Agroscope, ETH Zurich

No Evidence of Urban-Rural Divide in the Prioritisation of Agricultural Policy Goals

A new study by Agroscope and the ETH shows that there is no rural-urban divide in the prioritisation of agricultural policy goals. From very rural to very urban, the Swiss population puts economic objectives before environmental ones.

There is a noticeable divide between the political attitudes of the urban and rural population in various policy areas – but is there also an urban-rural divide in terms of agricultural policy preferences? If so, could this lead to an urban majority (whose livelihood does not depend on agriculture) imposing its values and the resulting policy measures on a rural minority?

A representative survey delves deep into the issue

To answer this question, Agroscope and the ETH Zurich analysed the agricultural policy preferences of 1542 respondents in three linguistic regions of Switzerland (German, French, Italian), who, according to their own statements, live in areas ranging from very rural to very urban. Of particular interest was the prioritisation by the respondent of a goal if it were to be assessed as being in direct conflict with a second goal. The survey participants were questioned on nine different pairs of goals (see graphic):

Above: The six investigated agricultural policy goals (two economic and four environmental goals) leading to nine investigated conflicts (each economic goal vs. an environmental goal plus the two economic goals pitted against each other). Below: The comparison of the two economic goals as an example of goal prioritisation.

Economic goals tend to be prioritised over environmental goals

Regardless of where the respondents lived, lower food prices and higher agricultural income are prioritised over reducing greenhouse gas emissions or decreasing plant-protection product use. By contrast, reducing nutrient surpluses is more important for the majority than one of the economic goals. If an economic goal is compared with the aim of improving biodiversity, no clear preference is shown for one or the other. On average across all participants, preferences for one agricultural policy goal over another are not particularly strong.

Only slight differences between rural and urban regions

Agricultural policy preferences differ only slightly depending on where respondents live. Significant differences only emerge in a small number of cases, particularly with people in very rural areas, who rate improving biodiversity and reducing the use of plant-protection products as significantly more important than do respondents from other regions. People from very rural areas also rate lowering food prices as being more important than increasing farm incomes, when these two goals are presented as being in conflict with one another.

Conclusions

  • There is no urban-rural divide in the Swiss population’s agricultural policy preferences.
  • Regardless of where the respondents live, the economic goals of agricultural policy tend to be given higher priority than environmental goals.
  • People from very rural areas are an exception to the rule, as they rate improving biodiversity, reducing the use of plant-protection products and lowering food prices as more important than do residents in less rural areas.
  • Based on these findings, policy-makers should focus on reducing trade-offs between economic and environmental goals.
To the archive