Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Development
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envdev

Measuring sustainable development, its antecedents, barriers and

consequences in agriculture: An exploratory factor analysis
Rozélia Laurett a, *, Arminda Paço b, Emerson Wagner Mainardes a
a
FUCAPE Business School, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil and NECE-UBI - Research Centre for Business Sciences, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama,
6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal
b
Universidade da Beira Interior, NECE-UBI - Research Centre for Business Sciences, Rua Marquês d’Ávila e Bolama, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This research aims to identify the factors measuring sustainable development in agriculture, its
Sustainable development antecedents, barriers and consequences. To do so, first a literature review and qualitative research
Sustainability (involving 23 interviews) led to developing a questionnaire, which was then validated. Next,
Family agriculture
quantitative research involved collecting data from 220 family farmers in Brazil, and exploratory
Sustainable agriculture
factor analysis was performed. This made it possible to understand how Brazilian family farmers
perceived sustainable development in agriculture. This can be measured by 25 variables and 3
factors: natural agriculture; innovation and technology; and environmental aspects. The ante­
cedents (predictors) of sustainable development in agriculture were grouped in 5 factors: external
influencers; engagement with sustainability; concern about future generations; environmental
motivators; and individual characteristics. Two factors (lack of information and knowledge; and
lack of planning and support), defined the barriers to sustainable development in agriculture.
Socio-environmental benefits and subjective well-being were the two factors measuring the
consequences of that development. This article contributes to identifying the factors underlying
sustainable development in agriculture, the antecedents, barriers and consequences of that sus­
tainability, something as yet not identified in the literature on this subject, which indicates the
innovation and originality of the study.

1. Introduction

Sustainable development is a concept used by the most diverse organisations (Lélé, 1991; Buchs & Blanchard, 2011). However, for
some authors it has become a concept commonly used, but rarely understood, (Stoneham et al., 2003), being considered by some as a
“slogan” (Ramsey, 2015), and open to several interpretations and being hard to understand in practice (White, 2013; Lozano, 2008).
The concept of sustainable development proposed by Gro Brundtland (1987), despite being one of the best known in the literature, is
criticised due to its lack of clarity (Lippert, 2004; Marshall and Toffel, 2005). Similarly, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), focusing on
environmental, economic and social sustainability (Elkington, 2004) has been subject to criticism given the difficulty of conceptu­
alizing sustainable development based on these three pillars, and their incompatibility in many cases (Koroneos and Rokos, 2012;
White, 2013; Nogueira, 2019). Thus, sustainable development is widely addressed, but with regard to its theoretical concept and
practical application, it is still subject to criticism and doubts. Furthermore, understanding of this concept can be influenced by cultural

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rozelialaurett@gmail.com (R. Laurett).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2020.100583
Received 15 January 2020; Received in revised form 29 September 2020; Accepted 15 October 2020
Available online 20 October 2020
2211-4645/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

differences between countries (Khalil et al., 2013), and by the economic sector in question (Webster, 1997; Von Wirén-Lehr, 2001).
In the agricultural sector, sustainable development can be considered an important ally in solving environmental problems,
minimizing inequality, improving food quality and lessening soil damage and the adverse effects of chemical products, etc.(Hansen,
1996), while considering the increasing demand for food production for a growing population (Tilman et al., 2002). Therefore,
achieving sustainability in agriculture is one of the most important aspects of sustainable development (Bastan et al., 2018). However,
the meaning of sustainable development in agriculture is still vague and full of ambiguity (Lélé, 1991; Hayati et al., 2010; Velten et al.,
2015), which makes understanding and implementation of sustainability in the agricultural sector a complex matter (Webster, 1997;
Von Wirén-Lehr, 2001).
Sustainable development in agriculture can be analysed based on the definition proposed by Gro Brundtland applied to farming
(Marcelino-Aranda et al., 2017), i.e., agricultural activity should be concerned about meeting the needs of current and future gen­
erations (Brundtland, 1987). In this context, the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (Elkington, 2004) can also be used for analysis. From this
perspective, sustainable development in agriculture is perceived as a continuous process that seeks to find a balance between eco­
nomic, social and environmental development (Stoneham et al., 2003; Placet et al., 2005; Maxey, 2006; Onduru and Du Preez, 2008;
Rodriguez et al., 2009; Kata and Kusz, 2015; Latruffe et al., 2016; Bastan et al., 2018). However, there is as yet no consensus on how to
define or measure sustainable development in agriculture. Studies attempting to understand and define the term are still scarce
(Dunlap et al., 1993; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Aerni, 2009; Bagheri, 2010; Tey et al., 2012).
It can therefore be said that the process of measuring sustainable development in agriculture is not an easy task. In this process,
there may be various predictors that tend to influence how development is perceived or even practised in everyday farming (Leite
et al., 2014; Tey et al., 2014; Martin et al., 2015; Miranda-Ackerman and Azzaro-Pantel, 2017; Mupfasoni et al., 2018). In addition,
various barriers can hinder sustainable development in agriculture (Rodriguez et al., 2009; Ma et al., 2009; Leite et al., 2014; Kata and
Kusz, 2015; Martin et al., 2015; Cederholm Björklund, 2018). Finally, various results may be achieved by adopting practices in favour
of more sustainable agriculture (Bazzani et al., 2005; Leite et al., 2014; Kata and Kusz, 2015; Martin et al., 2015; Marcelino-Aranda
et al., 2017). Sustainable agricultural practices are methods, activities, attitudes and/or actions that can contribute to making agri­
culture more sustainable, for example, by saving water using more efficient irrigation systems, by preserving the soil, by choosing
organic production, by minimizing the use of chemicals, by preserving and conserving natural resources, among other practices
(Schaller, 1993; Menalled et al., 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Romero et al., 2012; Knutson et al., 2011).
It stands out that no studies related to sustainable development in agriculture were found to measure, through factors, the ante­
cedents, obstacles and consequences of that development concomitantly. It is relevant to study farmers, as they are the ones mainly
responsible for daily farming activity and implementing practices leading to sustainable development (Tilman et al., 2002; Preissel
et al., 2017). Concerning the antecedents and consequences of sustainable development in agriculture, no factor structures to measure
these two questions were identified. As for the barriers, some authors have already proposed their grouping in factors (Milbrath 1995;
Evans et al., 2012; Stewart et al., 2016), but none of them focused on grouping the barriers related to sustainable development in
agriculture. Given these gaps, this study aims to identify the factors measuring sustainable development in agriculture, its antecedents,
barriers and consequences, from the perceptions of family farmers in Brazil.
Regarding definition of the concept of “family farming”, there is no consensus in the literature (FAO, 2017b). According to the
panel of HLPE experts (2013), family farming is mostly represented by small rural producers, but there may be different definitions of
small farmers, at the local and regional level. In particular, family farming uses family labour (HLPE - High Level Panel of Experts on
Food Security and Nutrition, 2013; Garner and Campos, 2014). In some countries, family farming is referred to as a “small farm”
(Grover and Gruver, 2017; FAO, 2017b); in others, as in Colombia, it is called “peasant economy” (Ortiz et al., 2018).
In the Brazilian context, the definition of family farming is analysed according to the “family farming” law (\Brasil, 2006), which
considers family farming as carrying out activities in rural areas, meeting simultaneously the following requirements: (i) the maximum
area allowed is four fiscal modules (note that these four modules can vary according to the region); (ii) uses predominantly family
labour in the economic activities; (iii) has a minimum percentage of family income from economic activities; and (iv) runs the business
with the family (Brasil, 2006). In the general context, family farming is made up of small rural properties that use family labour.
Various researchers have considered agriculture as one of the human activities that interacts with, and impacts most directly on the
environment (Lélé, 1991; Von Wirén-Lehr, 2001). Agriculture accounts for approximately 11% of the world’s land area (FAO, 2011),
meaning that a considerable amount of the soil worldwide is used by the agricultural sector, leading to concern about how agriculture
is carried out. In addition, an estimated 80% of global deforestation is related to agriculture (FAO, 2017a), and 70% of the fresh water
taken from rivers, streams and lakes is consumed by agriculture (FAO, 2011). Added to this are the risks associated with the use of
agricultural chemical products, for the farmer, consumer and the environment (Schaller, 1993). On the other hand, the importance of
agriculture worldwide is highlighted regarding employment, income and food production. It is estimated there are around 570 million
farms worldwide, of which around 500 million are considered family concerns (Lowder et al., 2014). Of these, 4,4 million family farms
are situated in Brazil, with 12,3 million people being connected to this activity (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística,
2009). It is therefore important to study the agricultural sector from the perspective of sustainability, despite the apparent lack of
consensus on how to advance towards more sustainable agriculture (Rigby and Cáceres, 2001). This study contributes to the literature
on sustainable agriculture, with its originality lying in the attempt to measure simultaneously the antecedents, barriers and conse­
quences of sustainable development at the family farm level through elaboration and validation of a questionnaire. A way of measuring
the phenomenon studied here is proposed, through exploratory factor analysis, something so far not found in the literature on this
topic.

2
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

2. Sustainable development in agriculture

According to Menalled et al. (2008), sustainable agriculture should mean that agricultural production is profitable, environ­
mentally correct and gives an improved quality of life to farmers and the society that depends on the food it produces. Cederholm
Björklund (2018) emphasizes that sustainable agriculture needs to be concerned about feeding the world’s population, and at the same
time protecting natural resources. For Allen et al. (1991), sustainable agriculture seeks a balance between environmental interests,
economic viability and social justice for the various sectors of society. Attempts to identify a single definition of sustainable devel­
opment in agriculture have not yet been successful, due to its complexity and the need to adapt to the context that agriculture belongs
to (Velten et al., 2015). Hayati, Ranjbar and Karami (2010) underline that measuring or defining sustainable development in agri­
culture is still difficult and say there is still no best practice or concept that can state what sustainable development in this sector is. For
Coteur et al. (2018), sustainable development still tends to be hindered by the complexity and diversity of the sector.
Although farmers are responsible for the decision to make their farms more sustainable (Preissel et al., 2017), when investigating

Table 1
Antecedents of sustainable development.
N Antecedent Description Studies in the agricultural sector Studies in other sectors

1 Access to credit Facilitating access to credit and loans. Tey et al. (2014) _
2 Altruism Altruistic feelings, thinking of the well-being of others. Miranda-Ackerman and Azzaro-Pantel _
(2017); Mupfasoni et al. (2018)
3 Value chain Pressure from the value chain to be more sustainable. Marcelino-Aranda et al. (2017). _
4 Consumers Pressure from consumers to adopt more sustainable Michaelidou and Hassan (2008); Martin _
practices. et al. (2015); Miranda-Ackerman and
Azzaro-Pantel (2017)
5 Cooperatives and Incentive from cooperatives and producer associations Tey et al. (2014); Leite et al. (2014); _
associations to become more sustainable. Zeweld et al. (2017)
6 Sustainable Undertake more sustainable entrepreneurship, i.e., not Mupfasoni et al. (2018) _
entrepreneurship thinking only about financial return.
7 Education Farmers with a higher level of education are more open Siebert et al. (2006); Fielding et al. _
to adopting sustainable practices. (2008); Ma et al. (2009); Leite et al.
(2014)
8 Gender Females tend to have a positive influence on the Fielding et al. (2008) _
adoption of sustainability on farms.
9 Age Younger people are more likely to invest and consider Rodriguez et al. (2009); Mala and MaLý _
sustainability in agriculture. (2013); Van Thanh and
Yapwattanaphun (2015)
10 Innovation Willingness to innovate or make changes in how Carolan (2006); Miranda-Ackerman and _
activities are carried out on farms. Azzaro-Pantel (2017); Mupfasoni et al.
(2018)
11 Internet Searching for, or receiving information via the internet Carolan (2006) _
about sustainability in agriculture.
12 Legislation Need to comply with legislation. Schleifer (2017) _
13 Media and other forms Incentive through the media and other forms of Zeweld et al. (2017) _
of communication communication to stimulate the adoption of more
sustainable practices (for example, television, radio,
newspapers and magazines).
14 Non-Governmental Pressure from NGOs to adopt more sustainable Martin et al. (2015); Schleifer (2017) González-Benito and
Organisations (NGOs) practices. González-Benito (2006).
15 Pollution Desire to reduce pollution. Leite et al. (2014); Mupfasoni et al. _
(2018)
16 Conservation Thinking about the conservation of natural resources. Leite et al. (2014); Mupfasoni et al. _
(2018)
17 Cultural pressure Cultural pressure from the point of view of “right” or Carolan (2006) _
“wrong” production.
18 Pressure from Pressure from companies looking for increasingly Pretty et al. (2008) González-Benito and
companies sustainable suppliers. González-Benito, 2006)
19 External references The influence of significant reference groups (friends, Siebert et al. (2006); Zeweld et al. _
neighbours, families and local leaders). (2017)
20 Religion Religion can influence people to adopt environmental _ Narayanan (2013);
protection practices. Minton et al. (2015)
21 Reputation and image Concern about the business’s reputation and image. _ Haddock-Fraser and
Tourelle (2010).
22 Labelling Influence of ecological labelling/organic production Miranda-Ackerman and Azzaro-Pantel _
seal/carbon labelling. (2017)
23 Passing through the Principle of passing through the generations, i.e., Siebert et al. (2006); Marcelino-Aranda _
generations thinking about future generations. et al. (2017)
24 Training Participating in training, workshops, agricultural field Van Thanh and Yapwattanaphun _
days, shared experience, demonstrations and visits to (2015); Zeweld et al. (2017)
exhibitions/events.

Source: Own elaboration.

3
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Table 2
Barriers to sustainable development.
N Barriers Description Studies about the agricultural sector Studies about other sectors

1 Capitalism Capitalism with its culture of globalized _ Duarte (2015)

consumption.
2 Workload Increased workload. Kata and Kusz (2015) _
3 Certification Difficulty in obtaining certification of Kata and Kusz (2015) _
sustainable production.
4 Concept of sustainable Difficulty in understanding what sustainable Rodriguez et al. (2009) Williams and Dair (2007);
development development is. Evans et al. (2012);
5 Consumers Difficulty in understanding what consumers Ma et al. (2009); Leite et al. (2014); Stewart et al. (2016)
really want and need. Grover and Gruver (2017); Cederholm
Björklund (2018).
6 Production costs Increased production costs. Kata and Kusz (2015) _
7 Examples of success Lack of examples of success and best practices Rodriguez et al. (2009) _
to follow.
8 Lack of government Lack of government support to make Carolan (2006); Cederholm Björklund Wilson and Rezgui (2013);
support agriculture more sustainable. (2018) Chowdury et al. (2015)
9 Lack of technical Lack of appropriate technical information Leite et al. (2014); Martin et al. (2015) _
knowledge and knowledge about sustainable agriculture.
10 Lack of information Lack of information about alternative Carolan (2006); Leite et al. (2014); _
methods that can make agriculture more Martin et al. (2015); Kata and Kusz
sustainable. (2015)
11 Lack of financial Lack of financial resources to invest in Sassenrath et al. (2010); Kata and Kusz Williams and Dair (2007);
resources sustainability. (2015); Cederholm Björklund (2018). Kuppig et al. (2016); Stewart
et al. (2016)
12 Lack of technical support Lack of technical support or help/advice from Carolan (2006); Leite et al. (2014); Kata _
specialists. and Kusz (2015); Cederholm Björklund
(2018)
13 Lack of time Lack of time to invest in sustainability. Grover and Gruver (2017) Evans et al. (2012); Stewart
et al. (2016)
14 External finance Lack of external finance to invest in _ Kuppig et al. (2016);
sustainability. Cederholm Björklund (2018).
15 Family and traditional Family and traditional management hinders Rodriguez et al. (2009); Cederholm _
management agriculture from becoming more sustainable. Björklund (2018)
16 Innovation Difficulty of innovating and introducing new Cederholm Björklund (2018); Martin Stewart et al. (2016)
ways of working. et al. (2015)
17 High initial investment The need to make major investment when Ma et al. (2009) _
adopting more sustainable agriculture.
18 Legislation Lack of understandable legislation and Leite et al. (2014); Cederholm Björklund _
specific regulations to make agriculture more (2018)
sustainable.
19 State and federal Excessive state and federal laws and Grover and Gruver (2017); Cederholm _
legislation and regulations. Björklund (2018).
regulations
20 Leadership Lack of leadership to implement Cederholm Björklund (2018) _
sustainability on farms.
21 Fear Fear of the unknown, i.e., fear of using new Rodriguez et al. (2009) _
methods on farms.
22 Metrics of sustainability Difficulty of defining metrics to measure _ Chowdury et al., 2015; Stewart
sustainability. et al. (2016)
23 Number of certifying Limited number of entities issuing Kata and Kusz (2015) _
entities sustainability certification.
24 Perception of benefits Not perceiving the benefits arising from Kata and Kusz (2015)
adopting more sustainable practices.
25 Sustainable practices Lack of knowledge about sustainable Rodriguez et al. (2009) _
practices.
26 Certifying entities’ rules Excessive rules and obligations required by Kata and Kusz (2015) _
and obligations certifying bodies.
27 Resistance to change Resistance to change to behaviour that can Sassenrath et al. (2010); Carolan (2006); Stewart et al. (2016)
make agriculture more sustainable. Rodriguez et al. (2009); Cederholm
Björklund (2018).
28 Risk Aversion to risk. Ma et al. (2009) _
29 Technology Difficulty in using new technology. Sassenrath et al. (2010); Martin et al. _
(2015)
30 Training Lack of training actions on the subject of Rodriguez et al. (2009) Wilson and Rezgui (2013);
sustainable development. Stewart et al. (2016)
31 Entrepreneurial vision Lack of long-term, entrepreneurial vision. Ma et al. (2009) _
32 Systemic vision Lack of a systemic vision of how the world _ Milbrath (1995)
operates, seeing the world as a whole, not
only the parts.

Source: Own elaboration.

4
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

such a complex subject as conceptualizing sustainability in agriculture, there is a limited amount of literature available (Dunlap et al.,
1993; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Aerni, 2009; Bagheri, 2010; Tey et al., 2012). Most studies seek to confirm the perception of academics
and farmers together (Dunlap et al., 1993), only farmers’ perceptions (Tey et al., 2012), professionals linked to agri-business, extension
agents, officials representing entities connected to agriculture, members of non-governmental organisations, rural producers and other
stakeholders (Aerni, 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009).

2.1. Antecedents

A review of the literature identified 24 antecedents or predictors of sustainable development. Most of them were detected in studies
related to the agricultural sector. These studies were carried out in several countries: Malaysia (Martin et al., 2015; Tey et al., 2014);
United States (Carolan, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009); Brazil (Leite et al., 2014; Schleifer, 2017); Mexico (Marcelino-Aranda et al.,
2017; Miranda-Ackerman and Azzaro-Pantel, 2017); Scotland (Michaelidou and Hassan, 2008); Ethiopia (Zeweld et al., 2017); China
(Ma et al., 2009); Czech Republic (Mala and MaLý, 2013); Vietnam (Van Thanh and Yapwattanaphun, 2015); United Kingdom (Pretty,
2008); and Australia (Fielding et al., 2008). Another prominent aspect is that groups of antecedents of sustainable development were
not identified, with antecedents being scattered in the literature. Table 1 presents a summary of the antecedents of sustainable
development.

2.2. Barriers

Many barriers can hinder or prevent farmers from adopting more sustainable practices. This literature review identified 32 barriers
to sustainability (see Table 2). These include barriers related to behavioural questions, resistance to change (Sassenrath et al., 2010;
Carolan, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Cederholm Björklund, 2018) and financial restrictions (Ma et al., 2009; Sassenrath et al., 2010;
Kata and Kusz, 2015; Cederholm Björklund, 2018). The studies related to barriers in the agricultural sector come from different
countries, such as: United States (Carolan, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Sassenrath et al., 2010); China (Ma et al., 2009); Brazil (Leite
et al., 2014); United States (Grover and Gruver, 2017); Sweden (Cederholm Björklund, 2018); Malaysia (Martin et al., 2015); Poland
(Kata and Kusz, 2015).

2.3. Consequences

Table 3 presents the survey of the theory, which identified 10 consequences of sustainable development, in the agricultural sector
or others. These studies were carried out in different countries: Brazil (Leite et al., 2014); European Union (Bazzani et al., 2005);
Malaysia (Martin et al., 2015); Poland (Kata and Kusz, 2015); Mexico (Marcelino-Aranda et al., 2017). It is hoped this research can
extend the findings about the consequences of sustainable development in agriculture, since few studies deal with this matter, either in
the international literature or specifically in the Brazilian context of family farming.
The literature review confirmed that few studies have aimed specifically to measure, through factors, what sustainable develop­
ment in agriculture is. Nor was there any mention of the factors aiming to measure the antecedents, barriers and consequences of that
development.

3. Methods

Qualitative and quantitative research of a transversal nature was adopted, with the collection of primary data. Brazilian agriculture
is divided into two segments: family farming and non-family farming (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2009).
Non-family farming is made up of larger farms, that is, those with more than four fiscal modules, which are considered large farms. In

Table 3
Consequences of sustainable development.
N Consequences Description Studies about the agricultural Studies about other
sector sectors

1 Production costs Increased production costs. Kata and Kusz (2015) _

2 Efficiency
3 Soil fertility
4 Image and reputation
5 Environmental
impacts
6 Innovation
7 Legislation
8 Pollution
9 Natural resources
10 Profitability
Greater efficiency in the use of natural resources. Marcelino-Aranda et al. (2017) _
Increased soil fertility. Leite et al. (2014) _
Improvement of the company’s image and reputation. _ Rao and Holt (2005)
Reduction in the environmental impacts caused by the _ Rao and Holt (2005)
production process.
Becoming more innovative. _ Baumgartner (2014)
Complying with legislation. _ Rao and Holt (2005)
Reducing pollution in the soil, air and water. Leite et al. (2014) Rao and Holt (2005)
Conservation and economy in the use of natural resources. Bazzani et al. (2005) _
Increased profitability. Martin et al. (2015); Baumgartner (2014)
Reduced profitability. Kata and Kusz (2015) _
Long-term profitability. Marcelino-Aranda et al. (2017) _

Source: Own elaboration.

5
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

this research, the target population was family farmers in Brazil, (Lei 11.326/2006). As already stated, in Brazil there are approxi­
mately 4,4 million family farms, representing 12,3 million people linked to this type of farming (IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia
e Estatística, 2009). Of these 4,4 million family farms, 5% are located in the Midwest; 9,5% in the North; 16% in the South; 16% in the
Southeast; and 50,1% in the Northeast. However, due to the size of the country, a non-probabilistic sample of convenience and
snowballing was used (Hair et al., 2003).
The questionnaire was developed from combining the literature with the result of 23 semi-structured, exploratory interviews with
Brazilian family farmers. After assessing the results of the interviews, the questionnaire was elaborated. Next, the questionnaire was
validated, first by four specialists, and then pre-tested with 15 Brazilian family farmers. It was formed of eight parts. The first part
makes a brief presentation of the research and provides some instructions on how to complete it. This is followed by seven questions
dealing with the delimitation and suitability of the sample, aiming to ascertain whether respondents come into the category of family
farmers. Then the third to the sixth part of the questionnaire are presented: 25 variables measuring sustainable development, and
identified by codes SD1 to SD25; 19 statements presenting the antecedents of sustainable development (A1 to A19); 20 statements
dealing with the barriers to sustainability in agriculture (B1 to B20); 14 statements on the consequences of sustainable development in
agriculture (C1 to C14). To measure family farmers’ responses, a 7-point Likert scale was used (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3
= Somewhat Disagree; 4 = Neither Agree nor Disagree; 5 = Somewhat Agree; 6 = Agree 7 = Strongly Agree). In total, the questionnaire
contained 93 closed questions. It was disseminated in two ways: (i) online: with the google docs link being shared via e-mail, social
networks and Whatsapp; and (ii) face-to-face: 300 printed questionnaires were distributed by agricultural secretaries, cooperatives and
producer associations, churches, schools and/or directly to family farmers.
As for the size of the sample, the data analysis technique used and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) were taken into consideration.
With EFA, 5 to 10 responses per variable are expected (Hair et al., 2013). Two hundred and fifty-five answers were obtained,
considering the indication of Hair et al. (2013). However, 16 questionnaires were eliminated through not being suitable for the sample;
in these cases, respondents stated that they do not belong to the family farming category. This left a total of 239 answers, with 220
being received via the printed questionnaire and 19 online. The t-student test was performed to determine whether there were sig­
nificant differences in the means of the printed questionnaire and the online one, which was in fact found, at a 5% level of significance
(95% reliability). Therefore, based on the results of the t-test, only the 220 answers received from the printed questionnaires were used
for data analysis.
Concerning the data analysis techniques, descriptive analysis and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) were used. This analysis aims
to group the variables (indicators) in constructs or factors (Hair et al., 2003). In this case, the 25 variables related to sustainable
development (SD1 to SD25) were grouped into factors, using EFA. The same process was followed for the antecedents, barriers and
consequences. EFA was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 23 software.

4. Analysis and discussion of the results

4.1. Characterisation of participants in the research

Of the 220 family farmers who answered the questionnaire, the vast majority (98.2%) came from the south-eastern region of Brazil,
and 1.8% from the southern region, as highlighted in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. Map of the five regions of Brazil.

6
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Of the 220 family farmers participating in the research, 53,2% are male and 46,8% female. Concerning level of education, 72,7%
stated they had completed no more than basic education. As for age, 84,5% of the sample were under 49. Regarding marital status,
65,9% said they were married and 66,4% had children. In relation to earnings, 49,1% said their monthly income was not above the
minimum salary. As for their function in agriculture, 87,7% of the sample own their farms. The great majority of answers received
came from the South-East region of Brazil (98,2%). When asked about the type of agriculture practised, 69,1% said this was con­
ventional agriculture, 25% carried out organic agriculture and 5,9% corresponded to other types.
In addition, 93,6% of the sample is formed of farmers who carried out exclusively arable production, while the remaining 6,4%
carried out a combination of arable and livestock production. Regarding the length of time in agriculture, 75% of the sample said they
had been farming for more than 10 years, underlining that the respondents have considerable experience of agricultural activity. As for
the size of their farms, 21,5% claimed to have properties of up to 5 ha; 29,2% have properties ranging from 6 to 10 ha; 34,2% claimed
to have properties ranging from 11 to 20 ha; 9,1% have properties ranging from 21 to 30 ha. That is, 94,5% had no more than 30 ha, i.
e., relatively small compared to non-family farms in Brazil. It should also be noted that 49,1% farmers reported having a monthly
income of up to one minimum wage (approximately R$ 1.000,00/per month), and 39,6% between 1 and 3 minimum wages
(approximately R $ 3,000,00/per month). This means that 88,7% of the sample has a gross monthly income of up to three minimum
wages.

4.2. Exploratory factor analysis: development of the factors

In performing Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the factor method chosen was based on total variance, and principal component
analysis, with Varimax orthogonal rotation. Factor extraction was based on eigenvalues greater than 1 (Malhotra, 2008; Hair et al.,
2013) and on the criterion of percentage of variation, with values above 0,60 (Hair et al., 2013). Used to check the suitability of the
sample and the viability of EFA were: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test, with values above 0, 50 (Malhotra, 2008); the Bartlett
sphericity test, being statistically significant<0,05 (Hair et al., 2013); and Measures of Sampling Adequacy, with values above 0, 50
(Hair et al., 2013). Regarding the exclusion of variables, those with communality values and factor loadings above 0,50 (Hair et al.,
2013) were retained. In designating the variables, those with the highest factor loadings (Hair et al., 2013) were considered. Finally,
factor reliability was assessed based on the Cronbach Alpha value (>0,60) (Pestana and Gageiro, 2008).

4.2.1. Factors of sustainable development in agriculture

This first EFA sought to identify the factors forming the definition of sustainable development in agriculture. Perception of

Table 4
EFA: Sustainable development in agriculture.
Factor Factor name ID Variable Factor Communalities Eigenvalues Variance Accumulated Cronbach
Loading variance Alpha

F1 Natural SD12 Carrying out organic 0,85 0,74 3,51 22,4 22,36 0,81
Agriculture agriculture, i.e.,
producing organic
products.
SD14 Controlling weeds 0,83 0,71
(undergrowth) without
using herbicides (for
example, roundup).
SD9 Avoiding burning on the 0,72 0,6
farm.
SD3 Reducing the use of 0,70 0,61
pesticides.
F2 Innovation and SD21 Innovating, i.e., 0,74 0,56 2,59 21,6 43,92 0,76
Technology continuously improving
the way of working on the
farm.
SD18 Producing and using solar 0,74 0,55
power (using photo-
voltaic equipment).
SD20 Producing food for own 0,72 0,57
consumption.
SD19 Being concerned about 0,71 0,55
waste.
SD22 Using technology (for 0,60 0,55
example: new machinery)
in farming, without
harming the
environment.
F3 Environmental SD11 Saving water and energy. 0,78 0,67 1,23 17,2 61,11 0,71
aspects SD6 Preserving sources. 0,77 0,6
SD10 Avoiding soil erosion. 0,63 0,59

7
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Table 5
EFA: Antecedents of sustainable development in agriculture.
Factor Factor name ID Variable Factor Communalities Eigenvalues Variance Accumulated Cronbach
loadng variance alpha

F1 external A9 I consider that social 0,73 0,56 3,88 14,23 14,23 0,69
influencers communication (television,
radio, newspapers and
magazines) encourage
actions in favour of
sustainable agricultural
development.
A11 I consider that if I adopt more 0,66 0,54
sustainable farming
practices, this facilitates
access to credit and loans.
A8 Producer associations 0,64 0,58
encourage the use of more
sustainable practices.
A12 I consider that consumers put 0,62 0,54
pressure on farmers to adopt
more sustainable agricultural
practices.
A5 People who are important to 0,59 0,64
me (such as neighbours,
friends and family)
encourage actions in favour
of sustainable agricultural
development.
F2 Engagement A14 I don’t think only about the 0,74 0,66 1,85 13,64 27,87 0,68
with profit, we also need to
sustainability conserve the environment.
A13 I want my farm to be an 0,70 0,56
example of sustainability for
other farmers and people.
A10 I consider it important for 0,66 0,57
schools to speak about
sustainable development.
F3 Concernn about A6 In my daily life, when I’m 0,70 0,58 1,43 12,63 40,5 0,63
future working I think a lot about
generations future generations.
A1 Religion can influence 0,66 0,53
people to adopt practices
that protect the
environment.
A3 I consider that younger 0,63 0,62
people are more willing to
invest and consider the
question of agricultural
sustainability.
A7 I consider that participating 0,62 0,61
in courses, visiting other
farms, attending exhibitions
and events can all encourage
the use of sustainable
practices in agriculture.
F4 Environmental A16 I’m concerned about climate 0,73 0,69 1,35 10,22 50,73 0,61
motivators change, i.e., about the
change in the temperature of
the planet.
A15 I consider it important to 0,71 0,56
receive some incentive from
the government to conserve
the environment (for
example, receiving money to
conserve the forest; tax
reduction).
F5 Individual A19 I think that women are more 0,83 0,70 1,14 9,58 60,3 0,60
characteristics concerned about
sustainability.
A18 I consider that people with 0,79 0,66
more education find it easier
to adopt sustainable
agricultural practices.

8
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

sustainable development in agriculture was formed of 25 variables (SD1 to SD25). A total of 8 factor analyses were rotated. In the
process of adjusting the factor model, 13 variables were excluded, due to presenting communalities and/or factor loadings below 0,50.
Therefore, the eighth and final EFA allowed the factor model to adjust with a KMO value of 0,80, X2 (66) = 873,37 and significance
<0,000, and the extraction of three factors with a total variance of 61,11%. The three factors presented Cronbach Alpha values above
0,60, confirming their reliability. The factors were also designated. A summary of these analyses is presented in Table 4.
Analysing each of the three factors individually, the first factor (F1) is seen to be formed of four variables and was designated
Natural Agriculture. This factor reinforces that sustainable agricultural development is linked to organic farming and to practices that
contribute to making farming more natural. This result demonstrates that when asked about what sustainable development in agri­
culture is, the family farmer tends to perceive this concept as more natural agricultural practice, organic farming, controlling weeds
without using herbicides, reducing the use of pesticides and avoiding burning on the farm (Menalled et al., 2008; Pretty, 2008; Bagheri,
2010; Knutson et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2015; Van Thanh and Yapwattanaphun, 2015). This also indicates that organic farming is only
one of the variables forming sustainable agricultural development, and not a synonym of it.
As for the second factor (F2), this was formed of five variables related to innovation and the use of technology in farming, and so
this factor was called Innovation and technology. Here, it is observed that farmers understood sustainable agricultural development as
the need to innovate in farming activity as well as producing and using renewable sources of energy such as solar power, produce for
their own consumption, showing concern about the question of waste, and finally, using (technological) equipment and machinery that
can contribute to the development of farming activity, as long as it does not harm the environment. These variables were already
identified and related to sustainability by various authors (for example, Tilman et al., 2002; Pretty, 2008; Pretty et al., 2008; Knutson
et al., 2011). Therefore, following this reasoning, family farmers perceive innovation and technology as matters that tend to be part of
sustainable agricultural development.
The third and final factor was called Environmental Aspects, due to the three variables forming it being related specifically to
environmental aspects which, according to farmers’ perception, tend to contribute to more sustainable agriculture, by saving water
and energy, conserving sources and avoiding soil erosion. These variables were previously associated with sustainable agricultural
development by authors such as Rao and Holt (2005) and Knutson et al. (2011). These results are also in accordance with various
studies that consider the environmental question as one of the pillars of sustainable agricultural development (Stoneham et al., 2003;
Placet et al., 2005; Maxey, 2006; Onduru and Du Preez, 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Kata and Kusz, 2015; Latruffe et al., 2016; Bastan
et al., 2018). The environmental question concerns the management and conservation of natural resources in agriculture (Stoneham
et al., 2003; Latruffe et al., 2016) so that future generations can also benefit from agricultural activity (Stoneham et al., 2003).
Much of the literature on conceptualization of sustainable development in agriculture strengthens the importance of defining this
from three pillars, i.e., environmental, social and economic, hoping for a balance between them (Allen et al., 1991; Stoneham et al.,
2003; Placet et al., 2005; Maxey, 2006; Onduru and Du Preez, 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Kata and Kusz, 2015; Latruffe et al., 2016;
Bastan et al., 2018). However, according to family farmers in Brazil, sustainable agricultural development was understood as being
natural agriculture, innovation and technology, and environmental aspects. That is, the farmers did not perceive this as a balance
between environmental, social and economic matters, as could be expected (Allen et al., 1991). As for the question on the ques­
tionnaire dealing with the economic aspect, i.e., that sustainable agricultural development provides financial return/profit on farming
activity, in the EFA adjustment process, this question was not kept among the variables measuring sustainable agricultural devel­
opment. This indicates that the economic question was not understood by family farmers as a pillar of sustainable agricultural
development.

4.2.2. Antecedents of sustainable development in agriculture

To identify the factors forming the scale of antecedents of sustainable agricultural development, these antecedents were measured
from 19 variables (A1 to A19). In total, three factor structures were rotated, and in these adjustments three variables were eliminated.
In the third and final factor structure, 5 factors were extracted, representing 60,30% of the total variance. The KMO value was 0,74,
Bartlett’s sphericity test presented a value of x2 (120) = 825,03 and significance (sig) < 0,000, and the anti-image correlation matrix
presented values above 0,50 for all the variables, these three results indicating the suitability of the sample size and EFA. The other 16
variables analysed presented factor loadings and communalities above 0,50, confirming the validity of those five factors extracted.
Cronbach Alpha values were 0,60 or more. The six factors were also named. The results of the factor model are summarised in Table 5.
The first factor (F1) was called External influencers and is formed of five variables. This suggests that various external influencers
such as social communication, easy access to credit and loans, producer associations, consumers and people farmers are close to tend to
motivate actions in favour of sustainable agricultural development. These variables were already identified by various authors such as
Michaelidou and Hassan (2008), Tey et al. (2014), Leite et al. (2014), Martin et al. (2015), Miranda-Ackerman and Azzaro-Pantel
(2017) and Zeweld et al. (2017).
The second factor (F2) was formed of three variables. The variables of A10 and A13 were not identified in previous studies, but
revealed in the interviews with the family farmers and strengthened through the quantitative research. The A14 variable had already
been identified by Mupfasoni et al. (2018). The grouping of these three variables tends to reflect farmers’ engagement with the matter
of sustainability. This engagement can be seen when farmers’ only focus and objective is not profit, when they implement actions on
their farms that add value and can make them more sustainable and an example for others, as well as being committed through the
influence of social agents (e.g. schools). Based on these results, this factor was named Engagement with sustainability.
The third factor (F3) was formed of four variables. This factor is corroborated by various studies identifying that thinking about
future generations, religion, age and participation in courses can make farmers feel a need or desire to put more sustainable agri­
cultural actions into practice (Siebert et al., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Mala and MaLý, 2013; Narayanan, 2013; Minton et al., 2015;

9
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Van Thanh and Yapwattanaphun, 2015; Marcelino-Aranda et al., 2017; Zeweld et al., 2017). Therefore, this factor was called Concern
about future generations.
The fourth factor (F4) was called Environmental Motivators and was formed of two variables (A16, A15). This factor suggests that
concern about climate change and receiving some government incentive to conserve natural resources can also encourage sustainable
agricultural development. These variables were identified in the interviews and strengthened by EFA. However, this factor was not
identified in previous studies. Finally, various studies found that gender and education can influence the adoption of more sustainable
agricultural practices (Fielding et al., 2008; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Mala and MaLý, 2013; Van Thanh and Yapwattanaphun, 2015).
These two variables (gender and education) formed the fifth factor (F5) of this factor structure. The fifth factor was named “Individual
characteristics”. Finally, this result indicates that these five factors tend to explain the antecedents of sustainable development in
agriculture.

4.2.3. Barriers to sustainable development in agriculture

The barriers to sustainable agricultural development were formed of 20 variables (B1 to B20). However, in the adjustment process
five EFAs were rotated for barriers. In the process of adjusting the factor model of the 20 variables representing the barriers to sus­
tainable agricultural development, 12 variables were excluded (B1, B5, B8, B11, B12, B13, B14, B15, B17, B18, B19, B20) and 8 were
retained. Finally, the fifth EFA presented a KMO value of 0,85, the Bartlett sphericity test X2 (28) = 635,56 and significance (sig) <
0,000, and the anti-image correlation matrix presented values above 0,50 for all the variables. The eight variables also indicated
communalities and factor loadings above 0,50. Factor reliability values were above 0,60. The factors were also named. The following
Table 6 summarises the scale of barriers to sustainable agricultural development.
The first factor (F1) of barriers was formed of five variables. This set of variables revealed one of the barriers to sustainability in
agriculture to be the lack of knowledge and information about the subject. Therefore, this first factor was called Lack of information
and knowledge. It is worth noting that these variables were identified in several studies (Rodriguez et al., 2009; Leite et al., 2014; Kata
and Kusz, 2015; Ma et al., 2009; Leite et al., 2014, 2014; Grover and Gruver, 2017; Cederholm Björklund, 2018). So the difficulty in
understanding what sustainable agriculture is tends to be one of the barriers to sustainable agricultural development. These results
reinforce what other authors have already indicated, the difficulty in understanding this concept (Seifritz, 2001; Hayati et al. (2010).
Lack of knowledge, together with a lack of information, can lead to the topic being wrongly interpreted or causing sustainable
development to be regarded by family farmers as an empty term, with numerous interpretations, difficult to interpret and put into
practice (Lélé, 1991; Webster, 1997; Von Wirén-Lehr, 2001; Hayati et al., 2010; Velten et al., 2015). Nevertheless, it is admittedly
complex to find a single, clear interpretation of sustainable development, due to how much the term covers and the variation in its

Table 6
EFA: Barriers to sustainable development in agriculture.
Factor Factor name ID Variable Factor Commnalities Eigenvalues Variance Accumulated Cronbach
loading variance alpha

F1 Lack of B6 Difficulty in understanding 0,83 0,69 3,83 34,66 34,66 0,83

information & what sustainable development
knowledge is.
B10 Dependence on pesticides, i.e., 0,82 0,68
difficulty in carrying out
farming without using them.
B7 Difficulty in understanding 0,72 0,6
what types of agricultural
products consumers want and
need.
B16 Difficulty in keeping mainly 0,64 0,56
young people on the farm.
B9 Difficulty in understanding the 0,61 0,56
laws and rules that can help
make agriculture more
sustainable.
F2 Lack of B3 Lack of time to invest in 0,84 0,72 1,29 29,30 63,96 0,77
planning and practices that contribute to
support sustainable agricultural
development.
B2 Difficulty in obtaining 0,83 0,70
certification of sustainable
production, due to the many
rules and obligations to comply
with. For example, to obtain
certification of organic
production.
B4 Lack of technical help or 0,72 0,60
guidance from specialists to
help make agriculture more
sustainable.

10
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

interpretation from one context to another (Loeber et al., 2009) and from one individual to another (Leal Filho, 2000; Stoneham et al.,
2003).
The second barrier factor was named Lack of planning and support, formed of three variables. This factor relates to the lack of time
and technical help, associated with the difficulty in obtaining certification of sustainable development. These three variables were
identified previously by Carolan (2006), Evans et al. (2012), Kata and Kusz (2015); Leite et al. (2014), Stewart et al. (2016), Grover and
Gruver (2017) and Cederholm Björklund (2018). This result indicates that the lack of planning together with the lack of technical help
are barriers family farmers need to overcome. That is, farmers need to invest more time in planning practical actions in favour of
sustainable development and need technical help to put these sustainable measures into practice. Therefore, greater involvement
between farmers and stakeholders (public sector, private sector, producer associations, UN and universities) could be one way to
minimize these barriers, together with greater dissemination of what sustainable development tends to be in practice. There is a need
for more research on the subject, so that this phenomenon can also be better understood, even by academics.

4.2.4. Factors of the consequences of sustainable development in agriculture

The consequences of sustainable agricultural development refer to the results/benefits that can be expected from implementing
more sustainable agriculture. The consequences were measured by 14 variables. Four EFAs were rotated. In the course of the ad­
justments, five variables were excluded). The final result of the EFA regarding consequences is summarised in Table 7.
The first factor was formed of seven variables, and this was named Socio-environmental benefits due to presenting benefits in
favour of nature and social well-being. This means farmers understand that actions favouring sustainable agriculture can result in
social and environmental benefits. These results corroborate several previous studies (Rao and Holt, 2005; Bazzani et al., 2005; Leite
et al., 2014; Marcelino-Aranda et al., 2017), which mentioned these variables as possible consequences of sustainability.
The second factor was called Subjective well-being. Through the two variables forming this factor, it was noted that implementing
actions in favour of sustainability tends to result in a feeling of gratitude and satisfaction. This factor and its respective variables had
not been identified previously in the literature, but emerged from the interviews held to elaborate the questionnaire, and confirmed by
EFA. Lehtonen (2004) and Moldan, and Janoušková and Hák (2012) already argued that sustainable development can give individuals
a feeling of well-being. Summarising, the factor structure indicated that socio-environmental benefits and subjective well-being are the
factors measuring the consequences of sustainable agricultural development.
Overall, EFA identified that sustainable agricultural development can be measured from three factors (natural agriculture, inno­
vation and technology, and environmental aspects). This result indicates there is still no single concept to define what sustainable
agricultural development is. In addition, five antecedents of sustainable agricultural development were identified: external influ­
encers, engagement with sustainability, concern about future generations, environmental motivators and individual characteristics.
These five factors tend to motivate or influence how family farmers perceive or practise sustainable development in agriculture.
Subsequently, the barriers to sustainable agricultural development were grouped by EFA in two factors, the lack of information and
knowledge, and the lack of planning and support. According to family farmers, these two factors tend to hinder actions in favour of
sustainability being put into practice in farming activity. Finally, concerning the consequences of sustainable development, two factors
(social benefits, subjective well-being) were identified. These two factors represent farmers’ perception of the results and/or benefits of
more sustainable agriculture. Together, these factors explain a phenomenon as yet little studied in the literature.

Table 7
EFA: Consequences of sustainable development in agriculture.
Factor Factor name ID Variable Factor Communalities Eigenvalues % Accumulated Cronbach
loading Variance variance % alpha

F1 Socio- C7 Reducing soil, air and 0,84 0,73 5,05 56,08 56,08 0,91
environmental water pollution.
benefits C6 Improved soil fertility. 0,81 0,73
C2 Conservation of natural 0,81 0,67
resources (water, forests,
soil and others).
C8 Improved quality of life for 0,80 0,68
farmers and their families.
C9 Reduced environmental 0,77 0,62
impacts caused by
agriculture.
C3 Producing healthier food 0,74 0,58
for own consumption and
for consumers.
C4 Improved health for 0,70 0,55
farmers, their families and
consumers.
F2 Subjective well- C13 A feeling of gratitude from 0,92 0,88 1,26 13,98 70,06 0,86
being putting into practice
actions that can contribute
to more sustainable
agriculture.
C12 A feeling of satisfaction. 0,90 0,87

11
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

5. Conclusion

It is concluded that family farmers understand sustainable agricultural development as related to practising natural agriculture,
investing in innovation and technology and being concerned about environmental aspects. That is, in the opinion of farmers, these
three factors as a whole make agriculture more sustainable. Similarly, farmers tend to act in favour of sustainability when motivated by
external influencers, committed to sustainability, concerned about future generations, for environmental reasons and due to their own
individual characteristics. However, the lack of information and knowledge, and the lack of planning and support can hinder their
intentions to implement actions in favour of sustainable agriculture. Finally, farmers are found to understand social benefits and have a
feeling of subjective well-being as results of sustainable agricultural development.
Standing out as a contribution to theory is the identification of six new measurable variables in the qualitative research, which had
not been identified in the literature. Several studies have already presented concepts and sustainability practices, but this research goes
further than these studies by addressing a specific context, in this case Brazilian family farming, a sector that is of great importance to
Brazil’s economy. Also related to theory, the results confirm the exploratory scales identified, opening the path for the relations be­
tween the antecedents, barriers and consequences of sustainable development to be tested in subsequent research, since the literature
had not yet identified scales making this possible.
Regarding practice, the possibility of understanding family farmers’ perception of sustainable development and measuring sus­
tainable agricultural development in Brazilian family farming can be a contribution, providing researchers, public and private
managers and farmers themselves with a parameter to understand what sustainable agricultural development is, since this is
considered by many researchers as a vague, ambiguous term that is difficult to understand and implement (Lélé, 1991; Webster, 1997;
Von Wirén-Lehr, 2001; Hayati et al., 2010; Velten et al., 2015). Another contribution to practice lies in identifying the factors pre­
dicting sustainability in agriculture, as this information can be used to stimulate sustainable agricultural development. Identifying the
barriers revealed what hinders sustainable agricultural development, allowing the elaboration of proposals to reduce these obstacles.
Finally, the consequences of sustainable development were identified, which can encourage more farmers to operate more sustainably.
The results obtained here can also be used to elaborate didactic material, training, seminars and social marketing actions focusing on
awareness and dissemination of what sustainability in agriculture is. The study also contributes to the 17 objectives of sustainable
development proposed by the UN (UNDP - United Nations Development Programme, 2016).
Highlighted as a limitation is the use of a non-probabilistic, snowballing sample of convenience. The great majority of answers
(98,2%) came from just one region of Brazil (southeast). This type of sampling does not allow the generalization of the results to the
entire Brazilian context or to other countries. In addition, the use of cross-section data limits data collection to a specific point in time.
As the research dealt with family farmers’ perceptions, these might not show the complete situation regarding the phenomenon
studied. It also stands out as a limitation that the variables and factors identified in this study are not exhaustive. Another limitation is
that to elaborate and identify the variables forming the questionnaire, the research was limited to the perception of the 23 Brazilian
family farmers interviewed.
As suggestions for future research, since the total explained variance from the four EFAs varied between 60,3% and 70,15%, new
variables could be added to the scales identified here, in order to increase the total variance explained by EFA. Theoretical models
should be proposed to test the relationships between the antecedents, barriers and consequences of sustainable agricultural devel­
opment. It would also be possible to find out whether developing (or emerging) countries and developed countries have different
perceptions in relation to the phenomenon studied here. New analyses could check whether economic dependence on farming activity
can influence how farmers perceive sustainable development, as previously identified by Aerni (2009). It would also be useful to carry
out specific studies with farmers, setting out from socio-demographic characteristics and/or the type of agriculture practised. This
study can also be replicated in all Brazilian regions, using probability sampling. This would allow comparative studies between the
different Brazilian regions. The research could also be replicated for the category of non-family farming with large plantations of main
crops like soya, sugar, cane and cattle farms. It is suggested that future research should use different stakeholders in the initial data
collection process to then elaborate and validate the closed questionnaire. To this end, other research methods can be added, such as:
focus groups, participant observation and document analysis. Another suggestion is to carry out research aiming to present solutions to
lessen the barriers identified here.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rozélia Laurett: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing - original draft. Arminda Paço:
Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Writing - review & editing. Emerson Wagner Mainardes: Conceptualization,
Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq/Brazil), project

12
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

304209/2018–0, by Foundation for Research Support of Espírito Santo (FAPES/Brazil), projects 84513772 (599/2018) and 85395650
(228/2019), by Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT/Portugal) through NECE (Núcleo de Estudos em Ciências Empresariais), project
UID/GES/04630/2020, and by IFTS (Instituto Fucape de Tecnologias Sociais), project 2018–2021 and project de bolsa de pesquisa
pós-doc 2020-2021.

References

Aerni, P., 2009. What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand. Ecol. Econ. 68 (6), 1872–1882.
Allen, P., Van Dusen, D., Lundy, J., Gliessman, S., 1991. - Integrating social, environmental, and economic issues in sustainable Agriculture. Am. J. Alternative Agric. 6
(1), 34–39.
Bagheri, A., 2010. Potato farmers’ perceptions of sustainable agriculture: the case of Ardabil province of Iran. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (1),
1977–1981.
Bastan, M., RamazaniKhorshid-Doust, R., DelshadSisi, S., Ahmadvand, A., 2018. Sustainable development of agriculture: a system dynamics model. Kybernetes 47 (1),
142–162.
Baumgartner, R.J., 2014. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to
sustainable development. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 21 (5), 258–271.
Bazzani, G.M., Di Pasquale, S., Gallerani, V., Morganti, S., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., 2005. The sustainability of irrigated agricultural systems under the Water Framework
Directive: first results. Environ. Model. Software 20 (2), 165–175.
Brundtland, G.H., 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: "Our Common Future. United Nations. http://www.un-documents.net/
our-common-future.pdf.
Carolan, M.S., 2006. Do you see what I see? Examining the epistemic barriers to sustainable agriculture. Rural Sociol. 71 (2), 232–260.
Cederholm Björklund, J., 2018. Barriers to sustainable business model innovation in Swedish agriculture. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation
14 (1), 65–90.
Chowdury, M.H., Hossain, M.M., Dewan, M.N., 2015. A framework for selecting optimal strategies to mitigate the corporate sustainability barriers. Corp. Ownersh.
Control 13 (1), 462–481.
Coteur, I., Marchand, F., Debruyne, L., Dalemans, F., Lauwers, L., 2018. Participatory tuning agricultural sustainability assessment tools to Flemish farmer and sector
needs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 69 (1), 70–81.
Duarte, F.P., 2015. Barriers to sustainability: an exploratory study on perspectives from Brazilian organizations. Sustain. Dev. 23 (6), 425–434.
Dunlap, R.E., Beus, C.E., Howell, R.E., Waud, J., 1993. What is sustainable agriculture? An empirical examination of faculty and farmer definitions. J. Sustain. Agric. 3
(1), 5–41.
Elkington, J., 2004. Enter the triple bottom line. In: Henriques, A., Richardson, J. (Eds.), The Triple Bottom Line: Does it All Add up? Earthscan, London, pp. 1–16.
http://www.johnelkington.com/archive/TBL-elkington-chapter.pdf.
Evans, N., Whitehouse, H., Gooch, M., 2012. Barriers, successes and enabling practices of education for sustainability in far North Queensland schools: a case study.
J. Environ. Educ. 43 (2), 121–138.
FAO, 2011. The state of world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW): managing systems at risk. Rome, FAO, London, Earthscan. Available at: www.
fao.org/docrep/017/i1688e/i1688e.pdf.
FAO, 2017a. The future of food and agriculture – trends and challenges. Available at: www.fao.org/3/a-i6583e.pdf.
FAO, 2017b. Defining Small Scale Food Producers to Monitor 2.3 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i6858e.pdf.
Fielding, K.S., Terry, D.J., Masser, B.M., Hogg, M.A., 2008. Integrating social identity theory and the theory of planned behaviour to explain decisions to engage in
sustainable agricultural practices. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 47 (1), 23–48.
Garner, E., Campos, A.P., 2014. Identifying the Family Farm: an Informal Discussion of the Concepts and Definitions. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO), Rome.
González-Benito, J., González-Benito, Ó., 2006. A review of determinant factors of environmental proactivity. Bus. Strat. Environ. 15 (2), 87–102.
Grover, S., Gruver, J., 2017. ‘Slow to change’: farmers’ perceptions of place-based barriers to sustainable agriculture. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 32 (6), 511–523.
Haddock-Fraser, J.E., Tourelle, M., 2010. Corporate motivations for environmental sustainable development: exploring the role of consumers in stakeholder
engagement. Bus. Strat. Environ. 19 (8), 527–542.
Hair Jr., J., Babin, B., Money, A., Samouel, P., 2003. Essentials of Business Research Methods. John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., 2013. Multivariate Data Analysis, New International Edition 7a Edition. Pearson Higher.
Hansen, J.W., 1996. Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept? Agric. Syst. 50 (2), 117–143.
Hayati, D., Ranjbar, Z., Karami, E., 2010. Measuring agricultural sustainability. In: Biodiversity, Biofuels, Agroforestry And Conservation Agriculture. Springer, Dordrecht,
pp. 73–100.
HLPE - High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, 2013. Investing in smallholder agriculture for food security. A report by the high level panel of
experts on food security and nutrition of the committee on world food security, rome. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_
documents/HLPE_Reports/HLPE-Report-6_Investing_in_smallholder_agriculture.pdf.
IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2009. Censo Agropecuário: Agricultura Familiar: Primeiros Resultados 2006. https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/
visualizacao/periodicos/50/agro_2006_agricultura_familiar.pdf.
Kata, R., Kusz, D., 2015. Barriers to the implementation of instruments assisting sustainable development of agriculture. Scientific Papers Series Management,
Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development 15 (1), 239–248.
Khalil, D., Ramzy, O., Mostafa, R., 2013. Perception towards sustainable development concept: Egyptian students’ perspective. Sustainability Accounting,
Management and Policy Journal 4 (3), 307–327.
Knutson, C.L., Haigh, T., Hayes, M.J., Widhalm, M., Nothwehr, J., Kleinschmidt, M., Graf, L., 2011. Farmer perceptions of sustainable agriculture practices and
drought risk reduction in Nebraska, USA. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 26 (3), 255–266.
Koroneos, C.J., Rokos, D., 2012. Sustainable and integrated development—a critical analysis. Sustainability 4 (1), 141–153.
Kuppig, V.D., Cook, Y.C., Carter, D.A., Larson, N.J., Williams, R.E., Dvorak, B.I., 2016. Implementation of sustainability improvements at the facility level: motivations
and barriers. J. Clean. Prod. 139, 1529–1538.
Latruffe, L., Diazabakana, A., Bockstaller, C., Desjeux, Y., Finn, J., 2016. Measurement of sustainability in agriculture: a review of indicators. Studies in Agricultural
Economics 118 (3), 123–130.
Leal Filho, W., 2000. Dealing with misconceptions on the concept of sustainability. Int. J. Sustain. High Educ. 1 (1), 9–19.
Lehtonen, M., 2004. The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol. Econ. 49 (2), 199–214.
Leite, A.E., De Castro, R., Jabbour, C.J.C., Batalha, M.O., Govindan, K., 2014. Agricultural production and sustainable development in a Brazilian region (Southwest,
São Paulo State): motivations and barriers to adopting sustainable and ecologically friendly practices. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 21 (5), 422–429.
Lélé, S.M., 1991. Sustainable development: a critical review. World Dev. 19 (6), 607–621.
Lippert, I., 2004. An Introduction to the Criticism on Sustainable Development. Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus.
Loeber, A., van Mierlo, B., Grin, J., Leeuwis, C., 2009. The Practical Value of Theory: Conceptualising Learning in the Pursuit of a Sustainable Development. Social
Learning towards a Sustainable World. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp. 83–98.
Lowder, S.K., Skoet, J., Singh, S., 2014. What do we really know about the number and distribution of farms and family farms in the world. Background paper for the
State of Food and Agriculture 8.

13
R. Laurett et al. Environmental Development 37 (2021) 100583

Lozano, R., 2008. Envisioning sustainability three-dimensionally. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (7), 1838–1846.
Ma, Y., Chen, L., Zhao, X., Zheng, H., Lü, Y., 2009. What motivates farmers to participate in sustainable agriculture? Evidence and policy implications. Int. J. Sustain.
Dev. World Ecol. 16 (6), 374–380.
Mala, Z., MaLý, M., 2013. The determinants of adopting organic farming practices: a case study in the Czech Republic. Agricultural Economics/Zemedelska
Ekonomika 59 (1).
Malhotra, N.K., 2008. Pesquisa de marketing: uma orientação aplicada. 4a edição. Bookman Editora.
Marcelino-Aranda, M., Sánchez-García, M.C., Camacho, A.D., 2017. Theoretical-practical bases of A sustainable development model for rural communities with
agricultural and livestock activities. Agricultura, Sociedad y Desarrollo 14 (1), 47–59.
Marshall, J.D., Toffel, M.W., 2005. Framing the illusive concept of sustainability: a sustainability hierarchy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39 (3), 673–682.
Martin, S., Rieple, A., Chang, J., Boniface, B., Ahmed, A., 2015. Small farmers and sustainability: institutional barriers to investment and innovation in the Malaysian
palm oil industry in Sabah. J. Rural Stud. 40, 46–58.
Maxey, L., 2006. Can we sustain sustainable agriculture? Learning from small-scale producer-suppliers in Canada and the UK. Geogr. J. 172 (3), 230–244.
Menalled, F., Bass, T., Buschena, D., Cash, D., Malone, M., Maxwell, B., Weaver10, D., 2008. An Introduction to the Principles and Practices of Sustainable Farming.
Montana State University, pp. 1–4.
Michaelidou, N., Hassan, L.M., 2008. The role of health consciousness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and intentions towards organic food. Int. J.
Consum. Stud. 32 (2), 163–170.
Milbrath, L.W., 1995. Psychological, cultural, and informational barriers to sustainability. J. Soc. Issues 51 (4), 101–120.
Minton, E.A., Kahle, L.R., Kim, C.H., 2015. Religion and motives for sustainable behaviors: a cross-cultural comparison and contrast. J. Bus. Res. 68 (9), 1937–1944.
Miranda-Ackerman, M.A., Azzaro-Pantel, C., 2017. Extending the scope of eco-labelling in the food industry to drive change beyond sustainable agriculture practices.
J. Environ. Manag. 204 (3), 814–824.
Moldan, B., Janoušková, S., Hák, T., 2012. How to understand and measure environmental sustainability: indicators and targets. Ecol. Indicat. 17 (2), 4–13.
Mupfasoni, B., Kessler, A., Lans, T., 2018. Sustainable agricultural entrepreneurship in Burundi: drivers and outcomes. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 25 (1), 64–80.
Narayanan, Y., 2013. Religion and sustainable development: analysing the connections. Sustain. Dev. 21 (2), 131–139.
Nogueira, C., 2019. Contradictions in the concept of sustainable development: an analysis in social. economic, and political contexts 30, 129–135.
Onduru, D.D., Du Preez, C.C., 2008. Farmers’ knowledge and perceptions in assessing tropical dryland agricultural sustainability: experiences from Mbeere District,
Eastern Kenya. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 15 (2), 145–152.
Ortiz, W., Vilsmaier, U., Osorio, Á.A., 2018. The diffusion of sustainable family farming practices in Colombia: an emerging sociotechnical niche? Sustainability
Science 13 (3), 829–847.
Pestana, M., Gageiro, J., 2008. Análise de dados para ciências sociais-A complementaridade do SPSS Lisboa: Edições Sílabo.
Placet, M., Anderson, R., Fowler, K.M., 2005. Strategies for sustainability. Res. Technol. Manag. 48 (5), 32–41.
Preissel, S., Zander, P., Knierim, A., 2017. Sustaining farming on marginal land: farmers’ convictions, motivations and strategies in northeastern Germany. Sociol.
Rural. 57 (S1), 682–708.
Pretty, J., 2008. Agricultural sustainability: concepts, principles and evidence. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363 (1491), 447–465.
Pretty, J., Smith, G., Goulding, K.W.T., Groves, S.J., Henderson, I., Hine, R.E., Walter, C., 2008. Multi-year assessment of Unilever’s progress towards agricultural
sustainability I: indicators, methodology and pilot farm results. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 6 (1), 37–62.
Ramsey, J.L., 2015. On not defining sustainability. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 28 (6), 1075–1087.
Rao, P., Holt, D., 2005. Do green supply chains lead to competitiveness and economic performance? Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 25 (9), 898–916.
Rigby, D., Cáceres, D., 2001. Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agric. Syst. 68 (1), 21–40.
Rodriguez, J.M., Molnar, J.J., Fazio, R.A., Sydnor, E., Lowe, M.J., 2009. Barriers to adoption of sustainable agriculture practices: change agent perspectives. Renew.
Agric. Food Syst. 24 (1), 60–71.
Romero, r., Muriel, J.L., García, I., de La Peña, D.M., 2012. Research an automatic irrigation control: state of the art and recent results. Agric. Water Manag. 114,
59–66.
Sassenrath, G.F., Halloran, J.M., Archer, D., Raper, R.L., Hendrickson, J., Vadas, P., Hanson, J., 2010. Drivers impacting the adoption of sustainable agricultural
management practices and production systems of the Northeast and Southeast United States. J. Sustain. Agric. 34 (6), 680–702.
Schaller, N., 1993. The concept of agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 46 (1–4), 89–97.
Schleifer, P., 2017. Private regulation and global economic change: the drivers of sustainable agriculture in Brazil. Governance 30 (4), 687–703.
Seifritz, W., 2001. On the eclectic concept of sustainability. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 26 (10), 1017–1022.
Siebert, R., Toogood, M., Knierim, A., 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 46 (4), 318–340.
Stewart, R., Bey, N., Boks, C., 2016. Exploration of the barriers to implementing different types of sustainability approaches. Procedia CIRP 48, 22–27.
Stoneham, G., Eigenraam, M., Ridley, A., Barr, N., 2003. The application of sustainability concepts to Australian agriculture: an overview. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 43 (3),
195–203.
Tey, Y.S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A.M., Cummins, J., Radam, A., Darham, S., 2012. Refining the definition of sustainable agriculture: an inclusive perspective
from Malaysian vegetable sector. Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 6 (3), 379.
Tey, Y.S., Li, E., Bruwer, J., Abdullah, A.M., Brindal, M., Radam, A., Darham, S., 2014. The relative importance of factors influencing the adoption of sustainable
agricultural practices: a factor approach for Malaysian vegetable farmers. Sustainability Science 9 (1), 17–29.
Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418 (6898), 671.
UNDP - United Nations Development Programme, 2016. Sustainable Development Goals. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/library/corporate/brochure/
SDGs_Booklet_Web_En.pdf.
Van Thanh, N., Yapwattanaphun, C., 2015. Banana farmers’ adoption of sustainable agriculture practices in the Vietnam uplands: the case of quang tri province.
Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 5 (1), 67–74.
Velten, S., Leventon, J., Jager, N., Newig, J., 2015. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability 7 (6), 7833–7865.
Von Wirén-Lehr, S., 2001. Sustainability in agriculture—an evaluation of principal goal-oriented concepts to close the gap between theory and practice. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 84 (2), 115–129.
Webster, J.P.G., 1997. Assessing the economic consequences of sustainability in agriculture. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 64 (2), 95–102.
White, M.A., 2013. Sustainability: I know it when I see it. Ecol. Econ. 86, 213–217.
Williams, K., Dair, C., 2007. What is stopping sustainable building in England? Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments. Sustain.
Dev. 15 (3), 135–147.
Wilson, I.E., Rezgui, Y., 2013. Barriers to construction industry stakeholders’ engagement with sustainability: toward a shared knowledge experience. Technol. Econ.
Dev. Econ. 19 (2), 289–309.
Zeweld, W., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Tesfay, G., Speelman, S., 2017. Smallholder farmers’ behavioural intentions towards sustainable agricultural practices. J. Environ.
Manag. 187, 71–81.
Brasil, L., 2006. 11.326, de 24 de Julho de 2006. Estabelece as diretrizes para formulação da política nacional da agricultura familiar e empreendimento familiares
rurais. Diário Oficial da União-Seção 1–25. Available at: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-006/2006/lei/l11326.htm.

14