The management of this crop by flooding requires more water per unit area than in other irrigation systems.In Brazil, the Federal States that produce rice in greater quantities are Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, and Tocantins, responsible for, respectively, 73%, 8%, and 11% of national production.In general, the rice crop is produced from irrigation by furrows or flooding.Although the levels of exposure of receptors to hazard may differ among the irrigation methods, the similar approach was adopted in the application of the methodology, as both take into account the flooding of the area.It is also worth noting that the SqMRA methodology must be applied in each project, individually, considering that the exposure levels may vary depending on the local characteristics and operational conditions of irrigation, harvesting, and storage.Thus, this generalized approach, adopted in the present study, is configured only for scientific studies, since the action can lead to a high degree of uncertainty.The data adopted for the application of the SqMRA methodology in rice cultivation in Brazil are presented in Table 8, according to the model previously described its stages and steps.Notes: 1 The SqMRA was applied in two scenarios, in which the first considers the effluent to be disinfected , and the second considers the reality of sewage treatment conditions in Brazil.2 Inhalation is attributed to aerosols,hydroponic gutter generally produced in a sprinkler irrigation system.Although intense winds can also produce these types of micro-droplets in flooded systems, inhalation was not scenarioized in the present paper, for simplification purposes.

However, in cases of application of the methodology in places with the possibility of high winds, it should be adopted for farmers and neighborhoods.The barriers adopted, defined as actions after the harvest, relate only to consumers since the farmer harvests the rice in nature.Given the perspectives and the Brazilian reality, in terms of the quality of treated wastewater, the SqRMA was applied in two different scenarios.In the first one, we chose to adopt Hazard equal to 7, due to the prerogative that a disinfected effluent guarantees more safety to the practice.However, the reality about wastewater treatment in Brazil shows that most of the effluent is treated at a secondary level, without disinfection.Thus, the second scenario relies on the application of the methodology, considering Hazard equal to 9.The complete spreadsheet is available as Supplementary Material.This spreadsheet was developed to facilitate the use of the methodology in other applications and regions, but care must be taken, each case is a case and this methodology represents a real portrait of this case.However, it is important to pay attention to the indiscriminate use of the available spreadsheet, since the user must always apply it with great care, considering the real local characteristics of each irrigation water reuse project.The results presented in Table 6 demonstrate the feasibility of applying water reuse for rice cultivation in Brazil, about aspects of epidemiological risk.As expected, and in accordance with previous observations from other authors, there is an estimate of a higher risk of microbiological contamination for the farmer than for other receptors.Despite the high possibility of contact between the farmer and the RW, the estimated global risk is still in the acceptable level.

In the case of the neighborhood, the risk is greatly reduced because the irrigation method is different from sprinkling and presents a lower possibility of producing micro-droplets that could be inhaled, as already mentioned.But still, it is in the acceptable category.For the consumer, low risk was also expected, due to the processing and cooking of the rice before consumption.However, it should be noted that these risk values may vary depending on the specifics of the configuration of each reuse system, since there may be situations that enhance certain types of contact.For this reason, to calculate the global risk, two procedures were adopted: i) considering the three receptors adopted in the study; and ii) considering only the 2 main receptors involved since the possibility of several receptors, with multiple handling criteria, involved after harvest could change the final value of the global risk.Thus, should be emphasized that for the application of the methodology in a real project, all possible receptors, from irrigation to the final consumer, must be taken into account in conjunction with the food safety procedures needs according to respective regulations, when in place.It should also be noted that when considering all workers involved in the production process of rice irrigated with RW, is possible to minimize risks by introducing capacity building and systematic use of equipment and safety habits.The States of Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, identified in the present study as responsible for 80% of the Brazilian production of rice, are comprised, almost entirely, in the River Basin of Uruguai andAtl^antico Sul and require, in general, approximately 382 m3 /s of water for irrigation.However, the two RBs present a service rate with domestic wastewater treatment at 30%.

Similarly, the RB Tocantins-Araguaia, which involves practically the entire State of Tocantins, has a demand of approximately 60 m3 /s for irrigation but also has a low rate of wastewater treatment.The relationship between the Brazilian states highlighted in the study and the River Basin Districts also highlighted can be seen in the schematic map in Fig.3.The scenario of high demand for water for irrigation and low production of treated effluent shows the difficulty of structuring water reuse, although the water demand for rice crop production in these regions is high and the risk of contamination of human beings is moderate, as demonstrated by the application of methodology.The RW was defined in two categories to assess the potential for reuse in Brazilian RB, as a function of water quality: Category 1 – RW from wastewater treatment plants that have an organic matter removal higher than 80%; and Category 2 – RW from wastewater treatment plants which, in addition to having an organic matter removal of more than 80%, have disinfection.In this sense, considering the three RB , the potential for supply of reclaimed water in Category 1 is 2.53 m3 /s and in Categories 2 , of 1.12 m3 /s.Since Category 2 , equivalent to Hazard equal to 7 , represents the lowest available water potential for reuse, it was decided to repeat the process of applying the SqRMA methodology, considering hazard equal to 9, which represents Category 1.The results for this reiteration can be seen in Table 10.This reiteration in the application of the methodology presents a very relevant result, in which when offering water corresponding to a secondary effluent , even the estimation of risk for the farmer changing from acceptable to unacceptable, the overall risk remains in the acceptable level, although quite close to the limit of the maximum value.Furthermore, the risk for the farmer can be reduced with equivalent barriers, such as rubber gloves and boots, consequently reducing overall risk.In this sense, it can be highlighted that Uruguai, Atlantico Sul, and Tocantins-Araguaia River Basin have a high potential for the application of water reuse in the irrigation of rice crops by furrows or by flooding, with an acceptable risk of microbiological contamination of human beings involved in the practice.

However, it should be noted that the study deals with a generalized scientific approach and, in the case of a real application, all those involved must be carefully evaluated and the scenarios must be exhaustively studied, also considering the use of additional risk minimization means, such as equipment and safety habits among the workers in each sector, to provide more safety for the practice.It is also noteworthy that in Asia, the largest producer of irrigated rice in the world, the crop represents 40–46% of the irrigated area among all other crops.The water reuse in China has become the main objective of WWTP in the new era of wastewater treatment in the country.In this sense, a good way to solve the problem of water scarcity is to increase water productivity, corroborates the results of the present research.In the case of irrigated rice, it is important to determine the economic and energy implications when considering water reuse options to improve water productivity at the system level.The novel coronavirus has killed millions and shut down entire countries.Yet the danger was not always this clear.In late December 2019, China reported over 40 cases of unusual pneumonia to the World Health Organization.By January 25th, Beijing, Shanghai,u planting gutter and many other provinces had declared public health emergencies, and most cities in Hubei went into lockdown.During this time span, it was unclear whether the virus was a rumor, how deadly it was, or how it spread.In three studies, we investigate how people in China reacted to COVID-19 during this early window of uncertainty.We find evidence that people in some regions reacted more proactively to this ambiguous threat.We test two broad categories of predictors: objective risk factors and subjective cultural factors.Analyses reveal that culture—not simply objective risk—explains meaningful differences in how people responded.At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, our research team observed whether people wore masks in public spaces.Day 0 of our observations was January 23rd, 2020, the day Wuhan went into lockdown.We observed people at eight sites across seven Chinese cities for two weeks.We ended our observations when mask use was nearly universal.However, a limitation to the data was the number of researchers we could deploy quickly and safely.Thus, to supplement the data, we surveyed people from a broader range of provinces on when they started wearing masks.Finally, we triangulated the findings against web searches for “masks,” which are less direct but provide more data points and a complete geographic coverage.

In reviewing previous studies on mask use, we identified three limitations.First, most studies relied solely on self-reported data.This could be problematic as people may feel pressured to report that they wore masks even if they did not—meaning self-reports may not reflects actual mask use.In this study, we measure both self-reports and observed behavior, which allowed us to test whether the results converge.Second, few studies have tracked mask use over time.One notable exception is a Hong Kong study, which found that mask use increased from 12% to 67% during the first seven days of the SARS outbreak.Studying response change over time is crucial as early action can save lives.For example, analyses estimated that implementing COVID-19 measures seven days earlier in the United States could have drastically reduced cases.Third, the few observational studies of mask use we found were limited in the locations and lengths of time tracked.For example, a study of mask use during H1N1 only observed two subway stations in Mexico City.Our study expands on this approach by covering multiple, diverse regions.This richer dataset allows us to explore a range of cultural factors beyond basic demographics like age and gender.We move beyond prior research on masks by testing for less obvious cultural differences that might influence mask use.One feature of collectivistic cultures is interdependence—a view that people are, or should be, dependent on each other.Such a worldview could increase mask use because, even if people are unafraid of risking their own health, masks could prevent them from transmitting the virus to others.Even before the COVID-19 outbreak, some cultural observers argued that wearing masks in Japan symbolized an obligation to protect others from the wearer.In contrast, some people argue that mask mandates infringe on individual freedoms in individualistic cultures like the US.One important study found that mask use was higher in more collectivistic nations and US states that scored higher on collectivism measures.Another cultural influence on mask use could be norm tightness.All societies have social norms—ideas about what behaviors are proper and not.Yet some societies have tighter norms than others.Recent research suggests that tightness varies within China.Specifically, norms are tighter in more developed provinces, as well as provinces that farmed rice in the past.Tight norms come with costs and benefits.Tight societies generally have stricter rules— which seems to conflict with out-of-the-box thinking and innovation.For example, tighter societies have fewer patents for inventions.However, tight norms can help societies respond to danger.Tighter societies tend to have more social order , which might facilitate strict mask policies.

Furthermore, organic farming encourages on-farm agrobiodiversity, both through the diversity of plant varieties cultivated , and improves farmers economic profitability.Organic farming aims at creating a sustainable agricultural production system, including economic, environmental, and social sustainability.In Ghana, the potential of organic and its suitability as a future solution to some key farming system challenges is still not recognised.Studies on cocoa production in Ghana often focus on one dimension of sustainability.Thus, this study to the best of our knowledge will provide the first holistic sustainability assessment of organic and conventional cocoa farming systems in Ghana.The study seeks to answer the question, does the sustainability performance of organic cocoa farming system in Ghana differ from conventional farming? The Organic Farm System for Africa database made available by Research Institute of Organic Agriculture for analysis.The dataset provided information for over 300 indicators covering 6 themes and 14 sub-themes for the environmental integrity, four themes and 14 sub-themes for economic resilience, six themes and 16 social well-being sub-themes and five themes and 14 sub-themes for good governance.In Atwima Mponua District , a typical cocoa farming system is defined based on the predominance of smallholder cocoa farming households, engaged in either practicing conventional i.e., “business-asusual” or based on initiatives termed environmentally friendly.Cocoa farming systems are characterised by the different crops grown,vertical grow system and the livestock types reared.Cocoa farming systems used both family and hired labour for farming activities.

The organic cocoa farms are certified through Internal Certification System.These criteria guided the selection of 398 cocoa farmers, out of which 71 were organic cocoa farmers, with 327 conventional cocoa farmers.The OFSA covered three months data collection period from December 2016 to February 2017.Sustainability performance in terms of environmental integrity is illustrated in Fig.3.The five sub-themes, waste reduction and disposal, energy use, material use, genetic diversity and species diversity showed the highest sustainability performance between 60% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems.The lowest sustainability performance was shown by soil quality and freedom from stress for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale of 20% and 40%.Sustainability performance with respect to greenhouse gases fell within the scales 61%–80% and 40%–60% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively.Sustainability performance of animal health and land degradation fell within the scales 41%–60% and 21%–40% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively.Mean rank difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of Environmental Integrity is shown in Table 2.Mean rank scores for the organic farming system ranged between126.3 and 260.6.Mean rank scores for conventional farming system ranged between 103.2 and 199.6.The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for all the sub-themes except for waste reduction and disposal, and freedom from stress, where the pvalues were above p = 0.05.Economic resilience sustainability performance is illustrated in Fig.4.The risk management and profitability sub-themes showed the highest sustainability performance between 61% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems.The seven sub-themes, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of the market, product information, liquidity and value creation showed moderate sustainability performance for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 41% and 60%.

A lower sustainability performance was shown by internal investment and stability of supply for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 21% and 40%.Food safety and local procurement showed the lowest sustainability performance between the scale 0%–20%, for both organic and conventional farming systems.Mean rank difference between the different farming systems based on the sub-themes of Economic resilience is shown in Table 3.Mean rank scores for the organic farming system ranged between 191.2 and 259.2.Mean rank scores for conventional farming system ranged between 186.6 and 202.0.The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for most sub-themes with the exception of, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of supply, risk management, food safety, value creation and local procurement, where the p-values were above p = 0.05.Social well being sustainability performance is illustrated in Fig.5.Workplace safety and health provisions showed the highest sustainability performance between 60% and 80% for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems.The lowest sustainability performance was shown by seven sub-themes, capacity development, rights of suppliers, forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and bargaining rights, non-discrimination and food sovereignty for both organic and conventional farming systems that fell between the scale 20% and 40%.Sustainability performance of fair access to means of production fell within the scales 21%–40% and 0%–20% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively.Sustainability performance for gender equality and support to vulnerable people fell within the scales 61%–80% and 41%–60% for organic and conventional farming systems, respectively.The mean rank differences between the two farming systems within the sub-themes of Social well-being are shown in Table 4.Mean rank scores for the organic farming system ranged between 189.2 and 266.2.Mean rank scores for conventional farming system ranged between 185.0 and 201.7.

The two cocoa farming systems differed significantly for some subthemes with the exception of, quality of life, capacity development, fair access to means of production, responsible buyers, rights of suppliers, employment relations, forced labour, workplace safety and health provision, public health and food sovereignty, where the p-values were above p = 0.05.In a review of farming systems by Seufert & Ramankutty , they also concluded that overall farm sizes of organic production are smaller.The current study is consistent with a study by Seufert & Ramankutty who found that organic farming is labour intensive in terms of weeding.Overall, the organic cocoa farming system spends more labour hours per season on various cultural activities compared to conventional.The organic farming system requires more labour than conventional systems , especially for labour-intensive commodities, fruits, and tree crops.As suggested in the literature, organic can have positive effects on environmental outcomes.In the case study, a limited to good performance was found in the two cocoa farming systems, not only for the organic farming system.Indeed, the studied conventionally managed cocoa farms are characterised by low-input operations with low use of synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.The organic farms, on the other hand, use low or no organic inputs explaining the greenhouse gases scales of 61%–80% and 40%–60% for organic and conventional farming systems.Akrofi-Atitianti et al.also found low input use in Atwima Mponua District.Similarly, in Ethiopia, Winter et al.found a moderate to good environmental performance for conventional and certified coffee systems and attributed it to the low use of external inputs.Our analysis showed that the organic farming system is better in greenhouse gases emission reduction and in terms of improvement in air quality.According to Akrofi-Atitianti et al., a major driving force for an improved performance for organic in terms of greenhouse gases is the low or no use of inputs.Similar studies in Ecuador by Bonisoli et al.for banana cropping system is consistent with the findings.The finding is also verified by Fess and Benedito that organic farming promotes carbon sequestration and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Organic farming systems showed better water management practices, such as the treatment of waste water in terms of disposal or reuse, water storage capacity and the use of rainwater compared to the conventional farming system.Studies conducted by Bonisoli et al., Berbe´c et al.and De Olde et al.found a statistical difference between organic and conventional in Poland, Denmark, and Ecuador, respectively.We observed measures that reduce land degradation in organic farming system to be significantly higher compared to the conventional farming system.Other studies show that organic farming contributes to soil building and soil structure by improving the cation exchange capacity of soil biotic and physical properties.In our case study,mobile grow system organic farming systems are more diverse in terms of ecosystems, species and genetics compared to conventional.Those findings are consistent with Bandanaa et al.who found high flora diversity in organic cocoa farming system compared to conventional in the same geographic context.In terms of material use, energy use and waste reduction, the current study found the organic farming system to be significantly better in performance compared to conventional.The literature says organic farms tend to be more energy-efficient than conventional.Our results showed that in most sub-themes, the sustainability performance ranged from unacceptable to good performance for both organic and conventional cocoa farming systems.In many sub-themes such as, community investment, long-ranging investment, the stability of production, the stability of the market, product information, liquidity and value creation, the performance is moderate for both organic and conventional farming systems.Moderate performance exposes farmers of both cocoa farming systems to market shocks in terms of cocoa prices.In the case study, the organic market is not well established.Some farmers sell most of their organic beans as rain forest beans or conventional.This is because the premium obtained by selling organic beans is often delayed.Winter et al.also made similar observations for coffee farming systems in Ethiopia, as farmers sell their coffee to private buyers as conventional produce.

The mean difference between organic and conventional farming systems explained that six of the sub themes in organic were significantly different from conventional.Other empirical studies showed that organic farming is economically better than conventional in terms of investment.The organic farming system is more profitable than the conventional system due to price premiums, most especially so when the crops are grown for exports.The current study found in many sub-themes, such as “Internal Investment,” “Profitability,” and “Liquidity,” that organic farming system is significantly better than conventional.Though both cocoa farming systems are exposed to market shocks, organic cocoa farmers will always receive a premium on the cocoa beans either sold as organic or RA.Also, the organic farming system enhances food quality and product information compared to the conventional due to improved traceability.The social well being sustainability performance ranges from limited to good performance.The lowest sustainability performance of most sub-themes was labour related.In the case study, mostly family labour or hired labour is used in farm operations.Berlan verifies the finding on the use of family labour in cocoa production in Ghana but adds that, it is unacceptable if children are being involved in hazardous activities.Other studies in Nigeria confirms the use of family or hired labour in cocoa production and suggests sharecropping as a dominant labour option due to dishonesty and dedication of family/hired labour.Capacity development, forced labour, child labour, freedom of association and bargaining rights were among the lowest for both organic and conventional farming systems.Especially for child labour, there was no difference between the farming systems because children within the case study were not engaged in hazardous works.According to a U.S.Embassy-Accra, January 2020 report, there is low incidence of child labour in the cocoa sector due to the enforcement of child labor laws and the “conduct of national dialogue on Child Labor Free Zones in the cocoa industry”.The organic and conventional farming system mean rank scores for social well being showed significant differences for mostly labour related sub themes.The results for ‘Freedom of association’ and ‘right to bargaining’ suggest that organic farmers have access to more external labour and the workers bargaining rights.This finding is consistent with Giovannucci et al.study of certified coffee farming system in Kenya, Peru, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Nicaragua.With regards to gender equality, child labour, and support to vulnerable people, there is a significant trend in favour of organic farming system.Studies in Asante Bekwai, Atwima Mponua Districts and India have suggested that organic cocoa farming is a welfare and livelihood enhancer, and promotes gender equality in the workplace and encourages full participation for vulnerable in vibrant rural communities.The organic farming system performed significantly better compared to conventional in terms of indigenous knowledge since traditional and cultural knowledge used by farmers is protected.This is consistent with findings by Ssebunya et al.on coffee farming systems in Uganda and Schader et al.in Africa and Europe.The performance of both farming systems mostly ranges between the scale unacceptable and best performance for this dimension.The lowest sustainability performance was shown by the sub-themes’ mission statement’ and ‘legitimacy’ for both organic and conventional farming systems.Employment conditions on farms are not stable, explaining the low performance in legitimacy.Organic farmers are verbally committed to sustainability topics more than conventional, hence better performance in full cost accounting and mission statement.Similarly, Winter et al.found mission statements to score low among coffee farming systems in Ethiopia.This was explained as Ethiopian coffee farmers partial commitment to sustainability topics and their lack of evidence to show for specific planned improvements.

Their study found a significant number of behavioural bio-security policies in seven European countries, many of which appeared to match theoretical behavioural change frameworks. However, the most frequent strategies relied on the most basic interventions , and there was little evidence of the systematic use of methods from the behavioural sciences to develop these policies. If this suggests there remains some way to travel before the social sciences are integrated within bio-security policy making, other research continues to highlight the potential value of these approaches. For example, research on the role of information cues reveals that bio-security behaviours can be improved when messages are shown graphically, rather than linguistically or numerically.Drawing on Kahneman and Tversky’s ‘prospect theory’ in which avoiding losses are preferable to accruing gains, Hansson and Lagerkvist show how farmers’ disease management decisions reflect farmers individual assessments of risk. However, when farmers are faced with managing an ongoing disease outbreak, decisions reflect a preference of avoiding losses; gains are only preferred when they seek to prevent future disease outbreaks. Other research has sought to examine how social information and the behaviour of other farmers can influence farmers’ bio-security decisions. Using an experimental simulation, Merrill et al. for instance show that willingness to invest in bio-security decreases when information on environmental disease prevalence is uncertain,stacking pots reflecting an optimism bias that farmers’ herds will not become infected.

Alternatively, when more information is provided about bio-security practices on neighbouring farms, bio-security investment decreases. This work is interesting in that it suggests that social norms of what constitutes ‘bio-security citizenship’ , appropriate conduct or what has been referred to as ‘good farming’ may not be influential in bio-security decision making. Burton suggests that ‘good farming’ refers not only to economic forms of capital, but symbolic cultural capital: the visible demonstration of practical knowledge such as good stockman ship, symbols of appropriate farm maintenance such as clean farmyards and tidy hedgerows, and attributes such as hard work. These symbols are encoded and disseminated within discursive scripts, reinforcing their cultural legitimacy . In this way, good farming acts as a heuristic to provide a strategy to guide, interpret and make decisions in conditions of uncertainty. Other strategies of decision-making are available to farmers, however, and the selection of good farming to guide decisions represents what Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit refer to as a second-order decision. For Burton and Paragahawewa , the value of the good farmer approach lies in recognising and utilising cultural capital to create more culturally salient agricultural policy. Rather than simply rely on financial payments, they instead recommend the development and incorporation of measures of cultural capital into agricultural policy, and/or restructuring agricultural policy to directly encourage the generation of cultural capital. This may include directly measuring farmers’ ‘skills’ in order to allow them to publicly demonstrate what is valued by the farming community. Whilst Burton and Paragahawewa note that some cultural values might be hard to measure , objectifying cattle purchasing skills may provide a relatively easy way of incorporating the cultural capital of good farming into animal disease management policy. For example, recent research has established a link between farmers’ understandings of good farming and bio-security practices .

In particular, cattle purchasing is likely to be connected to and reflect good farming in a number of ways. Firstly, purchasing cattle risks the introduction and transmission of new diseases to animals within the herd and, for some diseases that can be subsequently transmitted within the local environment, to animals on neighbouring farms. For those farms that need to replace stock, however, different forms of institutional capital – such as certification and ranking schemes – can help provide assurance to the purchaser that they are buying from a good farmer and are running the risk of being labelled a bad farmer by introducing disease into their herd or area. For example, Enticott et al. describe how the number of years a farm has been free from disease effectively establishes a good farming rating that may incentivise improved bio-security when it is required to be displayed at the point of sale. The extent to which these forms of information are a reliable guide to whether the farmer is a ‘good farmer’ may, however, be compromised by farmers’ own spatial understanding of disease transmission and by blaming disease outbreaks on perceived government failings, rather than ‘bad farming’ . Secondly, the avoidance of disease through careful cattle purchasing should allow farmers to display other forms of symbolic cultural capital. An outbreak of bTB, for instance, would lead to a farm’s business being subject to a range of trading restrictions, denying the opportunity to farm with autonomy, which is highly valued by farmers in the farming script of ‘being my own boss’ which symbolises farmers’ success at running their own farm well rather than being told how to farm by government. Indeed, an outbreak of bTB would mean that many farming decisions would be subject to bureaucratic procedures and determined by government officials: farmers would be unable to attend market to sell their cattle. As a result, farms may become over-stocked, and cattle suffer poor welfare. Failing to avoid disease through responsible cattle purchasing therefore compromises farmers’ abilities to display the embodied and practical skills of the good farmer symbolised by good-looking cattle either on show at markets or at pasture. Similarly, participation at livestock markets reflects the significance of the autonomous farmer consistent with good farming. Providing measures of good farming in relation to animal disease may therefore help cattle purchasers identify good farmers, and help them avoid becoming a bad farmer as a consequence of poor cattle purchases. The extent to which such measures can successfully symbolise the good farmer and influence cattle purchasing is explored in the remainder of this paper.

Studies of behavioural influences in disease management reveal two distinct methodological approaches. On the one hand, agricultural economists, drawing on methodologies from behavioural psychology, have conducted experiments to simulate the effects of information provision and financial incentives upon bio-security behaviours. On the other hand, sociological research has sought to conceptualise and describe in-depth farmers’ responses to disease events and policy interventions. Each has their problems. Despite the promise of the experimental approach, research participants are often students responding to hypothetical situations wholly divorced from the practical skills and situational awareness that farmers use to respond to real-life context-dependent situations . By contrast, qualitative analyses of good farming and bio-security, whilst focused on real-world policies and disease incursions, are retrospective and subject to recall and social desirability biases. Rather than adopting one or the other, we seek to develop an innovative mixed-methods approach that allows us to quantitatively and qualitatively assess the value of symbolising good farming to influence farmers’ cattle purchasing decisions to prevent bTB. The following sections firstly provide information on the importance of bTB and the relevance of cattle purchasing before providing a detailed account of our methodological approach. In the United Kingdom, bTB is the UK’s most challenging endemic disease, resulting in the premature death of approximately 35,000 cattle and costing the taxpayer in excess of £100 m every year . Managed by the government, the disease has a complex epidemiology involving transmission by legally protected wildlife, the culling of which for disease control purposes has raised political, social and economic challenges . 2007. Cattle movements have become recognised as an important part of the epidemiology of bTB. Studies have shown how the movement of cattle is one of the most important risk factors in infected herds, whilst movements also translocate disease from areas of high to low prevalence . Whilst infected farms are restricted by law from buying or moving cattle on or off farms, all other farms are free to act as they please. Nevertheless, the limitations of diagnostic tests and their frequency mean that these movements still pose a risk to other farmers.

Indeed, other countries with successful bTB eradication schemes, have governed the movement of all cattle between areas of different epidemiological risk using statutory and/or voluntary policies of ‘risk based trading’ and in doing so identify and provide cultural capital to good farmers. Whilst no such scheme currently exists in the UK for bTB, policy makers view cattle purchasing as an important practice on which to apply the behavioural sciences in order to govern cattle movements through behavioural nudges rather than regulation. To understand the impact of different ways of objectifying good farming,sawtooth greenhouse we devised a novel mixed-methods approach. Avoiding experimental approaches involving non-farmers, our approach involved simulating cattle purchasing with farmers who buy and sell cattle. Many studies within the behavioural sciences involve randomised controlled trials, but this approach was not available and not suitable: we were not able to alter the information provided at the point of sale.The diversity of cattle, buyers and sellers also makes controlling for the effect of a single intervention a significant methodological challenge. Instead, our approach sought to simulate cattle purchasing, whilst also allowing farmers to reflectively deliberate on the reasons for their purchases and the value of different behavioural insights. To do this, we developed cattle purchasing game in Mural – a web-based interactive whiteboard – in which participants moved around a Monopoly-style board . Players progressed around the board by rolling one die. All games were played online via Zoom due to Covid 19 lockdown restrictions. Game play was organised using a “branch and bottleneck” structure. Branches reflect different contextual influences that participants land on at random throughout the game. This allowed us to introduce an element of competitiveness between players: points were awarded for landing on squares that reflected ‘positive’ contexts. No points were awarded for landing on negative blue squares. Red squares were a bTB test: if players landed on these, they were required to roll an even number to pass the bTB test,otherwise they would miss a go. Bottlenecks were cattle purchasing events that all players had to complete at the same time and were located in each corner square of the game board. Once one player reached a corner square, all other players also moved there.

Players were then read a cattle purchasing scenario and asked to make a choice between four adverts.They provide opportunities to elicit attitudes and beliefs about complex and potentially sensitive situations and to examine how people may respond to future events . Scenarios work best when they are based on plausible and familiar situations . Scenarios were therefore developed based on a prior research project on cattle purchasing involving farmers and vets. To ensure the scenarios reflected real-world cattle purchasing opportunities, specific versions were developed for three sectors: dairy, store cattle, and calf-rearing. For each scenario, adverts contained information to symbolise good farming in order to influence purchase choices. Firstly, farmers could use pictures of the animals to derive good farming information. For scenarios 1 and 2, pictures were of cattle in a livestock market, but for scenarios 3 and 4 animals were pictured on farm. Secondly, adverts featured two different conceptual measures of good farming. All adverts contained a logo stating how many years free the herd had been from bTB and the geographical average years free for the area in which the farm was located. Values were set randomly. In this method, good farming is symbolised by longer periods of disease freedom; ‘bad farmers’ would avoid purchasing from farms who had recently had an outbreak for fear of introducing disease. Scenarios 2 and 4 also contained a ‘Good Farmer Rating’ to graphically indicate the percentage of satisfied previous customers for each vendor. The aim of this logo was to convey levels of trust and reputation of the seller, which had seen to be important considerations when purchasing cattle from our previous research, and found in other research by Hidano et al. . Presented as a star rating, the logo was similar to review ratings found on internet shopping sites. Two ratings were set at 95% and two at 70% satisfaction. In addition to these measures of good farming, scenarios 1 and 3 explored the effect of different compensation regimes upon purchase decisions. Two different schemes were presented: two sales adverts stated that the purchaser would receive 50% compensation if the animal ever tested positive for bTB in future.