REVIEWARTICLE

Psychological influences on biosecurity control and farmerdecision-making. A review

Aditi Mankad1

Accepted: 19 May 2016 /Published online: 7 June 2016# INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2016

Abstract There is an increase of biosecurity threats in agricul-ture because greater urbanisation and movement of humansmeans that pests migrate more easily than ever before. Poormanagement of biosecurity risks can lead to threats to humanhealth, animal health and food or material production. Qualityassurance programs and guidelines for best management prac-tices exist in the plant and animal farming sector. However,there is scarce knowledge on individual decision-making rele-vant to biosecurity, motivation to implement protective behav-iours and human adherence to biosecurity practices. Indeed,people have often long-term habits that are resistant to behav-iour change initiatives. These conservative habits limit the ef-fectiveness of risk management interventions and attention tonew information that contradicts existing attitudes and beliefs.This paper reviews the potential influences of psychological,social and cognitive factors on biosecurity-related behaviourand management practices. The major aspects covered in thisreview are as follows: (1) underlying attitudes to biosecurityrisk and perceived vulnerability to a biosecurity threat, (2) theinfluence of social incentives and social norms on individualbehaviour, (3) motivational drivers and the notion of threatperception in engaging in protective behaviour, (4) consider-ation of emotional and cognitive biases in assessing risk and(5) the influence of pre-existing antecedents of decision-makingbeyond personal factors, such as context and policy withinwhich decisions must be made. This review makes the criticalpoint that human adoption and adherence to biosecurity prac-tices is influenced by psychosocial factors and is an area of

urgent research and policy consideration. An exploratory modelis presented for future research and on-the-ground consider-ations, incorporating psychosocial influences on decision-making and potential mediating factors.

Keywords Norms . Cognitions . Horticulture . Behaviour .

Risk

Contents1. Introduction1.1 The psychology of biosecurity

2. Attitudes and perceptions2.1 Risk attitudes2.2 Social incentives, social norms and diffusion

3. Motivation and adherence3.1 Protection motivation

4. Emotion, stress and attachment5. Cognitive bias5.1 Cognitive dissonance

6. Socio-contextual factors7. Summary and implications for a social-psychologicalmodel of biosecurity engagement behaviour7.1 A hypothesised model of farmer risk decision-

making8. Conclusion9. Acknowledgments10. References

1 Introduction

Biosecurity is broadly defined as the protection of public health,environment and economy against negative impacts associated

* Aditi Mankadaditi.mankad@csiro.au

1 CSIRO Land & Water, GPO Box 2583, Brisbane, QLD 4001,Australia

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40DOI 10.1007/s13593-016-0375-9

with pests and disease within food and agricultural systems(Department of Primary Industries 2013; Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations 2013). In recent years, thepotential for biosecurity threats to impact agriculture and foodproduction has increased, as greater urbanisation and the move-ment of humans across the globe allow pests to migrate moreeasily than ever before via human transmission, clothing andparticulars. Also, as modern trade intensifies, so too do pathwaysfor spreading plant and animal pests and diseases. Biosecurity asit is defined here is a relatively modern concept; therefore, it isconstantly evolving as new information feeds into the knowledgestructure. However, a modern understanding of biosecurityaround the world consistently incorporates the notion of sharedresponsibility and strategic integration of effort within its defini-tion which reflects the need for national and global action. TheUnited Nations’ biosecurity strategy, too, calls for the improvedcoordination amongst national bodies to enforce ‘sanitary,phytosanitary and zoosanitary’measures to prevent and/or man-age hazards while ensuring trade is not negatively affected (Foodand Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2009).

In the context of agricultural and plant biosecurity, the ideaof shared responsibility advocates the need for biosecurity-related activities to be coordinated between and across all facetsof food production, from individual-level on-farm behavioursto the area-wide transportation of goods, and the responsibili-ties of the general public living near places of production. Poormanagement of biosecurity risks can lead to threats to humanhealth, such as contamination of food products through pestand disease treatments, ingestion of pathogen-contaminatedfoods and respiratory problems associated with problematicweed species (Heymann 2005; Department of PrimaryIndustries 2013). The negative economic impacts of poorbiosecurity on productivity and industry-level consequencesare also exacerbated by subsequently stringentmarket protocolsin place and strict restrictions on the trade of goods from re-gions known to have prevalence of a pest or disease in legisla-tion and international agreements.

Qualitative evidence suggests that not all farmers complywith recommended biosecurity protocols for risk protectionand management. A report by the Australian government,for example, cited a significant gap in current biosecurity en-gagement in terms of adequate monitoring and evaluation ofthreat, risk and on-farm practices (Kruger et al. 2009). Therealso seems to be a reactive decision-making culture amongstgrowers in the context of biosecurity. That is, rather than hav-ing a regulated and consistently managed program to dealwith potential threat(s), growers will only change their prac-tices in response to an immediate threat, rather than engagingin protective behaviours to prevent a threat. Further, the focusof protective biosecurity action tends to be on threats that areknown, rather than risks posed by those pests and/or diseaseswhich may not yet be in Australia; prompting behaviour thattargets the latter is a particularly difficult message to convey,

especially to the general public who may be exhibiting high-risk behaviours such as not declaring produce or goodssourced overseas (Beale et al. 2008; Kruger et al. 2009).Such behaviour can be stressful and costly to individualgrowers, as they are suddenly required to pest-proof their farmvery quickly and usually at a high and acute cost.

As Pannell et al. (2006) explain, farmers do readily adoptsome new practices on-farm, when they benefit to the actions(e.g. Fig. 1); however, they can see a clear financial and prac-tical benefit to the actions; however, they are harder to con-vince when benefits are less immediately tangible. This is be-cause of the significance and complexity of daily decisions thatcompete for a farmer’s time and all of which consume valuableattentional and emotional resources, leaving little cognitiveenergy to consider issues that appear less time-sensitive.

1.1 The psychology of biosecurity

The key psychological issues to consider when examining on-farm biosecurity and decision-making are as follows:

– On-farm behaviours are based on pre-existing subjectiveknowledge and they are learned behaviours that have be-come habitual; therefore, they are open to change butrequire a psychological shift.

– Individuals must have the resilience to persevere (adhere)to changed practices in order to properly control and po-tentially eradicate the pest or disease.

– Practicing biosecurity has implications for the individual,as well as others (social aspect).

– Farmers must see the relevance and necessity ofbiosecurity-relevant behaviours and feel that it is worththeir time and involvement.

Fig. 1 Biosecurity in action on an Australian banana plantation. Imagesource: Dr. Matthew Curnock, CSIRO

40 Page 2 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

– Growers must trust that the dominant administrative bod-ies are reliable sources of information and they can betrusted to manage biosecurity initiatives.

For many farmers, asking them to adopt unfamiliar or alter-native practices is a serious request, as they have likely spentyears developing a set of systems and routines that work bestfor their business and their land. To shift away from thesehabitual behaviours sometimes requires a shift in attitudes andperceptions to convince individuals that a change is necessaryand beneficial. One’s psychological preparedness and decision-making capacity is what distinguishes groups of growers andthe adoption of novel biosecurity practices. There is also a clearfinancial incentive to be proactive regarding biosecurity, be-cause effective biosecurity management can mitigate produc-tion losses and monetary consequences of poorly managedthreats to food production (Abdalla et al. 2012; Hoe andRuegg 2006). However, not all farmers engage in behavioursthat reflect best practice or control in terms of biosecurity.While quality assurance programs and guidelines for best man-agement practices exist in multiple food production industries,farmers broadly remain uneducated about the potential severityof, and vulnerability to, relevant biosecurity risks.

When breaking down ‘biosecurity’ to the behavioural lev-el, it becomes clear that there are dominant psychologicalissues relevant to behavioural uptake and adherence to on-farm practices and the psychological factors that drive thedecision to enact protective behaviours. Often, people havelong-term habits that are resistant to behaviour change initia-tives, which can limit the effectiveness of risk managementinterventions. Pre-existing beliefs and attitudes about manage-ment practices and/or the spread of disease can also influencepeople’s perceived vulnerability to certain biosecurity risks.This affects growers’ confidence in their ability to engage inmitigation behaviours and the risk-related activities they con-sequently engage in (Bish and Michie 2010).

Past research on attitudes and perceptions specific to thebiosecurity domain has predominantly been conducted in theanimal industry, examining issues such as foot and mouthdisease, equine influenza and other diseases found in commer-cial animal production (Buetre et al. 2013; Hoe and Ruegg2006; Schemann et al. 2011). Results have typically demon-strated that farmers perceive the level of investment requiredto implement biosecurity practices on-farm as costly, in termsof both financial cost and effort. Inherent in this finding is anassumption that, at the core, some farmers are not convincedthat increased biosecurity management efforts and improve-ments to physical systems on-farm (e.g. increased fencing,wash-down facilities) are worth this increased commitment.Rather, there are day-to-day pest and crop management issuesthat take precedence over a preventative biosecurity measurefor a disease or pest that may or may not be a threat. A furtherbarrier to widespread biosecurity practices is trusting a

taxonomic diagnosis of a disease or pest. A misdiagnosis—either personal or vicarious—can reduce trust in the reportingsystems and weaken intentions to report future biosecuritythreats and a reduced uptake of protective behaviours.

While the key players responsible for biosecurity controlmight include farmers, peak industry bodies and governments,it is widely accepted that farmers remain at the forefront ofdisease prevention. Farmers are best placed to manage risksand implement protective on-farm practices, as well as finan-cially benefitting most from disease control (e.g. Departmentfor Environment Food and Rural Affairs 2014; Plant HealthAustralia 2011; Scottish Executive 2002). However, not allfarmers will view a biosecurity threat in the same way and,thus, will experience varying levels of motivation to engage inprotective behaviour. This creates a tenuous social environ-ment in which individual cognitions and motivations aroundappropriate biosecurity risk responses come into play. Further,complexities surround the definition of a biosecurity incursionand ownership of biosecurity practices will likely influencesdecision-making. Thus, a ‘shared’ approach to biosecuritymanagement may give way to a potentially fractious socialenvironment where some growers feel as though they areinvesting more time, money or effort into a biosecurity re-sponse while others are seen as taking on less of the share(Enticott and Vanclay 2011).

This discussion paper hypothesises that, while farmers knowthat biosecurity protection is important and are aware of poten-tial benefits of risk management strategies on their farms, thereexist significant social and psychological factors influencing theinterpretation of risk and the ultimate adoption (or non-adoption)of risk management behaviours at the individual-level. Themethodology for this review was to search the broaderbiosecurity and agricultural literature where biosecurity, behav-ioural adoption and social-psychological principles were specif-ically discussed. While some broad social reviews exist relatingto adoption of new practices in the agricultural context (e.g.Pannell et al. 2006), this paper purposefully examines researchwhich illustrates the importance of understanding biosecuritydecision-making through a psychological lens. This allows amore nuanced discussion of underlying cognitive and motiva-tional processes that may be occurring during biosecurity-relevant decision-making, and what psychological factors couldbe targeted for future behaviour change initiatives.

2 Attitudes and perceptions

Hogg and Vaughan (2005) define attitudes as an enduringorganisation of beliefs, feelings and behavioural tendenciestowards objects, events, individuals or groups. The functionof attitudes is to provide evaluative information and this canbe positive, negative or uncertain; attitudes are an importantarea of study in psychology because they help to determine

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 3 of 14 40

what people do and why they do it. There are three psycho-logical components that comprise attitudes: affective, behav-ioural and cognitive. The affective component of an attitude isone’s emotional reaction to the target object, event or person,and this influences how the target is cognitively perceived.The cognitive component represents the thoughts and beliefsabout the target object/event/person(s). Finally, thebehavioural component of attitudes then describes how anindividual might react or respond when exposed to the targetobject. If we use the example of a peach grower and herattitudes towards Queensland fruit fly, we can hypothesise thatfor this grower, thinking about or experiencing a fruit fly pestincursion may elicit negative emotions such as frustration,anger or worry, which causes the farmer to feel a certainway when exposed to the target (affective response). This isbecause the grower believes the pest can spoil her crops andhinder the ability to profit from her business (cognitive com-ponent). Thus, the peach grower may use natural or biologicalstrategies to eradicate the pest from her property based onpersonal beliefs about how best to deal with fruit fly(behavioural response). The farmer’s attitude, in combinationwith other factors, will also influence her biosecurity behav-iour in the future, for example, her choice to address each fruitfly incursion as it happens or implement strategies to mitigatean invasion risk before it happens. This will likely depend onthe disease or pest specificity; that is, factual characteristics ofthe pest itself such as whether it is eradicable/non-eradicable,species reproduction, etc. Thus, by breaking down the psy-chological stages of decision-making, we can start to under-stand why farmers may or may not choose to engage in oradhere to biosecurity management practices.

The significance of an attitude is dependent upon its impor-tance and personal relevance. For example, attitudes towardsfruit fly control techniques would be significant to our peachgrower because it is a highly salient topic with self-interest forthe grower, as well as the groups she may be a member of. Incontrast, attitudes towards fruit fly are unlikely to be as salientfor a cotton farmer, as fruit fly does not influence the cottonfarmer’s crops in a significant way, or affect his/her life orpersonal values in the same way it would a peach grower.Another factor influencing attitudes is one’s knowledge aboutthe attitude object (e.g. fruit fly), which is positively related tothe strength of an attitude. In our example, the peach growerwould be very knowledgeable about the impact of fruit flies onher orchards and, therefore, would likely hold strong attitudestowards fruit fly and risk control strategies for the pest becauseof this invested knowledge. The strength of one’s attitude to-wards an object, event or person(s) is often a good predictor ofbehaviour. However, as research has consistently demonstrated,an attitude (e.g. ‘I believe that all peach growers should bevigilant in monitoring fruit flies on their property…’) is notenough to explain behaviour (e.g. ‘… but if I report a fruit flysighting, my property will exceed the threshold limit which has

financial implications for my business’). Other psychologicalvariables such as motivations and cognitive biases discussed insubsequent sections are also important to consider when under-standing drivers of decision-making surrounding biosecurityrisks (e.g. Bish and Michie 2010).

Attitudes can also guide perceptions related to a targetevent, object or person(s) and influence the type of informa-tion a person attends to (Kohler and Adams 1958).Perception, in the field of social psychology, is an active pro-cess of selection, organisation and interpretation of informa-tion. Existing attitudes help the brain to easily organise thisinformation into something meaningful for the individual. Thebrain also engages in a process of selective attention, where itfilters through the various stimuli we are exposed to, to deter-mine what information is and is not important. Selective at-tention is a function of our pre-existing expectations derivedfrom past experiences, our culture and our biology. Perceptionand attention together help humans navigate the profusion ofinformation they experience and choose what internal stimuli(e.g. emotions) and external stimuli to allocate their attentiontowards. In the broader context of decision-making related tobiosecurity risk, perceptions are likely to contribute signifi-cantly to acceptance and adoption of risk mitigation strategies.If our peach grower does not perceive a rise in fruit fly num-bers as a likely or realistic threat due to zero pest prevalence inher region, she may perceive the risk and/or the recommendedstrategies as excessive, unnecessary or even irrelevant to herfarming practices. This interpretation will depend on her indi-vidual psychology and risk profile.

2.1 Risk attitudes

As attitudes differ between people, the way in which peoplework through personal or work-related decisions involvingrisk and uncertainty also differs. Researchers define risk atti-tudes as the way in which a person makes risk-related choicesor decisions using factors such as expected benefits, values,risk content and the risk context (Kahneman and Tversky1979; Sarin and Weber 1993). This definition explains whypeople do not perceive a risky situation in the same way, whyone person’s perception of risk varies across different situa-tions and why different people make divergent behaviouralchoices when faced with the same risk. The lens throughwhich people may interpret their risk environment can beaffected by inherent global attitudes, as well as pervasive spe-cific attitudes regarding elements of risk. This includes aninterpretation of how the issue might impact one’s life on asocial or economic level.

Weber et al. (2002) developed a scale for measuring riskperceptions and related behaviours, operationalising riskthrough five life domains: financial decisions, health and safe-ty, recreational, ethical and social decisions. Their rationalewas that if risk-taking is influenced by a combination of

40 Page 4 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

personal characteristics and the situational context, then ameasure of risk-taking needed to consider these different con-tent domains. Results from Weber and colleagues’ researchconfirmed that people were not consistent in their risk-related behaviour; rather, risk-taking was highly domain-spe-cific. The research also showed that perceived benefits andrisks of decision alternatives, however, influenced overall per-ception of risk in a given situation. Interestingly, Websteret al.’s research found a gender difference in risk-related be-haviour, with women reporting greater risk aversion across alllife domains compared to men, except social decisions.

The farm biosecurity context is a unique risk domain in thatit can impact all aspects of a farmer’s life due to the highpersonal, social, emotional and financial investment that afarmer has in his or her business. For example, a biosecurityresponse can influence:

– financial decisions (biosecurity compliance can beexpensive)

– health and safety (stress caused by a biosecurity issue cannegatively affect personal health)

– social environment (peer comparisons regardingbiosecurity compliance can affect social relationships)

– ethical decisions (behaviours designed to control thespread of a disease has ethical implications for others inthe industry) and, in some cases,

– biosecurity issues can affect risk-related decisions in therecreational domain (on-farm recreational activities ortourism opportunities may be deemed high-risk).

Farmers’ multidimensional attitudes to risk, disease andsecurity all play a role in the biosecurity response, whether itis a protective measure or whether the farmer is managing thefallout of an incursion. Research has consistently found thatencouraging farmers to implement farm-level biosecurity is achallenge because they are unsure how emerging diseases willaffect their individual properties and, as a result, may notimmediately be motivated to invest in strategies that couldbenefit society but have little or no observable benefit to them-selves (e.g. Gunn et al. 2008; Kristensen and Jakobsen 2011).However, from a psychological perspective, the influence ordrive associated with non-financial incentives can arguably beequally as compelling.

2.2 Social incentives, social norms and diffusion

While not a focus of this paper, the economics associated witha biosecurity risk and consequent action is key to motivatingindividual action and should be integrated into any behaviourchange initiative. Hennessy (2008) examined biosecurity-related social incentives when protecting against pest inva-sion. Specifically, he looked at contexts where protectivebiosecurity action (e.g. regular pest inspections and cleaning)

had a clear public good and where all in the region wouldbenefit from pest absence. That is, ‘non-acting firms’ (i.e.people who did not carry out biosecurity practices) could notbe excluded from the benefits of others’ actions. Thus, it be-comes a classic ‘social loafing’ (or ‘free-rider’) scenario ofindividual action and the complementary effect that othersderive from this action. Typically, protective behaviour onone’s farm means that the likelihood of entry from abiosecurity threat is minimised. This action not only reducesthe risk of entry of an organism on individual farms, but it isalso considered a public goodwhereby surrounding farms willalso benefit from this individual’s action. However, the pro-tective action comes at a private cost, which co-beneficiarieswill not have to bear. It is this discrepancy, or rather, disincen-tive that may deter individuals from engaging in shared pro-tective biosecurity action and, instead, encourage them to freeride on the actions of others who make the decision to beproactive in biosecurity preparedness and who bear the cost.

Wang and Hennessy (2015) propose that this wrestle ofpublic versus private benefit comprises a complex, multi-level set of interactions. Benefits are far-reaching (e.g. open-ing or regaining access to export markets), and it is impossibleto ‘exclude’ potential beneficiaries. Further, individual bene-fits do not necessary correlate with individual efforts, thusforming a complex interaction of social and contextualissues. While this scenario is not economically optimal, itdoes bring with it a level of social currency and credibility.As Hennessy (2007 2008) points out in his discussion of pro-biosecurity incentives, not all incentives are material rewards.Rather, biosecurity-related decisions are likely influenced byperceptions of what others are doing and approval of one’sactions from important others. This perception of referent re-gard or perceived judgement about one’s behaviour comprisesa social incentive, where engaging in socially desirable behav-iours will elicit high regard from important others and providea form of social currency. In the psychological sciences, therole of social influence on attitudes and behaviour iscommonly examined within the realm of social norms.

Social norms are defined by Cialdini (2003) as having twoperceptual references: (1) perception of what is commonlyapproved of (injunctive norm) and (2) perception of what iscommonly done in a given situation (descriptive norm).Injunctive norms are very similar to subjective norms, whichare often referred to in the literature as part of the popular andwell validated model, theory of planned behaviour (TPB;Ajzen 1991). While this paper does not include an in-depthdiscussion of the TPB, it is important to acknowledge thatwhile the TPB may have its limitations, it is a useful tool inpredicting intentions to engage in behaviours as it incorporatesthe potential of normative social influences. Hu et al. (2006)examined farmers’ use of new technology in predicting cli-mate and weather forecasts using the TPB. Their premise wasthat the accuracy of forecasting and public understanding of

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 5 of 14 40

climate variability has dramatically and continuously im-proved in recent years; yet, the way in which farmers use theinformation when making farming decisions has remainedrelatively unchanged. Hu and colleagues argued that farmers’beliefs regarding who else was using the technology and theperceived value of these others’ views (normative pressure)would still be a dominant influence on their own forecastattitudes and intentions to use the technology.

Two key results from Hu et al.’s study were found to berelevant to the biosecurity context. They first demonstrated thatfarmers’ scores on perceived utility of forecasting and the per-ceived value of forecasts were relatively low amongst this sam-ple, which likely contributed to poor use of the technology.Secondly, the source from which the forecast information orig-inated was key to influencing intentions, as ambiguous identityof forecasters influenced perceptions of trust in the accuracy ofinformation provided, as well as the development of skills onhow to best use the forecast information. In applying this to thebiosecurity context, it would seem that in order to increasecompliance: (a) theremust be evidence or at least the perceptionthat the recommended biosecurity responses are useful andeffective, (b) the recommendations/call to action must comefrom a trusted and credible source and (c) a perception existsthat others in the referent peer group are behaving in the sameway (i.e. social comparison is important).

Gunn et al. (2008) also utilised the TPB and conducted akey study in relation to British farmers’ biosecurity attitudes,examining the role of social and normative attitudes in limit-ing biosecurity improvements. The researchers compared per-ceived constraints to biosecurity amongst farmers and auxil-iary personnel such as veterinary practitioners and industryrepresentatives. Interestingly, the researchers found that thedifferent groups had very clear—but different—ideas aboutbiosecurity for well-known pests and diseases. In particular,the groups differed in their expectations of assigning respon-sibility for biosecurity and perceptions of associated attitudes.Farmers in this study believed that while they were ultimatelyresponsible for biosecurity management on-farm, other stake-holders such as industry and government should make a great-er contribution towards biosecurity. Farmers saw this as amajor constraint in improving biosecurity arrangements inGreat Britain. In contrast, when veterinarians were askedabout major constraints to biosecurity, they cited their clients’(i.e. farmers’) willingness or financial ability to engage inbiosecurity as the major issue. However, veterinary practi-tioners also added that there was a need to better demonstrateevidence that recommended biosecurity activities were effec-tive and/or that economic benefits could be derived from im-proved biosecurity. Crucially, farmers appeared to perceivelittle efficacy of on-farm biosecurity activities in the absenceof action by others.

The influence of social norms on decision-making and be-haviour has long been recognised in the context of farming,

from early work about normative on-farm gender roles (e.g.discussed byAlesina et al. 2013) to the social and comparativeinfluences of relevant peers (e.g. neighbours) in the adoptionof innovative farming practices (e.g. Wilkening 1950). Normsare an inherent part of social systems and structures, such asfarming groups or communities. Norms are typically devel-oped through a process of socialisation within a given socialcontext and can engender underlying farming ‘intuition’ ordistinct farming practices, habits and standards within a socialgroup (e.g. family, company, industry). Norms can influencefarmer behaviours, specifically, through the process ofdiffusion. Diffusion is conceptualised as a process of socialchange, whereby innovation is communicated over timethrough social channels within a social structure or system(diffusion of innovation theory; Rogers 2004; Valente andRogers 1995). Early research in the agricultural context foundthe process of diffusion exerted normative pressure on farmers(of comparable socioeconomic standing) to adopt innovativefarming practices championed by early adopters in theneighbourhood. The rationale was that evidence of implemen-tation and success of innovative practices was the most effec-tive way to change farmers’ behaviours (Young and Coleman1959).

While the foundational research on diffusion was conduct-ed over 60 years ago, the findings remain relevant and diffu-sion of innovation theory is still a widely used framework forunderstanding adoption of technologies in the global agricul-tural sector (e.g. see reviews by Simin and Janković 2014;Toborn 2011). Peshin et al. (2009) further discuss that diffu-sion of innovation can be used in the context of understandinguptake for integrated pest management innovation. However,they acknowledged that the theory does not account for prac-tical issues limiting innovation adoption, such as constrainedfinancial resources. This early research into farmer normshighlights the role that social norms play in guiding what issocially acceptable and the importance of ‘what everyone elseis doing’. These normative influences are therefore importantin understanding initial attitudinal drivers for the acceptanceof biosecurity management recommendations, and the subse-quent motivation to adopt or reject biosecurity practices with-in a relevant social group (i.e. farmer groups).

3 Motivation and adherence

As explained in Section 1, people typically attend more close-ly to threat protection information that is relevant to theirpresent context and they will act upon information whichserves their own beliefs, desires, goals and capabilities(Kohler and Adams 1958). Motivation is defined as an inter-nal process that initiates, guides and maintains behaviour to-wards a goal. In simple terms, motivation is the reason peopleact a certain way and why they are directed towards a

40 Page 6 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

particular behaviour. Motivation can be discussed in terms ofvalues (e.g. environmental values, business/personal values;de Groot and Steg 2010) and orientations (e.g. extrinsic, in-trinsic, ego, task; Deci and Ryan 1987; Heyman and Dweck1992; Nicholls 1984). For example, when considering deci-sions related to biosecurity risk management, farmers may bemotivated by various things, such as their beliefs in sharedresponsibility (i.e. values), the monetary gains or losses in-volved in carrying out risk mitigation activities (i.e. extrinsicmotivation) or their desire to run the best farm facility possible(i.e. task orientation). An understanding of what motivatesfarmers can then assist administrators, researchers andcommunicators in developing better ways to communicatebiosecurity risk, recommended risk mitigation strategies andthe vulnerability to/or severity of potential biosecurity risks.

In a study of farmer motivation to improve mastitis man-agement in dairy cows, Valeeva et al. (2007) explored thedifferent motivating factors in dairy farmers’ decisions to bet-ter manage mastitis and the utility of financial incentives as amotivational tool. Results showed that farmers were motivat-ed primarily by intrinsic and task-oriented factors central toindividual farm performance; the farmer sample ranked jobsatisfaction and the severity of the mastitis problem as mostmotivating. Third in this ranking process were economiclosses, which dairy farmers found equally as motivating asconcern for animal health and welfare in managing mastitis.The least important motivational factors were individual rec-ognition and product image, both of which are consideredexternal and ego-oriented factors. Similarly, Reimer et al.(2012) examined how a group of US farmers made conserva-tion decisions on their farm. Once again, farmers who weremotivated by performance of the farm and broader, off-farmenvironmental benefits were more likely to adopt conserva-tion practices. In contrast, farmers who were focused on thefarm as a business were less likely to adopt environmentalpractices because of their concern about overall profitability.This study, in particular, highlights a parallel with the adoptionof biosecurity practices. That is, farmers can choose to engagein preventative and innovative biosecurity measures; however,individual growers will be influenced by their existing valuesand beliefs and be driven by factors that motivate them to-wards action. It is these motivational drivers that are poorlyunderstood in the context of behaviour adoption and change inagricultural biosecurity practices.

Motivating farmers to engage in, and comply with,biosecurity management practices is only part of the pro-cess—facilitating and encouraging farmers to adhere to theirchosen risk management practices is a further challenge. Oncethe initial motivation for adopting a new practice on the farmwanes, it is important to understand what factors will motivatean individual to persist with risk management strategies thatmay not have immediately observable or quantifiable effects.In contrast to compliance, which means the extent to which

one’s behaviour coincides with the recommended response,adherence typically describes the process of complying witha recommended response or action over a sustained period oftime to achieve the end goal (Dishman 1988; Hermon andHazler 1999). Adherence can also play a role in the contextof prescriptive norms surrounding biosecurity risk manage-ment activities, where motivation to adhere to biosecuritynorms shared by a society or group may be influenced by realor perceived ‘sanctions’ to non-compliant behaviour(Thøgersen 2003). There are two types of prescriptive norms,social and personal, that can help to explain motivation.Adherence to personal norms may be influenced by feelingsof social pressure to adhere to normative behaviour ‘for thegood of the group’ and adherence to personal norms is typi-cally because the individual feels the behaviour is the ‘moral’thing to do.

Understanding the various motivational triggers forfarmers can help to target incentives to encourage and main-tain engagement in more pro-biosecurity behaviours, andincentivise the initial reporting of biosecurity concerns suchas suspicious plants or animals. Palmer et al. (2009) investi-gated the motives and behaviours driving farmers’ decisionsto report unusual symptoms in their livestock, after anAustralian report cited a decline in official reporting to live-stock illnesses and death. The results from Palmer and col-leagues’ study showed that seven factors were influential inreporting behaviour amongst livestock farmers, with amixtureof attitudinal and situational variables. These included per-ceived approachability of the government-affiliated farm ad-visor, distance to and adequacy of the reporting site (i.e. in thisstudy, it was the veterinarian’s clinic), existing biosecuritypractices on-farm, perceived risk of disease outbreak, per-ceived personal control, self-efficacy and trust in others (e.g.neighbours, other farmers and extension personnel).Therefore, while situational factors are important contributorsto farmers’ reporting behaviour, attitudinal factors were alsoinfluential drivers.

Much of the literature related to motivation in farmerdecision-making has utilised the protection motivation modelof threat appraisal and risk perception, which also utilisesvariables such as self-efficacy and perceived control. Thisperspective relies on the conceptualisation of fear as an emo-tional motivational state that protects one against danger(Rogers 1983). Historically, emotions have also been citedas having a close relationship with muscular activity, thusthe suggestion that fear causes an emotional disturbance with-in the body which triggers muscular activity that protects theorganism from the dangerous stimulus (e.g. fight or flightresponse). In the present biosecurity context, this descriptionwould suggest that farmers experience an emotional, possiblyfearful, reaction to a biosecurity threat, and the real or potentialconsequences of this threat. This perception will motivate theindividual to protect themselves, their family and their

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 7 of 14 40

property by either fighting the threat through modified behav-iours or fleeing the threat via threat denial and avoidance.

3.1 Protection motivation

The focus of protection motivation theory is the motivationalaspect of threat perception and the associated fear. The emo-tion of fear is a relevant inclusion in a discussion of whatmotivates farmer risk decision-making. Fear has the potentialto facilitate attitude and behaviour change and can drive anindividual to learn adaptive responses to cues or threateningstimuli (Rogers 1983). As Rogers (1975, 1983) describes inhis theory of protection motivation, the three most importantvariables in a fear appeal are as follows: (1) the magnitude ofharm in a depicted event, (2) the conditional probability thatthe event will occur if no protective attempt is made and (3)the belief in the effectiveness (efficacy) of the suggested cop-ing response. Each of these processes is said to independentlyappraise information about the threat severity, probability andefficacy of responses specific to an event (Rogers andMewborn 1976) and arouse a ‘protection motivation’ re-sponse to mediate the effects of the fear appeal. Rogers(1983) later revised his model of protection motivation byincluding broader antecedent sources of information (e.g. per-sonal factors), as well as greater detail on cognitive processesof threat appraisal (i.e. threat severity and vulnerability, intrin-sic vs. extrinsic rewards), coping appraisal (i.e. response effi-cacy, self-efficacy, response costs) and which behaviourswould be considered adaptive or maladaptive copingresponses.

The key inclusion in Rogers’ revised protection motivationmodel is that of self-efficacy, which is the (positive or nega-tive) belief in one’s ability to carry out a behaviour (Bandura1977). Bandura argues that self-efficacy pervades all psycho-logical processes of change by influencing whether copingbehaviours will be initiated, whether they are adaptive or mal-adaptive, and the intensity and duration of effort expended toachieve the target behaviour(s). Research has shown thatfarmer self-efficacy can influence ability to organise and exe-cute behaviours to achieve agricultural performance and playsa significant role in decisions to change behaviour (Roy Dutta2009; Wu and Mweemba 2009). Rogers (1983) argues thatwhile high self-efficacy can help an individual to engage inadaptive protection behaviours, when people feel as thoughthey have an inability to protect themselves (i.e. low perceivedself-efficacy), they likely experience feelings of helplessnessand lack of control within a situation. Low self-efficacy maythen motivate an individual to seek out some sense ofperceived control, which Rogers suggests could be achievedby purposefully choosing to engage in behaviours that willbring about a threatening event. In a biosecurity context, thiscan have negative consequences not only for the individualbut also for associated parties, such as neighbouring farms,

contract workers, community members and, potentially, thewhole industry. Therefore, examining self-efficacy in thebiosecurity context is highly relevant and could provide valu-able information regarding the drivers of risk decision-makingamongst farmers.

Perceived costs associated with a biosecurity response arelikely to be particularly salient for the farming community,because of the small margins that most farmers typically workwith and the increased labour or efficiency costs associatedwith implementing and maintaining a recommendedbiosecurity response. For example, a key biosecurity responsedesigned to reduce the risk of fruit fly choosing a potentialhost site is to clear away fallen and/or rotting fruit beneathtrees in the orchard (orchard hygiene). However, in order todo this, the farmer must weigh up costs associated with theincreased time taken to carry out that activity, the increasedlabour that might be involved, the potential cost of new equip-ment and the disposal of the collected waste fruit. This is justone example in a suite of many such issues related toimplementing recommended biosecurity protocols on-farm.If a farmer does not have the ability to take on some of themore cost-intensive biosecurity activities, this realisation maycome at a great emotional cost, such as increased stress andanxiety.

4 Emotion, stress and attachment

The depth and breadth of emotion research in psychology hasestablished that people make different decisions based on theiremotional state, as well as the emotions elicited by a particularsituation. Emotions are defined as a complex integration of psy-chological and physiological experiences in response to a stimu-lus. Emotions influence human behaviour and can guide percep-tions of risk (Mankad 2012;Myers 2004). In particular, emotionsassociated with existing cognitive beliefs and attitudes are likelyto play a central role in decision-making specific to risk manage-ment. It is interesting to observe that often, it is the ‘unknown’associated with a threat that may elicit the most negative emotionand increase levels of stress. For example, dealing with abiosecurity incursion on one’s property may initially produceintense emotion and stress. However, over time one becomeshabituated to the threat and will likely develop some copingmechanisms to help alleviate the mental distress. This can befacilitated by greater knowledge about the threat itself, aboutthe emergency response process, and about the future. In con-trast, those individuals who have yet to experience thebiosecurity event, but are within the broader contamination zone,may experience heightened stress due to anxiety, unfamiliarityand helplessness regarding susceptibility to the threat.

In the environmental science literature, researchers havefound that emotions also play a role in place attachment,which is a positive connection or bond between a person

40 Page 8 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

and a place (Williams and Vaske 2003; Gosling and Williams2010). Results from this research show that place attachmentsignificantly influences environmentally relevant behaviour,including a greater willingness to engage in vegetation protec-tion behaviours amongst farmers, which increased in line withtheir perceived connectedness to nature (e.g. Gosling andWilliams 2010; Stedman 2002; Vaske and Kobrin 2001).The issue of place attachment is relevant to decision-makingin the biosecurity context because farmers are likely have anattachment to their farm, the land that they work and perhapseven the broader community that they are a part of; this at-tachment may be even stronger if a family has been on thesame land for generations. In the context of risk management,it could be argued that farmers and/or farm workers responsi-ble for decision-making may make more ‘protective’ deci-sions about biosecurity management if they have higher placeattachment, than if they did not. This may also be the case forthose individuals who gain a strong sense of identity or self-worth from the farm and farming practices. Schultz (2000)argues that the more someone cognitively and emotionallyincorporates an object into their sense of self the moreemotional value that object has.

As Norris et al. (2008) note, place attachment may also berelevant for disaster recovery. During a disaster event, such as abiosecurity incursion, people can be displaced from the homesand neighbourhoods from which they draw comfort and wherethey are deeply connected. The role of place attachment has nottypically been examined in the biosecurity domain, as either aprecursor to protective decision-making or as an emotional fac-tor in the event of a biosecurity emergency. However, we canlearn from other domains that the impact of displacement afteran emotional event can be significant and could go so far as toimpair resilience in some instances (Lane and Robinson 2009;Brown andWestaway 2011). Other researchers argue that placeattachment could also facilitate resilience and increase the like-lihood that a community could rebuild after a disaster (Manzoand Perkins 2006; Miles 2015). While inconclusive, the re-search certainly suggests that place attachment could be animportant factor to consider when exploring risk decision-making (Leith and Vanclay 2016). As Norris et al. (2008) de-scribe, disasters happen to entire communities and memberswithin the community are exposed together and are likely tobenefit from recovering together.

The issue of disaster is not separate from the issue of stress.People experience high levels of stress when dealing with acrisis due to limited resources, adaptation to changing circum-stances and uncertainty. Stress is defined by the AustralianPsychological Society (2002) as a feeling of being overloadedand can manifest in symptoms such as headaches, sleep dis-turbance, anxiety, depression, fatigue and low self-esteem. Ona daily basis, farmers are required to make crucial decisionsunder conditions of stress and, sometimes, in the face of high-ly emotional circumstances. While acute stress can be a

motivating experience for some (e.g. ‘working well underpressure’), chronic stress such as that caused by a disastercan be harmful to well-being if it is perceived as being exces-sive and affecting one’s ability to carry on normal life. In thebiosecurity literature, a disease or pest outbreak has beenshown to significantly impact emotional stress levels.Hernández-Jover et al. (2012) evaluated pig farmers’ percep-tions about the H1N1/09 influenza virus, which was poorlylabelled ‘swine flu’ and resulted in public misconceptionsabout how the disease was transmitted. Results showed thatthe outbreak had significant financial impact on pig producersand there was an increased adoption of biosecurity practices,particularly for larger herds. Importantly, the study reportedthat in addition to financial stress, 27 % of farmers were feel-ing emotionally distressed and almost 40 % were stressedabout the health of their pigs.

Another study, conducted by Taylor et al. (2008), examinedthe social impacts of the equine influenza (EI) outbreak inAustralia, which occurred during spring, the busiest time ofthe year for Australian horse sports. The EI outbreak causedsignificant disruption to all horse sporting events and had sig-nificant social and industry impacts (Hoare 2011). Taylor andcolleagues reported that 34 % of horse owners reported highlevels of psychological distress, compared to 12% in the generalAustralian population, and their analyses showed that youngerpeople were more likely to report high psychological distress. Inparticular, psychological stress was twice as likely to be highamongst those whose primary source of income was horse-re-lated. Taylor et al. (2008) found that much of this stress was alsodue to movement restrictions for horses within the differentbiosecurity restriction zones (red—high-risk zone, amber—buffer zone), withmovement permits difficult to obtain and eventrips to and from the veterinarian were only approved for emer-gency reasons; those situated in the ‘white zone’ (unaffected bythe EI crisis) were less likely to report psychological distress.Interestingly, although the prevalence of psychological distresswas high in the specific EI zones, elevated psychological distresswas prevalent amongst horse owners nationally, highlighting thefar-reaching effects of severe biosecurity incursions beyond theimmediate affected zones.

A stressful farming environment, therefore, can have im-portant implications for farmers’ quality of life in other areas,such as physical health and emotional well-being. Emotionscan be significantly influential in determining a coping re-sponse in the context of a stressful event or even perceivedthreat. Relatedly, emotions also play an important role in theeffectiveness of communicating the severity and vulnerabilityof a threat to those likely to be affected, as well as advocatingfor particular response activities. Psychological research hasdemonstrated that the impact of persuasive messages can de-pend upon the emotional state of the receiver and the framingof the message (e.g. Ganzach and Karsahi 1995; Mankad2012; McCusker and Carnevale 1995). This leads to the topic

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 9 of 14 40

of cognitive bias and how it may influence farmer risk deci-sion-making.

5 Cognitive bias

When people are making everyday judgements and decisions,it is often assumed that the cognitive process taking place isobjective, logical and comprehensive in the way that informa-tion is decoded and recoded. However, humans are far fromthe unbiased decision makers that we may strive to be and weare all subject to cognitive biases in the way we understandinformation and ultimately make decisions. A cognitive bias isan error in decision-making, whereby one’s judgement is in-fluenced by existing patterns of beliefs and perceptions.Typically, cognitive biases come about because of our mentalreliance on heuristics, which are cognitive ‘shortcuts’ thatsimplify the complex, vast and sometimes incomplete infor-mation we receive through our sensory system, so that we canmake decisions efficiently. However, the simplification pro-cess of heuristics means that we can introduce errors into ourjudgements. Thus, even our ‘objective’ judgements and ‘ra-tional’ decisions are influenced by many inherent biases thatwe may not even know exist within our consciousness, pro-ducing errors in our judgement and decision-making.

Cognitive bias can also be conceptualised as a form ofsubjective logic and it is this that makes it most relevant tothe farm biosecurity context. Farmers, especially experiencedfarmers, typically have their own ‘logic’ that guides theirfarming practices. The logic is based on past experiences, aswell as an understanding of the crops they are growing oranimals they are raising. For more inexperienced farmers, im-portant others were used as a reference for their own behav-iour. Farmers also often rely on ‘rules of thumb’ which can beaccepted industry-relevant activities or simply relevant to in-dividual farming protocols based on an understanding of theenvironmental context. Research supports the existence ofsuch biases, suggesting that farmers base most of their deci-sions on ‘gut instinct’ and intuition, rather than any formaleducation (e.g. Öhlmér et al. 1998; Hoe and Ruegg 2006).These biases can also help to create farmer or industry normsdiscussed in Section 2.2 and contribute to the perception andassessment of risk (Section 2.1). Therefore, while farmingpractices have improved in leaps and bounds from a techno-logical and professional perspective, inherent biases that existand those that may have existed for generations can exertimportant influences on biosecurity attitudes, implementationbeliefs and management behaviour. Biases can also impacthow biosecurity-relevant communications are interpreted, aswell as the ensuing decision-making process.

The framing of messages is an important factor in the con-text of biases, particularly because framing has important im-plications for how biosecurity risk communication might be

delivered and perceived. In psychology, the framing effect isan example of a cognitive bias where people react to a mes-sage in different ways depending on how the message is pre-sented—or framed. Grounding research by Tversky andKahneman (1981) on the area of loss and gain messagingfound that typically, people tend to avoid risk when a messageis framed positively but are more likely to seek risks when amessage is framed negatively. Thus, farmers may be morelikely to take on biosecurity information and behaviourchange on-farm if the communication is framed in a positiveway (e.g. positive: fruit fly numbers will decrease by 200 % ifyou remove rotten fruit vs. negative: fruit fly numbers willincrease by 400 % if you do not remove fallen fruit).

5.1 Cognitive dissonance

An example of another type of bias that is relevant to behav-iour change in the farming context is cognitive dissonance.Cognitive dissonance is when an individual experiences psy-chological stress because they hold two or more conflictingbeliefs (Festinger 1961). To relate this definition to the farmbiosecurity context, take the example of our peach grower,who is likely to have clear views about a particular well-known pest (e.g. Queensland fruit fly). She has clear ideasabout how it might have arrived on-farm and/or the movementpatterns of the pest. These existing cognitive beliefs will theninfluence the interpretation of information communicationand drive biosecurity management and/or eradication behav-iour. However, this bias to new information also means that ifthe grower is given updated information that is in direct con-flict with what she already believes to be true about the pest,she is faced with a mental discomfort originating from thisdiscrepancy, a phenomenon referred to as dissonance. Thegrower must decide whether to: (a) ignore the new informa-tion being provided in favour of what she already believes tobe true and continue to behave in a way that is aligned with herpre-existing cognitions about the pest; or (b) she must adjusther existing beliefs in light of the new information in order to‘comfortably’ change her behaviour and act in a way that iscontradictory to her original beliefs. Essentially, humans donot deal well with holding two ormore beliefs that are in directconflict with each other and look to reduce this psychologicalstress by pursuing internal consistency in their beliefs, valuesand behaviours.

A key application for the cognitive dissonance effect inthe farm biosecurity domain is to understand that peoplewill actively avoid situations that do not align with theirexisting beliefs. For example, our peach grower may ob-serve evidence that her neighbours are installing fruit flytraps and picking up fallen waste fruit from underneath treesin an effort to be more biosecurity conscious due to theincreasing threat of fruit fly. However, our peach growerdoes not believe fruit fly to be a credible threat. Therefore,

40 Page 10 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

in order to preserve the accuracy of her beliefs, she will likelynot attend community forums discussing the threat of fruit fly,ignore updated information about fruit fly and dismiss theneighbour’s proactive behaviour as unnecessary. Therefore,if biosecurity administrators or extension personnel are tryingto convey a message about on-farm biosecurity, the best wayto maximise message exposure—particularly to reach thoseindividuals who are actively disinterested in changing theirattitudes—is to deliver the information in a non-threateningway, in a trusted environment and in a way that appeals tofamiliar concepts. This approach will ensure that the messagereceiver does not have to deviate too far fromwhat is mentallycomfortable and is less threatened by new information.Further, the message of greater biosecurity engagement islikely to be valued more if it is framed in such a way thatthe grower perceives the outcome as highly desirable andthe negative aspects of involvement are minimised.

6 Socio-contextual factors

The final discussion is related to the more precursory influ-ences on decision-making around biosecurity risk, which aresocio-contextual and demographic factors. This category in-cludes factors such as socioeconomic status, education, gen-der, age/stage of life, quality of life priorities and businesstype/size. Research shows that farmers’ willingness to acceptnew information or engage in actions related to a biosecuritythreat may be influenced by the life stage of the farmer andtheir needs and goals at that point in time.

Garforth (2010) found that while commercial growers wereprimarily interested in a business approach, independent/smallfarmers and enthusiast/hobby growers whose main incomewas not derived from farming scored highly on ‘quality oflife’ as a driver for their on-farm decisions and behaviour.Other researchers have demonstrated that larger producerstend to have better biosecurity and more ‘professional’ setups,likely because they have more liquid assets available to con-tribute to protecting the business from biosecurity threats andbecause they have more to lose (i.e. they have greater risk atstake; Hoe and Ruegg 2006; Hernández-Jover et al. 2012).Therefore, quality of life priorities and ‘stage of life’ factors(e.g. young entrepreneurial farmer vs. semi-retired farmer) cansignificantly impact decisions relating to on-farm biosecurity.Further, it is not only growers who are significantly impactedby, and responsible for, biosecurity engagement. This respon-sibility extends from national industry bodies to the casualbackyard gardener, all of whom must consider changinghabits and behaviours in response to an increased biosecurityrisk or threat, depending on their proximity to the threat.

Socio-contextual factors can also significantly impact ad-herence to on-farm biosecurity activities. While much of theempirical psychology literature on behavioural adherence

comes from the health and sport/exercise psychology do-mains, adherence is a key concept in the study of biosecurityengagement. Schemann et al. (2011) examined the concept ofadherence in an evaluation of biosecurity compliance amongsthorse owners 1 year after the 2007 EI outbreak, whenbiosecurity compliance was presumably at its peak. Resultsshowed that 50% reported high biosecurity compliance 1 yearpost-EI, and 30 % reported low compliance. Key qualitativeresponses justifying changed behaviours amongst this samplewere that they would shift their behaviour and follow practicesonly during an outbreak and that some practices were unnec-essary, ineffective or impractical (e.g. avoiding contact withother horses). Overall, Schemann et al. found that youngerpeople were less likely to comply with recommended prac-tices, which is consistent with past research on protective be-haviours, along with people with two or more dependents.Perceptions of real or anticipated financial impacts, older peo-ple and those with commercial interests were more likely toreport higher biosecurity compliance. Therefore, this studyand others highlight the important of socio-contextual factors,such as demographics and lifestyle differences, on adherenceto biosecurity measures on-farm.

7 Summary and implicationsfor a social-psychological model of biosecurityengagement behaviour

The purpose of this review is to present key psychologicalfactors that can help to understand why farmers make thedecisions they do when dealing with pest management issues,particularly when potential risks are clear to others and eco-nomic benefits or production efficiencies are seemingly atstake (Garforth 2010). From the concepts discussed here, itis clear that understanding the cognitive reasoning processesdriving decisions around biosecurity risk are key to under-standing farmer behaviour and the best ways to approach be-haviour change. Furthermore, farmers do not make decisionsin the same way as each other; each farmer will make deci-sions about biosecurity risk in a nuanced way influenced byunique social, psychological and contextual factors. Most re-search on biosecurity attitudes clearly demonstrate thatfarmers’ views are at odds, specifically, the moral wrestlebetween collective/societal benefits of greater biosecurity en-gagement and investment versus individual/private costs ofbiosecurity implementation. Early social research in the areaof biosecurity suggests that engagement in biosecurity activityseemingly comes down to perceptions of economic viability(Gunn et al. 2008; Heffernan et al. 2008; Kristensen andJakobsen 2011). If that is indeed the case, then how do admin-istrators and advocates appeal to a farmer’s motivation to notonly protect themselves and their crops from a biosecuritythreat but also engage them in a shared approach that protects

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 11 of 14 40

their peers and the wider industry from the consequences of abiosecurity incursion?

7.1 A hypothesised model of farmer risk decision-making

After reviewing the biosecurity literature within social sci-ence, a simple model for understanding farmer decision-making in the context of biosecurity is proposed (Fig. 2).The first stage of factors influencing a biosecurity responsewill be socio-contextual factors which are inherent in anydecision response; these are factors discussed in Section 6,but are interwoven throughout. The second stage involveskey psychosocial concepts that are nuanced considerationsin the context of a unique biosecurity threat or proposed re-sponse (presented in Sections 2–5). Rogers’ (1983) protectionmotivation theory is incorporated as a part of this proposedmodel; his model states that behavioural intentions are posi-tively influenced by: (1) perceived threat severity, (2) per-ceived personal vulnerability to the threat, (3) self-efficacyin carrying out the recommended response(s) and (4) beliefthat the recommended response(s) are effective in avoidingthe threat. Protection motivation theory also assumes a nega-tive linear relationship when: (1) there are desirable reinforce-ments for engaging in a maladaptive response and (2) the costs(e.g. time, money) associated with the recommended re-sponse(s) are too great. The difference with this proposedmodel is that there are no assumptions made about the linear-ity of the relationship between variables linkedwith protectionmotivation theory; thus, this model is classed as exploratorybecause of the relatively unknown influences in a biosecuritycontext. From a risk communication standpoint, the ‘vivid-ness’ of information received from a source (i.e. the detailand specificity of information), as well as source credibility,is argued to positively influence perceptions of threat severity.Therefore, the concept of framing effects has been incorporat-ed into the second step of this model also.

The role of perceived costs, in Fig. 2, has been embeddedas a potential mediator in the subsequent relationship betweenbiosecurity engagement intentions and ultimate biosecurityengagement behaviour. While protection motivation researchconsistently shows that perception of costs associated with aprotective response are influential in predicting intentions

(discussed in Section 3.1), the current model proposes thatperceived costs will also be important in understanding theextrapolation from intention to engage in biosecurity to on-farm action (Fig. 2).

An analysis of social norms in this model is importantbecause it provides researchers with an opportunity to under-stand how and why biosecurity compliance is lacking in someindustries and regions, and how to improve uptake or ‘buy-in’.The key message from a discussion of social norms is thatfarmers may be more likely to adopt biosecurity strategies ortechnologies if there exists a perception that ‘everyone else isdoing it’ and there are perceived social consequences (e.g.identified as ‘the weakest link’) if the individual farmer doesnot comply. This is considered to be a strong predictor ofbiosecurity engagement in the present model.

8 Conclusion

While biosecurity is perceived as an important part of on-farmmanagement and is advocated as a norm for all crop andanimal based industries, commitment and full engagement insuch protective or preventative action is not the norm (e.g.Kristensen and Jakobsen 2011). In an increasingly smallworld where plants, materials and humans move from onearea to another and introduce an unprecedented level of risk,the importance and relevance of biosecurity becomes crucialin protecting national food production industries. Along withthat comes an increased awareness spurred on by greater ed-ucation and communication of risk, as well as greater ad-vances in biosecurity-relevant technologies. Policy onbiosecurity around the world currently advocates the notionof ‘shared responsibility’, where all citizens play a role inminimising and controlling biosecurity threats to plants, ani-mals and humans. Yet, most policy documents rarely considerthe human component of biosecurity action, such as motiva-tion to engage in recommended practices and adherence toprotective behaviours. That is, individuals have their ownunique psychological profile and while social factors can in-fluence contextual decision-making, underlying psychologi-cal traits will inherently influences decision-making and inter-pretation of risk.

Fig. 2 Exploratory psychosocialmodel of factors influencingfarmer decision-making for abiosecurity response, based on areview of available psychosocialliterature

40 Page 12 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40

What past biosecurity incursions are typically highlightingis that a community-wide biosecurity response is less about anexpert-led scientific eradication response and more about so-cial and psychological factors that contribute to an interpreta-tion of risk and consequent drive towards action. This sug-gests that framing of biosecurity emergencies in policy litera-ture should maintain the idea of shared responsibility but alsoclearly communicate the role of risk within its political, insti-tutional and psychological contexts (Mankad 2012; Robinsonet al. 2005). Greater research on institutional factors such ascoordinated identification of risks, research on effective com-munication strategies and the provision of feedback related torisk management compliance could shed light on drivers thatencourage farmers to adopt improved biosecurity practices ontheir properties (Monroe 2003), particularly during non-emer-gency, day-to-day operations. In making biosecurity-drivenchanges on-farm, farmers can adequately prepare and protectagainst pests and diseases, with the hope that an outbreak doesnot occur or that it can be effectively managed if it does occur.In doing so, gains can be expected in savings from improvedoperational management, pest management, reduced produc-tion losses and improved market access.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank Cathy Robinsonand Carol Farbotko for reviewing earlier versions of this manuscript,which benefited from their expertise.

References

Abdalla A, Millist N, Buetre B, Bowen B (2012) Benefit–cost analysis ofthe National Fruit Fly Strategy Action Plan Report. AustralianBureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences(ABARES)

Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum DecisProcess 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Alesina A, Giuliano P, Nunn N (2013) On the origins of gender roles:women and the plough. Q J Econ 128:469–530. doi:10.1093/qje/qjt005

Australian Psychological Society (2002) Understanding and managingstress. Aust Psychol Soc Ltd 2

Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behaviouralchange. Psychol Rev 84:191–215

Beale R, Fairbrother J, Inglis A, Trebeck D (2008) The independentreview of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements reportto the Australian Government.

Bish A, Michie S (2010) Demographic and attitudinal determinants ofprotective behaviours during a pandemic: a review. Br J HealthPsychol 15:797–824. doi:10.1348/135910710X485826

Brown K, Westaway E (2011) Agency, capacity, and resilience to envi-ronmental change: lessons from human development, well-being,and disasters. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:321–342. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-052610-092905

Buetre B, Wicks S, Kruger H et al (2013) Potential socio-economic im-pacts of an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Australia.Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics andSciences, Research Report 13.11. Canberra, ACT

Cialdini RB (2003) Crafting normative messages to protect the environ-ment. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12:105–109. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01242

de Groot JIM, Steg L (2010) Relationships between value orientations,self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behav-ioural intentions. J Environ Psychol 30:368–378. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.002

Deci EL, Ryan RM (1987) The support of autonomy and the control ofbehavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 53:1024–1037

Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs (2014) Protectingplant health. A Plant Biosecurity Strategy for Great Britain, UK

Department of Primary Industries (2013) New South Wales BiosecurityStrategy 2013–2021. Sydney

Dishman RK (1988) Exercise adherence research: future directions. Am JHealth Promot 3:52–56

Enticott G, Vanclay F (2011) Scripts, animal health and biosecurity: themoral accountability of farmers’ talk about animal health risks.Health Risk Soc 13:293–309. doi:10.1080/13698575.2011.575456

Festinger L (1961) The psychological effects of insufficient rewards. AmPsychol 16:1–11

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009)Strategic framework 2010–2019. United Nations, Rome

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2013)Aquastat. http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm

Ganzach Y, Karsahi N (1995) Message framing and buying behavior: afield experiment. J Bus Res 32:11–17

Garforth CJ (2010) Motivating farmers: insights from social psychology.60–67

Gosling E, Williams KJH (2010) Connectedness to nature, place attach-ment and conservation behaviour: testing connectedness theoryamong farmers. J Environ Psychol 30:298–304. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.005

Gunn GJ, Heffernan C, Hall M et al (2008) Measuring and comparingconstraints to improved biosecurity amongst GB farmers, veterinar-ians and the auxiliary industries. Prev Vet Med 84:310–23. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2007.12.003

Heffernan C, Nielsen L, Thomson K, Gunn G (2008) An exploration ofthe drivers to bio-security collective action among a sample of UKcattle and sheep farmers. Prev Vet Med 87:358–72. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2008.05.007

Hennessy DA (2007) Biosecurity and spread of an infectious animaldisease. Am J Agric Econ 89:1226–1231. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01088.x

Hennessy DA (2008) Biosecurity incentives, network effects, and entryof a rapidly spreading pest. Ecol Econ 68:230–239. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.02.023

Hermon DA, Hazler RJ (1999) Adherence to a wellness model and per-ceptions of psychological well-being. J Couns Dev 77:339–343.doi:10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02457.x

Hernández-Jover M, Taylor M, Holyoake P, Dhand N (2012) Pig pro-ducers’ perceptions of the Influenza Pandemic H1N1/09 outbreakand its effect on their biosecurity practices in Australia. Prev VetMed 106:284–94. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2012.03.008

Heyman GD, Dweck CS (1992) Achievement goals and intrinsic moti-vation: their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. MotivEmot 16:231–247

Heymann DL (2005) Social, behavioural and environmental factors andtheir impact on infectious disease outbreaks. J Public Health Policy26:133–139. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jphp.3200004

Hoare R (2011) Overview of the industry and social impacts of the 2007Australian equine influenza outbreak. Aust Vet J 89(Suppl 1):147–50. doi:10.1111/j.1751-0813.2011.00770.x

Hoe FGH, Ruegg PL (2006) Opinions and practices of Wisconsin dairyproducers about biosecurity and animal well-being. J Dairy Sci 89:2297–308. doi:10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72301-3

Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40 Page 13 of 14 40

Hogg MA, Vaughan GM (2005) Social psychology, 4th edn. PrenticeHall

Hu Q, Zillig LMP, Lynne GD et al (2006) Understanding farmer’s fore-cast use from their beliefs, values, social norms, and perceived ob-stacles. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 45:1190–1201. doi:10.1175/JAM2414.1

Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decisionunder risk. Econometrica 47:263–292

Kohler W, Adams PA (1958) Perception and attention. Am J Psychol 71:489–503

Kristensen E, Jakobsen EB (2011) Danish dairy farmers’ perception ofbiosecurity. Prev Vet Med 99:122–9. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.01.010

Kruger H, Thompson L, Clarke R et al (2009) Engaging in biosecurity :gap analysis. Canberra, ACT

LaneMB, Robinson CJ (2009) Institutional complexity and environmen-tal management: the challenge of integration and the promise oflarge-scale collaboration. Aust J Environ Manag 16:16–24. doi:10.1080/14486563.2009.9725213

Leith P, Vanclay F (2016) Placing science for natural resource manage-ment and climate variability: lessons from narratives of risk, placeand identity. Sociol Rural 00:1–29. doi:10.1111/soru.12124

Mankad A (2012) Decentralised water systems: emotional influences onresource decision making. Environ Int 44:128–40. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2012.01.002

Manzo LC, Perkins DD (2006) Finding common ground: the importanceof place attachment to community participation and planning. J PlanLit 20:335–350

McCusker C, Carnevale PJ (1995) Framing in resource dilemmas: lossaversion and the moderating effects of sanctions. Organ Behav HumDecis Process 61:190–201

Miles SB (2015) Foundations of community disaster resilience: well-be-ing, identity, services, and capitals. Environ Hazard 1–19. doi: 10.1080/17477891.2014.999018

Monroe MC (2003) Two avenues for encouraging conservation behav-iors. Res Hum Ecol 10:113–125

Myers DG (2004) Theories of emotion, 7th edn. Worth Publishers, NewYork

Nicholls JG (1984) Achievement motivation: conceptions of ability, sub-jective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychol Rev 91:328–346. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328

Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B et al (2008) Community resilienceas a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disasterreadiness. Am J Community Psychol 41:127–50. doi:10.1007/s10464-007-9156-6

Öhlmér B, Olson K, Brehmer B (1998) Understanding farmers’ decisionmaking processes and improving managerial assistance. Agric Econ18:273–290. doi:10.1016/S0169-5150(97)00052-2

Palmer S, Sully M, Fozdar F (2009) Farmers, animal disease reportingand the effect of trust: a study of West Australian sheep and cattlefarmers. Rural Soc 19:32–48

Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N et al (2006) Understanding and pro-moting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. AustJ Exp Agric 46:1407–1424. doi:10.1071/EA05037

Peshin R, Vasanthakumar J, Kalra R (2009) Integrated pest management:innovation-development process. 1–29. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-8992-3

Plant Health Australia (2011) Government and plant industry cost sharingdeed in respect of emergency plant pest responses. 258

Reimer AP, Thompson AW, Prokopy LS (2012) The multi-dimensionalnature of environmental attitudes among farmers in Indiana: impli-cations for conservation adoption. Agric HumValues 29:29–40. doi:10.1007/s10460-011-9308-z

Robinson CJ, Smyth D,Whitehead PJ (2005) Bush tucker, bush pets, andbush threats: cooperative management of feral animals in Australia’s

Kakadu National Park. Conserv Biol 19:1385–1391. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00196.x

Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals andattitude change. J Psychol 91:93–114

Rogers RW (1983) Cognitive and physiological processes in attitudechange: a revised theory of protection motivation. In: Cacioppo J,Petty R (eds) Social Psychophysiology. Guilford Press, New York,pp 153–176

Rogers EM (2004) A prospective and retrospective look at the diffusionmodel. J Health Commun 9(Suppl 1):13–9. doi:10.1080/10810730490271449

Rogers RW, Mewborn CR (1976) Fear appeals and attitude change: ef-fects of a threat’s noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and theefficacy of coping responses. J Pers Soc Psychol 34:54–61

Roy Dutta D (2009) Self-efficacy of agricultural farmers: a case study. JIndian Acad Appl Psychol 35:323–328

Sarin RK, Weber M (1993) Effects of ambiguity in market experiments.Manag Sci 39:602–615

Schemann K, Taylor MR, Toribio JLML, Dhand NK (2011) Horseowners’ biosecurity practices following the first equine influenzaoutbreak in Australia. Prev Vet Med 102:304–14. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2011.08.002

Schultz PW (2000) Empathizing with nature: the effects of perspectivetaking on concern for environmental issues. J Soc Issues 56:391–406

Scottish Executive (2002) Codes of recommendations for the welfare oflivestock: animal health and biosecurity

Simin M, Janković D (2014) Applicability of diffusion of innovationtheory in organic agriculture. Econ Agric 2014:517–531

Stedman R (2002) Toward a social psychology of place. Environ Behav34:561–581

Taylor M, Agho K, Griffin E (2008) Human impacts of equine influenza.Summary Report. Sydney

Thøgersen J (2003) Monetary incentives and recycling: behavioural andpsychological reactions to a performance-dependent garbage fee. JConsum Policy 26:197–228

Toborn J (2011) Adoption of agricultural innovations, converging narra-tives, and the role of Swedish agricultural research for development.46

Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psy-chology of choice. Science 211(80- ):453–458

ValeevaNI, LamTJGM, Hogeveen H (2007)Motivation of dairy farmersto improve mastitis management. J Dairy Sci 90:4466–4477. doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0095

Valente TW, Rogers EM (1995) The origins and development of thediffusion of innovations paradigm as an example of scientificgrowth. Scei Commun 16:242–273

Vaske JJ, Kobrin KC (2001) Place attachment and environmentally re-sponsible behavior. J Environ Educ 32:16–21

Wang T, Hennessy DA (2015) Strategic interactions among private andpublic efforts when preventing and stamping out a highly infectiousanimal disease. Am J Agric Econ 97:435–451. doi:10.1093/ajae/aau119

Weber EU, Blais A-R, Betz NE (2002) A domain-specific risk-attitudescale: measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. J Behav DecisMak 15:263–290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414

Wilkening EA (1950) A socio-psychological approach to the study ofacceptance of innovations farming. Rural Sociol 15:352–364

Williams DR, Vaske JJ (2003) The measurement of place attachment:validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. For Sci49:830–840

Wu H, Mweemba L (2009) Environmental self-efficacy, attitude andbehavior among small scale farmers in Zambia. Environ DevSustain 12:727–744. doi:10.1007/s10668-009-9221-4

Young JN, Coleman AL (1959) Neighbourhood norms and the adoptionof farm practices.pdf. Rural Sociol 24:372–380

40 Page 14 of 14 Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2016) 36: 40