Organic Farming | 2016 | Volume 2 | Issue 1 | Pages 23–27

DOI: 10.12924/of2016.02010023

ISSN: 2297–6485

Organic

Farming

Research Article

Can the Adoption of Organic Farming Be Predicted by

Biogeographic Factors? A French Case Study

Marco Pautasso

1,†,

*, Anja Vieweger

and A. M

arcia Barbosa

Animal and Plant Health Unit, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

Organic Research Centre, Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, UK

Centro de Investiga

c¸

ao em Biodiversidade e Recursos Gen

eticos (CIBIO), InBIO Research Network in Biodiversity and

Evolutionary Biology, University of

Evora, Portugal

* Corresponding author: E-Mail: mar[email protected]; Tel.: +39 521036775

†

The positions and opinions presented in this article are those of the authors alone and are not intended to represent the

views or scientiﬁc works of EFSA.

Submitted: 13 January 2016 | In revised form: 21 April 2016 | Accepted: 9 June 2016 |

Published: 29 June 2016

Abstract:

Organic farming adoption is on the rise in many countries, due to the increased awareness of

farmers, citizens, governments and other stakeholders of its more sustainable nature. Various studies

have investigated the socio-economic drivers (e.g., consumer demand, support measures, agricultural

policies) of organic farming adoption, but less attention has been paid to whether biogeographic factors

could also be associated with variation in rates of organically managed farms in certain regions within

countries. We investigate whether biogeographic factors are associated with variation in the proportion of

land under organic farming in French departments. The proportion of land under organic farming increased

with decreasing latitude and increasing department area. Non-signiﬁcant factors were number of plant

taxa, proportion of Natura 2000 protected areas, connectivity, longitude, altitude and department population.

These results were robust to controlling for spatial autocorrelation. Larger and southern French departments

tend to have a greater adoption of organic farming, possibly because of the more extensive nature of

agriculture in such regions. Biogeographic factors have been relatively neglected in investigations of the

drivers of organic farming adoption, but may have an important explanatory value.

Keywords:

biodiversity; France, human population; land sharing; macroecology; organic farming; plant

species richness; protected areas; spatial autocorrelation; sustainable development

1. Introduction

Organic farming is on the rise globally [

]. Between 2001

and 2011, agricultural land under organic management

increased from nearly 16 to over 37 million hectares world-

wide [

]. This trend is also reﬂected in the market for organ-

ically grown produce; during the same decade, the global

organic market grew by 170%, with sales reaching nearly

63 billion US$ in 2011 [

]. In 2011, France (3.8 billion Eu-

ros) was the second largest market for organic products in

Europe (21.5 billion Euros) [4].

Organic farming aims to reconnect agriculture with na-

 2016 by the authors; licensee Librello, Switzerland. This open access article was published

under a Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

librello

ture and biodiversity, making use of natural systems and

cycles and reducing external inputs (for example, growing

a wider variety of crops and using natural ways to reduce

pest populations, e.g. rotations). Industrial agriculture is

currently one of the greatest threats to biodiversity [

–

Several studies have shown that organic farming beneﬁts

biodiversity, because of its less intensive cultivation prac-

tices [8–14] (see also [15]).

So far, studies investigating factors driving organic farm-

ing adoption have focused on socio-economic factors (e.g.,

agricultural policies, consumer demand, support measures

and networks) [

–

]. However, given the connection of

organic farming with nature, it could also be expected that

the presence of organic farming co-varies with regional vari-

ation in biodiversity, as was shown at the landscape level

[

]. Given that large-scale variation in biodiversity is in turn

associated with biogeographic factors such as latitude, area

and human population [

–

], it is reasonable to expect

that also regional patterns in organic farming adoption will

tend to be associated with such biogeographic factors.

This study aims to test this hypothesis by using data

on organic farming adoption from French departments, to-

gether with some key biogeographic factors. Our main

question was: is organic farming more likely to be adopted

in regions with an already higher presence of biodiversity?

More generally, can biogeographic factors help predict pat-

terns in organic farming adoption across regions?

2. Material and Methods

Data on the proportion of agricultural land under or-

ganic farming (2008) for the 96 French metropolitan de-

partments (with exception of Paris: data not available)

were obtained from the website for sustainable develop-

ment of the French government (http://www.statistiques.

developpement-durable.gouv.fr/). From the same website,

data for each French department were obtained on land-

scape connectivity (average size of natural habitats; 2006),

the proportion of Natura 2000 protected areas (2009), the

total area and human population (2011). Altitude was

obtained from [

] as a raster map at ca. 1 km

resolu-

tion, and averaged at French departments using the zonal

statistics plugin of QGIS 2.6 [

] and an administrative

map downloaded from the EDIT Geoplatform [

]. Natura

2000 data are indicators of recent efforts to achieve na-

ture protection and may not be representative of historic

or overall actions to protect nature, as the Natura 2000

reserve selection focused on regions with low presence

of already available protection (i.e. National and Regional

parks). Data on the number of vascular plant taxa (including

subspecies) recorded for each department were obtained

in 2012 from the Tela Botanica website (http://www.tela-

botanica.org/page:chorologie?format=html). Given the rel-

atively low number of data points, we avoided including

an excessive number of explanatory variables; further bio-

geographic factors could be considered in future analyses,

including distance from the sea and road density.

Multivariate models were run in Spatial Analysis for

Macroecology (SAM) [

]. Given that spatial autocorre-

lation can reduce the effective degrees of freedom, thus

leading to potentially misleading P-values [

], the analysis

was performed both without (Linear Regression Model) and

with controlling (Spatial Autoregression, Generalized Least

Squares, with a Gaussian Model for the residual spatial

component) for spatial autocorrelation [

]. All variables

(apart from latitude and longitude) were log-transformed

prior to analysis so as to better approach a normal distri-

bution. Non-signiﬁcant variables (at p

0.05) were kept

in the models to demonstrate that they were not signiﬁcant

predictors. The signiﬁcance of the signiﬁcant factors was

robust against model reduction. We did not observe strong

collinearity (correlation coefﬁcient

0.70) among the ex-

planatory variables, with the only exception of connectivity

and plant biodiversity (correlation coefﬁcient = 0.75).

3. Results

Without controlling for spatial autocorrelation, the propor-

tion of organic farming in French departments increased

signiﬁcantly with decreasing latitude and increasing depart-

ment area. There was no signiﬁcant association with plant

biodiversity, proportion of protected areas, connectivity, lon-

gitude, altitude and human population size (Table 1).

All these results were confirmed when controlling for spa-

tial autocorrelation, although with slightly different P-values

and parameter estimates (Table 2). On its own, latitude ex-

plains about 40% of the variation among French departments

in their proportion of organic farming (Figure 1). Department

area on its own explains about 17% of the variation in pro-

portion of organic farming, but this is largely due to a few

data points, i.e. some small departments in the Ile-de-France

area with very low proportion of organic farming.

Table 1.

Results of a General Linear Model for the proportion of agricultural land under organic farming in French

Departments (2008) as a function of plant biodiversity, landscape connectivity, proportion of Natura 2000 protected areas,

latitude, longitude, altitude, human population size and department area. The number of data points is 95, the adjusted

of the model 0.50, and the intercept 1.457 (s.e. = 2.074).

N of plant taxa Landscape connectivity % Natura 2000 Latitude Longitude Altitude Human population Area

parameter estimate 0.264 0.047 0.113 -0.084 0.003 0.038 0.056 0.327

s.e. 0.486 0.101 0.09 0.024 0.017 0.172 0.132 0.139

P-value 0.59 0.64 0.21 <0.001 0.87 0.82 0.67 0.02

Table 2.

Results of a Generalized Least Squares model controlling for spatial autocorrelation, for the proportion of agricul-

tural land under organic farming in French Departments (2008) as a function of plant biodiversity, landscape connectivity,

proportion of Natura 2000 protected areas, latitude, longitude, altitude, human population size and department area. The

number of data points is 95, the Akaike Criterion Indicator of the model 59.9, and the intercept 1.457 (s.e. = 1.972).

N of plant taxa Landscape connectivity % Natura 2000 Latitude Longitude Altitude Human population Area (km

)

Parameter estimate 0.264 0.047 0.113 -0.084 0.003 0.038 0.056 0.327

s.e. 0.462 0.096 0.086 0.023 0.016 0.164 0.125 0.133

P-value 0.57 0.63 0.19 <0.001 0.87 0.81 0.65 0.02

4. Discussion

Several studies have shown the essential role of agro-

ecological approaches, and particularly organic agriculture,

for sustainable development [

–

]. Ecological intensiﬁ-

cation enables an improvement of productivity while at the

same time reducing adverse effects on the environment

[

–

]. Not only the adoption of organic farming practices,

but also research on organic farming has expanded consid-

erably over the last years [

–

]. This study provides

evidence that biogeographic factors can be associated with

patterns in organic farming adoption across regions.

There are three main results of this analysis. First, there

are no substantial differences between models of the pro-

portion of organic farming in French departments (i) taking

spatial autocorrelation into account, and (ii) not taking it

into account. The results of models taking into account

spatial correlation are more conservative and should be

trusted more than those without taking it into account, but

in this case there are only slight differences in parameter

estimates and P-values.

Second, this result does not imply that there is no spatial

autocorrelation in the examined variables. For example, the

investigated response variable (the proportion of cultivated

land under organic farming) was signiﬁcantly spatially auto-

correlated at short distances, as shown by an analysis of

Moran’s I (Figure 2). This result is in agreement with previ-

ous reports of spatial aggregation and neighbouring effects

in the adoption of organic farming within countries [42–45].

To some extent, such spatial aggregation might be due to

the underlying spatial autocorrelation of biogeographic fac-

tors associated with variation in organic farming adoption.

However, there is also an important role of neighbouring

effects of e.g. social networks and farmer communities in

explaining the spatial aggregation of organic farming.

A third result of this study (which holds when controlling for

spatial autocorrelation) is the latitudinal gradient from North

to South in French adoption of organic farming. Farmers in

the South of France might have switched more easily to or-

ganic cultivation because of the larger variety of crops they

can cultivate in their climatic and environmental settings. In

addition, it could be easier to switch to organic cultivation in

viticulture (which is typical in Southern France) than for other

crops. Moreover, due to a mix of climatic, edaphic, historical

and cultural reasons, Southern French departments tend to be

located in regions of less intensive agriculture, thus facilitating

the adoption of less intensive agricultural practices [46]. This

finding is in agreement with previous analyses in England,

Germany, the USA and Sweden, which found that organic

farming was more likely to occur in marginal areas, where

the loss of production due to organic conversion is relatively

small [

] and in regions with more heterogeneous land-

scapes [

], thus likely to harbour greater plant biodiversity

[

]. However, we did not observe a significant association

of organic farming adoption with plant biodiversity. It is also

possible that the observed latitudinal gradient in organic farm-

ing adoption correlates with other socio-economic factors (e.g.

personal beliefs, levels of political and financial support, public

perceptions, type of crops) that were not considered here.

-1.2

-0.9

-0.6

-0.3

0.0

0.3

0.6

0.9

1.2

40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Log

% organic agriculture

Latitude (°)

Figure 1.

Latitudinal gradient of the proportion of agri-

cultural land under organic farming (logarithmically trans-

formed) in French departments (2008; n = 95,

−0.125x + 6.079, R

= 0.40, p < 0.001).

Figure 2.

Moran’s I for the proportion of agricultural land un-

der organic farming (logarithmically transformed) in French

departments (2008).

Interestingly, although there is generally little variation

among French departments in area, this was a signiﬁcant

factor in our analysis, due to the few very small departments

(mainly located in the Paris area) having surprisingly low

organic farming adoption rates.

Further research should investigate whether biogeo-

graphic factors are still significant determinants of organic

farming adoption when including a large suite of socio-

economic explanatory variables. Econometric and socio-

economic models of organic farming adoption may benefit

from including data on large-scale biogeographic factors. It

would also be interesting to use a finer spatial resolution of the

data used here, to test for any scale-dependence in the rela-

tive importance of biogeographic and socio-economic factors

as explanatory variables for organic farming adoption rates.

5. Conclusions

Most research on regional patterns of organic farming

has focused on socio-economic and cultural factors,

from policy support to agglomeration effects and from

the philosophy of farmers to the development of mar-

kets for organic produce and organic seed [40,51–59].

Whilst these factors are undoubtedly important, this

study builds on evidence obtained at the landscape

level on the role of environmental factors in shaping

organic farming adoption [

] and suggests that bio-

geographic variables may play a contributing role in

how widespread organic farming is becoming across

entire countries.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to V. Chable, O. Holdenrieder, D. McKey

and S. Vos for insights and discussions, and to T.

oring, T. Matoni and anonymous reviewers for helpful

comments on a previous draft. AMB is supported by

Fundac¸

ao para a Ci

encia e a Tecnologia through ‘FCT

Investigator’ contract IF/00266/2013 and exploratory

project CP1168/CT0001.

References and Notes

[1] Granatstein D, Kirby E, Willer H, et al. Organic horticulture expands

globally. Chronica Horticulturae. 2010;50(4):31–38.

[2]

Paull J. The uptake of organic agriculture: A decade of world-

wide development. Journal of Social and Development Sciences.

2011;2(3):111–120.

[3]

Willer H, Lernoud J, Home R. The world of organic agriculture 2013:

Summary. In: Willer H, Lernoud J, Kilcher L, editors. The World of Or-

ganic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends. Frick, Switzerland:

Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) and International Fed-

eration of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM); 2013. pp. 26–33.

[4] Schaack D PSWH Lernoud J. The organic market in Europe 2011—

Nine percent increase compared with 2010. In: Willer H, Lernoud J,

Kilcher L, editors. The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and

Emerging Trends. Frick, Switzerland: Research Institute of Organic

Agriculture (FiBL) and International Federation of Organic Agriculture

Movements (IFOAM); 2013. pp. 224–229.

[5] Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF. Agricultural intensiﬁcation and the

collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings of the

Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences. 2001;268(1462):25–

29. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1325.

[6]

Stoate C, B

aldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, et al.

Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe

– A review. Journal of Environmental Management. 2009;91(1):22–46.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005.

[7]

Balmford A, Green R, Phalan B. What conservationists need to

know about farming. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological

Sciences. 2012;279(1739):2714–2724. doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.0515.

[8]

Mader P. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science.

2002;296(5573):1694–1697. doi:10.1126/science.1071148.

[9]

Gabriel D, Tscharntke T. Insect pollinated plants beneﬁt from organic

farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2007;118(1-4):43–

48. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2006.04.005.

[10]

Holzschuh A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T. Agricultural land-

scapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity. Oikos.

2008;117(3):354–361. doi:10.1111/j.2007.0030-1299.16303.x.

[11]

Chifﬂot V, Rivest D, Olivier A, Cogliastro A, Khasa D. Molecu-

lar analysis of arbuscular mycorrhizal community structure and

spores distribution in tree-based intercropping and forest sys-

tems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2009;131(1-2):32–39.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.11.010.

[12] Rundl

of M, Edlund M, Smith HG. Organic farming at local and land-

scape scales beneﬁts plant diversity. Ecography. 2009;33(3):514–522.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.05938.x.

[13]

Tuomisto HL, Hodge ID, Riordan P, Macdonald DW. Does or-

ganic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis

of European research. Journal of Environmental Management.

2012;112:309–320. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.018.

[14]

Tuck SL, Winqvist C, Mota F, Ahnstr

om J, Turnbull LA, Bengtsson

J. Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodi-

versity: a hierarchical meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology.

2014;51(3):746–755. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12219.

[15] Schneider MK, L

uscher G, Jeanneret P, Arndorfer M, Ammari Y, Bai-

ley D, et al. Gains to species diversity in organically farmed ﬁelds are

not propagated at the farm level. Nature Communications. 2014;5.

doi:10.1038/ncomms5151.

[16]

Lamine C, Bellon S. Conversion to organic farming: a multidi-

mensional research object at the crossroads of agricultural and so-

cial sciences. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development.

2009;29(1):97–112. doi:10.1051/agro:2008007.

[17]

Schmidtner E, Lippert C, Dabbert S. Haben Nachbarschaftseffekte

einen Einﬂuss auf die r

aumliche Verteilung des

Oko-Landbaus in

Deutschland? 20. Jahrestagung der

Osterreichischen Gesellschaft

ur Agrar

okonomie. In: Land-und Ern

ahrungswirtschaft 2020. Vienna,

Austria: Universit

at f

ur Bodenkultur; 2010. pp. 109–110.

[18]

Kaufmann P, Zemeckis R, Skulskis V, Kairyte E, Stagl S. The diffusion

of organic farming in Lithuania. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture.

2011;35(5):522–549. doi:10.1080/10440046.2011.579838.

[19]

Ilbery B, Kirwan J, Maye D. Explaining regional and local differ-

ences in organic farming in England and Wales: A comparison

of South West Wales and South East England. Regional Studies.

2014;50(1):110–123. doi:10.1080/00343404.2014.895805.

[20]

Gabriel D, Carver SJ, Durham H, Kunin WE, Palmer RC, Sait SM,

et al. The spatial aggregation of organic farming in England and

its underlying environmental correlates. Journal of Applied Ecology.

2009;46(2):323–333. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2009.01624.x.

[21]

Bernholt H, Kehlenbeck K, Gebauer J, Buerkert A. Plant species rich-

ness and diversity in urban and peri-urban gardens of Niamey, Niger.

Agroforestry Systems. 2009;77(3):159–179. doi:10.1007/s10457-

009-9236-8.

[22]

Pecher C, Fritz SA, Marini L, Fontaneto D, Pautasso M. Scale-

dependence of the correlation between human population and the

species richness of stream macro-invertebrates. Basic and Applied

Ecology. 2010;11(3):272–280. doi:10.1016/j.baae.2009.09.005.

[23]

Freeman J. Domesticated crop richness in human subsistence cul-

tivation systems: a test of macroecological and economic deter-

minants. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2011;21(4):428–440.

doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2011.00687.x.

[24]

de Grenade R, Nabhan GP. Baja California peninsula oases: An

agro-biodiversity of isolation and integration. Applied Geography.

2013;41:24–35. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.03.008.

[25] Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A. Very high

resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. In-

ternational Journal of Climatology. 2005;25(15):1965–1978. Data

available from: http://www.worldclim.org. doi:10.1002/joc.1276.

[26]

QGIS Development Team. QGIS Geographic Information System;

2014. Available from: http://qgis.osgeo.org.

[27]

Sastre P, Roca P, Lobo JM. A Geoplatform for improving acces-

sibility to environmental cartography. Journal of Biogeography.

2009;36(3):568–568. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02070.x.

[28]

Rangel TF, Diniz-Filho JAF, Bini LM. SAM: a comprehensive applica-

tion for Spatial Analysis in Macroecology. Ecography. 2010;33(1):46–

50. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2009.06299.x.

[29]

Dormann CF. Effects of incorporating spatial autocorrelation into the

analysis of species distribution data. Global Ecology and Biogeogra-

phy. 2007;16(2):129–138. doi:10.1111/j.1466-8238.2006.00279.x.

[30]

Pautasso M, Zotti M. Macrofungal taxa and human population in

Italy’s regions. Biodiversity and Conservation. 2008;18(2):473–485.

doi:10.1007/s10531-008-9511-4.

[31] Cantarello E, Steck CE, Fontana P, Fontaneto D, Marini L, Pautasso

M. A multi-scale study of Orthoptera species richness and human

population size controlling for sampling effort. Naturwissenschaften.

2009;97(3):265–271. doi:10.1007/s00114-009-0636-4.

[32]

Geertsema W, Rossing WA, Landis DA, Bianchi FJ, van Rijn PC,

Schamin

ee JH, et al. Actionable knowledge for ecological intensi-

ﬁcation of agriculture. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

2016;14(4):209–216. doi:10.1002/fee.1258.

[33]

Gomiero T, Pimentel D, Paoletti MG. Environmental impact of dif-

ferent agricultural management practices: Conventional vs. organic

agriculture. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2011;30(1-2):95–124.

doi:10.1080/07352689.2011.554355.

[34]

Wolf BM, H

aring AM, Heß J. Strategies towards evaluation beyond

scientiﬁc impact. Pathways not only for agricultural Research. Or-

ganic Farming. 2015;1(1). doi:10.12924/of2015.01010003.

[35]

Watson CA, Atkinson D, Gosling P, Jackson LR, Rayns FW. Managing

soil fertility in organic farming systems. Soil Use and Management.

2006;18:239–247. doi:10.1111/j.1475-2743.2002.tb00265.x.

[36]

Kassam A, Friedrich T. Nutrient management in conservation agricul-

ture: a biologically-based approach to sustainable production intensi-

ﬁcation. In: 7th Conservation Agriculture Conference. Dnipropetrovsk,

Ukraine; 2009. pp. 1–20.

[37]

Scialabba NEH, M

uller-Lindenlauf M. Organic agriculture and climate

change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2010;25(02):158–

169. doi:10.1017/s1742170510000116.

[38]

Smith LG, Williams AG, Pearce BD. The energy efﬁciency of organic

agriculture: A review. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems.

2014;30(03):280–301. doi:10.1017/s1742170513000471.

[39]

Siegmeier T, M

oller D. Mapping research at the intersection

of organic farming and bioenergy — A scientometric review.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2013;25:197–204.

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.04.025.

[40] D

oring TF. A fresh start for organic farming research. 2013;1(1):1–2.

doi:10.12924/of2014.01010001.

[41]

Aleixandre JL, Aleixandre-Tud

o JL, Bola

nos-Pizarro M, Aleixandre-

Benavent R. Mapping the scientiﬁc research in organic farm-

ing: a bibliometric review. Scientometrics. 2015;105(1):295–309.

doi:10.1007/s11192-015-1677-4.

[42]

Schmidtner E, Lippert C, Engler B, Haring AM, Aurbacher J, Dab-

bert S. Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does

neighbourhood matter? European Review of Agricultural Economics.

2011;39(4):661–683. doi:10.1093/erae/jbr047.

[43]

Lapple D, Kelley H. Spatial dependence in the adoption of organic

drystock farming in Ireland. European Review of Agricultural Eco-

nomics. 2014;42(2):315–337. doi:10.1093/erae/jbu024.

[44]

Wollni M, Andersson C. Spatial patterns of organic agriculture adop-

tion: Evidence from Honduras. Ecological Economics. 2014;97:120–

128. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.11.010.

[45]

Yang AL, Rounsevell MDA, Wilson RM, Haggett C. Spatial anal-

ysis of agri-environmental policy uptake and expenditure in Scot-

land. Journal of Environmental Management. 2014;133:104–115.

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.11.038.

[46]

Teillard F, Allaire G, Cahuzac E, L

eger F, Maign

e E, Tichit M. A novel

method for mapping agricultural intensity reveals its spatial aggrega-

tion: Implications for conservation policies. Agriculture, Ecosystems

& Environment. 2012;149:135–143. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.12.018.

[47]

Kostandini G, Mykerezi E, Tanellari E. Viability of organic pro-

duction in rural counties: county and state-level evidence from

the United States. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics.

2011;43(03):443–451.

[48]

Rund

olf M, Smith HG. The effect of organic farming on butterﬂy

diversity depends on landscape context. Journal of Applied Ecology.

2006;43(6):1121–1127. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01233.x.

[49]

Norton L, Johnson P, Joys A, Stuart R, Chamberlain D, Feber R, et al.

Consequences of organic and non-organic farming practices for ﬁeld,

farm and landscape complexity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environ-

ment. 2009;129(1-3):221–227. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.09.002.

[50]

Bredemeier B, R

uter S, von Haaren C, Reich M, Schaarschmidt F.

Spatial congruence between organic farming and biodiversity related

landscape features in Germany. International Journal of Biodiversity

Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. 2015;11(4):330–340.

doi:10.1080/21513732.2015.1094515.

[51]

Padel S. Conversion to organic farming: A typical example of the

diffusion of an innovation? Sociologia Ruralis. 2001;41(1):40–61.

doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00169.

[52]

Koesling M, Flaten O, Lien G. Factors inﬂuencing the conver-

sion to organic farming in Norway. IJARGE. 2008;7(1–2):78–95.

doi:10.1504/ijarge.2008.016981.

[53]

Geniaux G, Lambert M, Bellon S. Analyse de la diffusion spatiale de

l’agriculture biologique en r

egion Provence-Alpes-C

ote d’Azur (Paca):

construction d’une m

ethodologie d’observation et de prospective. In-

novations Agronomiques. 2009;4:417–426.

[54]

oring TF, Bocci R, Hitchings R, Howlett S, van Bueren ETL, Pautasso

M, et al. The organic seed regulations framework in Europe—Current

status and recommendations for future development. Organic Agricul-

ture. 2012;2(3-4):173–183. doi:10.1007/s13165-012-0034-7.

[55]

Allaire G, Cahuzac

E, Pom

eon T, Simioni M. Approche spa-

tiale de la conversion

a l’agriculture biologique. Les dynamiques

egionales en France.

Economie rurale. 2014;(339-340):9–31.

doi:10.4000/economierurale.4200.

[56]

Latruffe L, Nauges C. Technical efﬁciency and conversion to or-

ganic farming: the case of France. European Review of Agricultural

Economics. 2013;41(2):227–253. doi:10.1093/erae/jbt024.

[57]

Allaire G, Pom

eon T, Maign

e E, Cahuzac E, Simioni M, Desjeux Y.

Territorial analysis of the diffusion of organic farming in France: Be-

tween heterogeneity and spatial dependence. Ecological Indicators.

2015;59:70–81. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.009.

[58]

Home R, Ries E, Tschanz A, Inderm

uhle A. Social factors

in the decision by Swiss farmers to convert to organic farming.

Acta Fytotechnica et Zootecnica. 2015;18(Special Issue):154–156.

doi:10.15414/afz.2015.18.si.154-156.

[59]

Boncinelli F, Bartolini F, Brunori G, Casini L. Spatial anal-

ysis of the participation in agri-environment measures for or-

ganic farming. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. 2015;

doi:10.1017/s1742170515000307.