 |
constant | −34.785 | −47.894 |
Factor | Model of Discriminant Analysis: Wilks’s λ: 0.238; F (8.791) = 316.89; p < 0.001 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Wilks’s λ | F | p | Tolerance | Poland p = 0.5 | Hungary p = 0.5 | |
adaptation to EU requirements | 0.295 | 298.083 | <0.001 * | 0.912 | 4.137 | 7.740 |
use of special plant protection products | 0.272 | 209.939 | <0.001 * | 0.918 | 3.345 | 6.395 |
application of natural fertilizers | 0.225 | 37.886 | <0.001 * | 0.800 | 2.417 | 1.510 |
low yields | 0.222 | 26.967 | <0.001 * | 0.762 | 0.795 | 0.036 |
no proper advice | 0.217 | 7.647 | 0.006 * | 0.593 | 1.548 | 2.013 |
high degree of bureaucracy/certification costs | 0.216 | 5.007 | 0.026 * | 0.945 | 1.748 | 1.459 |
high production costs | 0.215 | 0.630 | 0.428 | 0.592 | 0.994 | 0.855 |
constant | −21.957 | −37.947 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 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/).
Share and Cite
Mazurek-Kusiak, A.; Sawicki, B.; Kobyłka, A. Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148005
Mazurek-Kusiak A, Sawicki B, Kobyłka A. Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14):8005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148005
Chicago/Turabian StyleMazurek-Kusiak, Anna, Bogusław Sawicki, and Agata Kobyłka. 2021. "Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study" Sustainability 13, no. 14: 8005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148005
APA StyleMazurek-Kusiak, A., Sawicki, B., & Kobyłka, A. (2021). Contemporary Challenges to the Organic Farming: A Polish and Hungarian Case Study. Sustainability, 13(14), 8005. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13148005