Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geoforum
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum

The diversity of organic farmer motivations and livelihoods in the Global

South – A case study in Kerala, India
Verena Seufert a, b, c, *, Stephanie E. Austin b, Madhav G. Badami d, Sarah Turner b,
Navin Ramankutty b, c
a
Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 40, 70599 Stuttgart, Germany
b
Department of Geography, McGill University, 805 Sherbrooke Street W, Montreal, QC H3A 0B9, Canada
c
School of Public Policy and Global Affairs | Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, 6476 NW Marine Drive, Vancouver,
BC V6T 1Z2, Canada
d
School of Urban Planning and Bieler School of Environment, McGill University, 815 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, QC H3A 0C2, Canada

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

Keywords: Organic agriculture is often promoted as a means to achieve sustainable agriculture and livelihoods. Yet, the
Organic agriculture evidence is mixed on the outcomes of organic adoption. We conducted a case study in the South Indian state of
Sustainable livelihoods Kerala to understand farmer motivations to adopt organic agriculture, their livelihood characteristics, and
Farmer motivations
outcomes of adoption. To do so, we designed a conceptual framework bringing together key constructs from the
Farmer decision-making
Kerala
theory of planned behaviour and the sustainable livelihoods framework. Focusing on the two districts of Thrissur
and Wayanad, our work is informed by semi-structured interviews and focus groups with organic and conven­
tional farmers and key informants. Based on this study, we developed a typology of organic farmers that we
found to be analytically powerful: three core groups were identified – wealthy “hobby farmers”; poorer “non-
certified farmers”; and middle class “export farmers”. Our study revealed that these organic farmer types differ
not only in their livelihood characteristics, but also in their motivations for adopting organic agriculture, as well
as in their satisfaction with organic agriculture as a livelihood strategy. We found that the perceived success of
organic agriculture in Kerala depends both on who adopts it and why. These differences have important policy
implications. In Kerala, we suggest that policy support for organic agriculture should primarily target non-
certified farmers who are poorer and ideologically committed to it, but should also address the concerns of
export farmers who are more likely to persist with organic farming under favourable economic conditions. More
broadly, our study shows that for states and non-profits to better support organic agriculture, nuanced un­
derstandings of the farmers involved are required.

1. Introduction 2017). Despite the growth in OA in the Global South, many farmers
remain unconvinced (Crowder and Reganold, 2015), creating a major
Organic agriculture (OA) is growing rapidly in the Global South, obstacle for the global organic market to grow (European Commission,
mostly catering to demand from high-income countries (Willer and 2010; Willer and Lernoud, 2017). For these reasons, we need to un­
Lernoud, 2017). One-third of the world’s organic agricultural land and derstand the motivations of farmers to convert to OA, and the conse­
over three-quarters of organic producers are in poor and middle-income quences of OA for farmer livelihoods. This is particularly important in
countries, but 96 percent of organic food is sold in Europe and North the Global South where many organic producers are situated but
America (ibid.). Demand for organic produce is also growing in the research on OA is scarce (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017).
Global South (Freidberg and Goldstein, 2011; Scott et al., 2009; Shi
et al., 2011), but production is lagging behind (Willer and Lernoud,

* Corresponding author at: Institute of Social Sciences in Agriculture, Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, University of Hohenheim, Schwerzstraße 40, 70599
Stuttgart, Germany.
E-mail addresses: verena.seufert@uni-hohenheim.de (V. Seufert), stephanie.austin@mail.mcgill.ca (S.E. Austin), madhav.badami@mcgill.ca (M.G. Badami),
sarah.turner@mcgill.ca (S. Turner), navin.ramankutty@ubc.ca (N. Ramankutty).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.103670
Received 15 February 2021; Received in revised form 18 November 2022; Accepted 8 December 2022
Available online 20 December 2022
0016-7185/© 2022 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 1. Map of study region, showing India (top right), Kerala (left) and the two study districts with locations of interviewed farming households (bottom right).

1.1. Organic farmer motivations and livelihoods production costs, all of which can vary spatially and temporally. While
organic farmers often receive higher, more stable, prices than con­
Organic farmers in high-income countries are often motivated by ventional farmers1 (Bacon, 2005; Bolwig et al., 2009; Valkila, 2009),
health and environmental values (Padel, 2008) and land stewardship and organic inputs are often cheaper and production costs lower
(Padel, 2001), but also by premium prices and organic subsidies (Forster et al., 2013; Patil et al., 2014; Valkila, 2009), OA sometimes
(Darnhofer et al., 2005; Fairweather, 1999). The limited studies on requires increased knowledge and training. Moreover, there are often
farmer motivations in the Global South - predominantly in India and high entry, labour, and certification costs (Calo and Wise, 2005) that
South-East Asia - suggest that organic farmers are especially driven by are aggravated by the 2–3 year transition period when farmers have to
health concerns relating to chemical pesticides, soil fertility, input costs, use organic practices but cannot sell their products at a premium (Calo
and premium prices (Grimm and Luck, 2020; Mendoza, 2004; Pan­ and Wise, 2005; Lyngbaek et al., 2001). Also, organic inputs such as
neerselvam et al., 2012; Riar et al., 2017; Thapa and Rattanasuteerakul, coffee husks or chicken manure can be expensive (Chongtham et al.,
2011). Whereas OA in the Global North has evolved bottom-up through 2010; Valkila, 2009). Often, farmers have to sell their organic produce
farmer initiatives and networks (Padel, 2001) and is driven by domestic in conventional markets without premiums, due to limited buyers and
demand (Seufert et al., 2017), it often spreads top-down in the Global exporting companies who frequently have high quality criteria and
South. Here it is usually export-oriented and dependent on development unreliable demand (Chongtham et al., 2010). Further, while organic
agencies or non-governmental organizations (NGOs), who provide cer­ yields can sometimes be comparable to or higher than in low-input
tifications and access to international markets (Bray et al., 2002; Gold­
berger, 2008; Salazar, 2014).
OA’s livelihood outcomes are also strongly context-dependent and
variable (Bennett and Franzel, 2013; Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). 1
We use ‘conventional farming’ to mean the predominant capital and input-
The profitability of OA for small farmers is critically dependent on the intensive “Green Revolution” farming today. We use ‘traditional farming’ to
price premium (Crowder and Reganold, 2015), apart from yields and mean the pre-Green Revolution farming in India, using low synthetic inputs, but
maintaining soil health using manure and compost.

2
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

traditional farming (Eyhorn et al., 2007; Forster et al., 2013; Pan­ despite low economic growth (Franke and Chasin, 1994; Parayil,
neerselvam et al., 2011), they are typically lower than for intensive 1996). Kerala’s economy is dominated by the service sector and
conventional agriculture (Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017). In turn, strongly influenced by foreign remittances (Prakash, 1998; Zachariah
premium prices sometimes insufficiently compensate where OA has and Rajan, 2012). The high human well-being despite low economic
higher costs and/or lower yields (Bray et al., 2002; Calo and Wise, growth – the ‘Kerala model’ of development (Franke and Chasin,
2005; Patil et al., 2014). Nonetheless, a recent meta-analysis of 44 1994; Heller, 1999) – has been explained by many factors including its
studies (mostly from Europe, North America, and India), concluded high level of gender equality, owing to matrilineal systems in some
that, overall, OA is more profitable than conventional agriculture communities, and universal public education since the 1800s (Alex­
(Crowder and Reganold, 2015). ander, 2000; Ramachandran, 2000). Most importantly, sweeping
Apart from financial considerations, OA can improve resilience. policies by democratically elected leftist governments since the 1950s
Organic cash crops are often part of a diverse farming system including have significantly reduced socio-economic inequalities, which enabled
livestock and other crops for subsistence or local markets (Bacon, 2005; the active participation by all in the economic and political life of the
Jacobi et al., 2015), thus reducing dependence on a single crop. Further, state. These far-reaching policies include the historical Land Reform
organic management can promote higher yield stability under extreme Act of 1963, which capped land holdings and redistributed land from
weather and climate change, owing to improved soil structure (Lotter landlords to poor tenants and landless labourers (Heller, 1999), and
et al., 2003; Milestad and Darnhofer, 2003). However, the autonomy of the Kerala Agricultural Workers Act of 1974, which led to regulated
organic farmers, a critical aspect of resilience (c.f. Stock et al., 2014), work hours, minimum wages, employment security and labour unions
can suffer given fluctuating global markets, changing consumer prefer­ for agricultural workers (ibid.). Moreover, in 1980, Kerala was the
ences, and the power of certifiers, export companies, and transnational first state to implement a pension scheme for agricultural workers
buyers (Raynolds, 2004; Scott et al., 2009). Nonetheless, their reduced (Gulati, 1990).
dependence on external inputs (Mendoza, 2004; Valkila, 2009) and their These developments led to the decline of agriculture in Kerala
collective organization in organic cooperatives (Bray et al., 2002) can during the last three decades, due to high land prices, small land­
enhance their autonomy. Such organization, typically required for holding sizes, high labour costs, and waning interest in farming by a
organic certification and access to foreign markets, can also provide highly educated population (Chand et al., 2007; Fox et al., 2017; Nair
livelihood benefits, by way of training and access to health and credit and Menon, 2009). This decline has been exacerbated by labour scar­
programs (Bakewell-Stone et al., 2008; Bray et al., 2002; Jacobi et al., city due to emigration to the Middle East, and skilled labour moving to
2015). non-agricultural sectors (Nair and Menon, 2004). Concurrently,
farmers have increased the share of high-value, less labour-intensive
1.2. Research objectives cash crops like pepper, rubber and coffee, while labour-demanding,
low-value staples like paddy and tubers have declined (Kumar,
Due to these varied and ambiguous implications for farmer liveli­ 2005). Today, Kerala has highly diverse agroforestry systems with
hoods, and the limited literature on organic farmer motivations and numerous species of cash and staple crops being grown in small home
livelihoods in the Global South, a better understanding of why farmers gardens (Jose and Shanmugaratnam, 1993).
adopt OA in specific contexts is needed. In this paper, we examine the Kerala has become one of the Indian states with the smallest agri­
motivations and livelihoods of organic farmers in Kerala, India. Kerala cultural sectors, representing only 9 percent of state-level GDP in 2012,
has a strong certified and non-certified organic movement, partly due to compared to 14 percent nationally (Planning Commission, Government
a government policy decision in 2010 to convert the entire state to OA of India, 2014). This agrarian transition has created considerable chal­
by 2020. We pose three research questions: First, what are the livelihood lenges, combined as it was with low agricultural prices in the late 1990s
characteristics of different types of organic farmers in Kerala? Second, and early 2000s, and a large-scale outbreak of the Phytophora fungus
what motivates different types of farmers in Kerala to undertake OA? (‘quick-wilt’) in black pepper, resulting in massive yield losses (Moha­
Third, how do farmers perceive the effects of OA on their livelihood nakumar and Sharma, 2006; Thottathil, 2012). The combination of low
outcomes? profits, indebtedness, and high rates of farmer suicides have led to an
Organic farmers in this study are defined as farmers who are not ‘agrarian crisis’ in Kerala (Mohanakumar and Sharma, 2006; Münster,
necessarily certified organic, but who identify themselves as organic 2012; Palackal, 2019; Thottathil, 2012).
farmers and intentionally use organic practices as defined in regulations The Kerala government has responded to this crisis in part by pro­
(e.g., do not apply chemical inputs). Farmers who practice ‘organic-by- moting OA. In 2010, it adopted the Kerala State Organic Farming Policy,
default’, namely those who do not apply chemical inputs since they do the first of its kind nationally, aiming to transform all agriculture to
not need to or cannot afford them, are not considered organic farmers in organic management within ten years, to address soil fertility and health
this study. concerns (particularly exposure to pesticides), and increase food secu­
In the following section, we introduce the state of Kerala, including rity and sovereignty (Palackal, 2019; Government of Kerala, Department
its agrarian transition and the rise of OA over the last three decades. of Agricutlure, 2010; Thottathil, 2012). The degree to which this policy
Next, we outline our conceptual framework, to explain farmer decision- has resulted in concrete measures supporting organic farmers is debat­
making based on the theory of planned behaviour and the sustainable able (Thottathil, 2012).
livelihood framework. After detailing our methods, we analyze our re­ Additionally, Kerala, leveraging its history of exporting crops like
sults regarding the livelihoods and motivations of organic farmers in coffee, pepper and tea, also leads in export-oriented certified OA (Nair
Kerala. A key outcome of our study is the development of a typology of and Menon, 2004). Numerous NGOs have been promoting certified
organic farmers, which we argue is analytically important in several organic export agriculture in Wayanad, Idukki, and Kannur districts
ways. We conclude with conceptual and policy implications, derived (Thottathil, 2012). The National Program for Organic Production,
from a clearer understanding of the who, what, and why of OA in the formulated in 2000, provides a legislative framework for organic certi­
Global South. fication, and national standards for exporting organic produce to foreign
markets. Kerala was the first state with an organic certification agency
2. Context: Kerala, India (INDOCERT), and an organic producer company (IOFPCL, Indian
Organic Farmers Producer Company Limited) directly involving farmers
Kerala – in south-western India (Fig. 1) – has intrigued scholars for in marketing their produce (Thottathil, 2012; Vakkayil, 2010; Ven­
decades, having achieved the highest human development of all In­ kattakumar and Sontakki, 2012).
dian states (on par with many middle and high-income countries), Despite these efforts, Kerala’s certified OA in 2019–20 was estimated

3
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

at only around 2.3 percent of net sown area (Government of India, and external (e.g., political, historical, agro-ecological, and socio-
2022).2 To further bolster OA, the Kerala Agro Ecology Based Biodi­ economic) factors. Using Valbuena et al. (2010)’s framework, we
versity Conservation project was announced in 2020. It is currently differentiate between internal factors related to livelihood characteristics
being implemented on 25,000 ha, with plans to cover 84,000 ha (Gov­ and farmer motivation. Livelihood characteristics include what Valbuena
ernment of India, 2022; Hindu, 2020; Kallungal, 2021), and includes on- et al. (2010) and Mills et al. (2017) term the ‘ability to adopt’. We
farm production of biological inputs, marketing assistance for eco-shops, conceptualize these factors based on farmers’ access to the five capitals
organic farming of fruits and vegetables, and wider implementation of the livelihood framework. Farmer motivation relates to what these
support (Government of Kerala, 2022). Chemical fertilizer subsidies authors term ‘willingness to adopt’, which we conceptualize using the
were also recently slashed (Newsclick, 2022). theory of planned behaviour (TPB).
Our study focuses on two districts within Kerala (Fig. 1) – Thrissur, The TPB assumes that a behavioural intention is directly related to
which is highly urbanized, densely populated, and relatively wealthy individuals’ attitudes towards this behaviour (i.e., their personal evalu­
(ranked 6/15 on GDP in Kerala, 6 % of GDP from agriculture, and 1031 ation of whether it is positive or negative), combined with social in­
people per km2; Supplementary Materials Table S2), and Wayanad, fluences (subjective norms) and the degree to which individuals believe
which is more agriculture-based and poorer (ranked 14/15 on GDP in they are able to control the outcome of their behaviour (perceived
Kerala, 24 % of GDP from agriculture, and 384 people per km2). We behavioural control) (Beedell and Rehman, 1999). Numerous authors
chose these districts because they represent contrasting positions in the have expanded on this TPB model. Here we follow the TPB model from
agrarian transition; whereas Wayanad has one of the strongest agricul­ Mills et al. (2017), who added response efficacy (belief that actions make
tural sectors and among the highest levels of certified OA, Thrissur has a difference) and self-identity (extent to which behaviour is part of the
one of the smallest agricultural sectors in Kerala (Supplementary Ma­ self).
terials Table S2). Our framework conceptualizes the success of livelihood strategies
(like organic farming) as an interplay of farmer motivations and
3. Conceptualising farmer motivations and livelihoods decision-making (‘willingness to adopt’) based on TPB (Mills et al.,
2017), combined with core elements of the sustainable livelihood
There are multiple theories explaining the motivations driving framework to characterize livelihood assets (‘ability to adopt’) and their
farmer decision-making. Some take a primarily economic approach, changes (livelihood outcomes) after adopting OA.
assuming farmers are rational actors driven by profit (e.g., rational
choice theory, Herath et al., 1982; Lin et al., 1974), or bounded by their 4. Methods and data
cognitive capacities (e.g., bounded rationality, Einhorn and Hogarth,
1981; Simon, 1982). Behavioural approaches, which consider individual Fieldwork by the first two authors included interviews – during
attitudes (e.g., theories of planned behaviour (Beedell and Rehman, October-December 20133 – with 36 organic and 36 conventional
1999) and reasoned action (Rehman et al., 2007)), explain decision- farmers, utilizing closed (quantitative) questions on household, farm,
making better than purely economic ones, but somewhat neglect the and management characteristics, and semi-structured open-ended
economic and political contexts (Austin et al., 2001; Beedell and Reh­ (qualitative) questions. Purposeful snowball sampling was used to
man, 1999; Heong and Escalada, 1999). Hence, some studies combine identify organic farmers who represented a range of farm sizes, wealth
farmer behavioural and household characteristics with socio-economic levels, crops grown, and marketing channels. These farmers identified as
and biogeographic drivers (e.g., Siebert et al., 2006; Valbuena et al., organic farmers following organic management practices. Conventional
2010; Willock et al., 1999). farmers, comparable in farm size, wealth, and location, were also
We are interested in understanding farmer decision-making but also interviewed, based on criterion-led and snowball sampling. These in­
how different motivations underlying livelihood strategies influence terviews were only used as a reference to characterize the organic farmer
livelihood outcomes. We therefore combine behavioural decision- study population and are not analyzed in detail here. Additionally, we
making with the sustainable livelihood framework, which strongly conducted three focus groups (one each with organic farmers, conven­
conceptualizes farmers’ diverse livelihood sources. tional farmers, and a mixed group). The semi-structured interviews and
Livelihood approaches critically respond to purely employment- and focus groups covered themes such as pathways to organic adoption;
income-based poverty discussions, and assess livelihood outcomes personal experiences with, and opinions on benefits and problems of OA;
through factors contributing to enhanced capabilities, equity, and sus­ and livelihood outcomes. Despite our best efforts, farmer interviewees
tainability (Chambers and Conway, 1991). While a livelihood comprises were overwhelmingly men (see Table 1). We also interviewed 22 key
the “capabilities, assets, and activities required for a means of living” informants from academia, state government departments, NGOs, and
(DFID, 1999), it is considered sustainable when “it can cope with and the organic movement.
recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabil­ Our data are median ± median absolute deviation (MAD), unless
ities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the otherwise specified. We created three indicators: a multidimensional
natural resource base” (ibid.). This conceptualization of sustainable wealth indicator comprising five variables characterizing relative
livelihoods is strongly related to social resilience (Obrist et al., 2010); household wealth status (land holding size, ownership of consumer
therefore, we include resilience explicitly in our framework, and assess goods, highest education level, housing type, number of rooms); a social
reactive and adaptive capacity rather than vulnerability alone. Desirable capital indicator comprising five variables representing links with non-
livelihood outcomes in our view include income generation, well-being, nuclear family members, neighbours, other farmers, and villagers (fre­
and food security, but also resilience building, or the “human capacity to quency of attending farmer and village meetings, degree of help shared
anticipate, resist, cope, adapt, or recover from the impact of a hazard” with relatives within and outside the village, and with neighbours); and
(Obrist et al., 2010: 285). an organic commitment indicator, defined as those who had adopted OA
In our conceptual framework (Fig. 2), farmer livelihoods are situated more than 10 years ago, were not associated with an NGO promoting
within a context of transforming structures and processes, and vulner­ OA, farmed all their land organically, and carried out organic
ability. Farmer decision-making is influenced by internal (e.g., assets or
livelihood resources, farm characteristics, and individual motivations)
3
Although our field work was conducted nearly 10 years ago, the Kerala
government continues to strongly promote OA and there is no comparative
2
These numbers refer to certified OA; the area under uncertified organic study such as ours that has been completed in the meantime. Hence our findings
management remains unknown. and recommendations remain relevant and informative for achieving OA goals.

4
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 2. Our conceptual framework combines the sustainable livelihood framework (see Fig. 1 in DFID, 1999), and farmer decision-making based on TPB (Mills et al.,
2017). N, H, F, P and S denote the five capitals, i.e., natural, human, financial, physical and social capital.

management despite not receiving premium prices. homogeneous, and that important insights can be gained by developing
We used farmer education to assess human capital, ownership of a typology of farmers. We categorized the 36 organic farmers into three
consumer goods for financial capital, housing type for physical capital, distinct types based on two key variables – whether farming was the
the social capital indicator for social capital, and size of land holding for main source of household income, and whether the farmers were
natural capital. We assessed agricultural productivity across all crops certified (Table 1).4 First, “Hobby Organic Farmers” (N = 12) are part-
grown in each plot in terms of biomass weight, caloric content, and time farmers who derive over half their income from non-agricultural
economic productivity per unit area. Finally, several indicators of sources, and grow organic produce for their own consumption, export
agroecosystem resilience were chosen following Cabell and Oelofse and/or domestic markets. Second, “Non-certified Organic Farmers” (N =
(2012): membership in farmer groups (indicating social self- 15) are full-time farmers (deriving over half their income from agri­
organization); crop diversity and economic production diversity (indi­ culture) who focus on non-certified domestic organic markets. Third,
cating functional and response diversity and redundancy); low external “Export Organic Farmers” (N = 8) are certified full-time farmers who
nutrient dependency (indicating coupling with local natural capital); primarily produce certified organic spices and coffee for export. All the
caloric plot productivity; and low labour dependency (indicating au­ export organic farmers in our study were in Wayanad, a region targeted
tonomy). We inferred resilience outcomes for organic farmers in com­ by organic NGOs since the early 2000s (see Section 2).
parison to conventional farmers, whereas other livelihood outcomes While analyzing the characteristics of these three groups, we found
(the five capitals) were derived from the semi-structured interviews and clear differences in their livelihood characteristics and motivations to
focus groups. See Supplementary Materials 1 for our calculation adopt organic farming; marketing and management strategies;
methods. Our qualitative data were analyzed using thematic and axial commitment to organic farming; and livelihood outcomes.
coding (Cope, 2010).
When analyzing our data, we discovered that farmer motivations and 5.1. Livelihood characteristics and farmer motivations
livelihoods could be usefully explained by grouping farmers into three
categories. The development of this typology is an important result in We start by briefly discussing the livelihood characteristics of different
itself, which we discuss in the next section. organic farmer types (i.e. the ‘Ability to adopt’, Mills et al., 2017), and
farmer motivations to adopt organic management (i.e. the ‘Willingness to
5. Results: Livelihoods and motivations of different types of adopt’, Mills et al., 2017).
organic farmers in Kerala Livelihood characteristics. The three farmer groups differed in
their household and farm characteristics. Hobby organic farmers received
Nearly all the organic and conventional farmers interviewed were their income mainly from non-agricultural activities like banking,
managing agroforestry plots (typically ‘home gardens’), while culti­ teaching, or business. They were highly educated (bachelor’s degree or
vating subsistence and cash crops, including coconut, banana, nutmeg, higher), and typically had large land holdings (Table 1). They had the
arecanut, coffee, pepper, vegetables, tubers, and paddy rice (Supple­ highest multidimensional wealth score (Table 1), lived in large houses,
mentary Materials Fig. S1). All 36 conventional farmers were using and owned many consumer goods. Non-certified organic farmers were
chemical fertilizers, and most (72 %) also applied chemical pesticides (i. full-time farmers who were typically less wealthy, farmed a smaller plot
e., no ‘organic-by-default’ farmers in our sample). This is unsurprising, of land, and were less educated than other organic farmers (Table 1).
given the widespread adoption of Green Revolution practices and Export organic farmers were also full-time farmers, and middle-class.
chemical inputs in Kerala since the 1970s (Government of Kerala and They cultivated more land (being in Wayanad, where farm sizes are
State Planning Board, 2013). Only four organic and five conventional larger, see Supplementary Materials Table S2), and were well-educated.
farmers reported receiving remittances from family members overseas;
these varied from small one-time support (e.g., for medicines), to 30–50
percent of total household income. 4
One organic farmer was excluded as he could not be easily classified (he
As noted, our analysis revealed that organic farmers in Kerala are not practiced farming out of necessity but derived only 50% of income from it).

5
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Table 1
Average household and farm characteristics of the three organic farmer groups, as well as conventional farmers. Values are medians ± MAD, unless otherwise
indicated.
Hobby Non-certified Export Conventional

N 12 15 8 32
Household characteristics
% income from agriculturea 19 ± 22 98 ± 4 100 ± 0 90 ± 15
% farmers certified organica 36 7b 100 /
% farmers in Wayanad (vs Thrissur) 58 40 100 56
Farm size (acres per holding) 3.7 ± 2.0 2.3 ± 1.5 5.6 ± 2.5 3.0 ± 2.9
Age of interviewed farmer 60 ± 5 63 ± 18 51 ± 5 54 ± 15
Sex (% men) 75 % 93 % 100 % 91 %
ReligioncChristian
(% farmers)Hindu 64 50 100 56
(% farmers)Muslim 36 50 0 31
(% farmers) 0 0 0 13
Household size (number of people)d 3.5 ± 2.2 4.0 ± 1.5 4.5 ± 2.2 4.0 ± 1.5
Total number of children staying in household 2 ± 0.74 2 ± 1.48 2.5 ± 0.74 2±0
Years of schooling of farmers 16 ± 1.5 10 ± 3.0 12 ± 1.5 10 ± 3.0
Years of schooling of adult children 17 ± 1.5 13 ± 1.0 16 ± 0.7 14 ± 1.7
Duration farming (years) 30 ± 23 41 ± 13 33 ± 10 33 ± 18
Standardized wealth score (out of 10) 7.0 ± 0.0 5.0 ± 0.8 6.0 ± 0.4 5.5 ± 2.3
Standardized social capital score (out of 10) 5.0 ± 1.0 7.3 ± 2.0 6.7 ± 1.0 5.3 ± 1.0
Farm characteristics
Livestock (LSU)e 0.04 ± 0.06 2.08 ± 1.61 1.80 ± 1.63 0.61 ± 0.91
LSU change compared to 10 years ago − 4.11 − 1.43 − 2.08 − 2.62
Part-time labour employed (% of farmers) 75 86 88 75
Part-time labour employed (# of labour-days) 50 ± 74 30 ± 44 251 ± 335 50 ± 74
Full time labour employed (% of farmers) 42 13 25 28
Full time labour employed (# of labour days)f – – – –
Economic plot productivity (’000 INR acre− 1) 105 ± 83 74 ± 65 71 ± 33 94 ± 67
a
Variables used in farmer classification.
b
One ‘Non-certified farmer’ had received organic certification but did not sell produce in certified markets. As he had sought certification without an NGO’s help and
was not producing for organic export markets, we included him as a ‘Non-certified farmer’ rather than an ‘Export farmer’.
c
While we are highly cognizant of the role of caste throughout India, we did not ask farmers their caste directly given the sensitivity of this question. Instead, we used
religion, income, education status, and social networks as variables that could give us similar (albeit not fully identical) insights into the farmers’ positions and
opportunities in society.
d
Family members are considered household members if they are currently living in the household or absent for less than 1 month.
e
LSU = livestock units (i.e., different livestock types aggregated using coefficients from Eurostat (2015); reference unit (=1 LSU) is the grazing equivalent of one
adult dairy cow).
f
the unit of #labour days is not relevant to full-time labour.

A majority of the hobby organic farmers and conventional farmers, church and associated NGOs have played an important role in moti­
and all the export organic farmers interviewed were Syrian Christians vating farmers to adopt OA, and developing markets for their OA
(Table 1).5 While there are class differences among Syrian Christians,6 produce.
they are on the whole caste-privileged, and many of them are also class Examining the livelihood assets of the organic farmer groups also
privileged (Thomas, 2018). Indeed, Syrian Christians have the highest highlights important differences (Fig. 3). Hobby farmers had the highest
land ownership of all communities in Kerala (Zachariah, 2006). Besides, human, financial, and physical capital but low social and natural capital
they have strong links to and share class interests with upper caste (due to small land holdings). Non-certified farmers had high social capi­
Hindus (Thomas, 2018), are economically and politically strong tal, intermediate physical capital, and low human, financial, and natural
(Zachariah, 2006), and have considerable influence in public affairs. capital. Export farmers showed the most even distribution – with inter­
Agriculture is a major occupation among them. They have been mediate values – across the five categories (Fig. 3).
engaged in cultivating cash crops, including various tropical fruits in Hobby farmer motivations. Hobby farmers said they adopted OA
home gardens, since the early 20th century. Following the establishment due to an interest in farming, and a desire for tasty, safe, and healthy
of coffee, tea, and rubber plantations by the British in the 19th century food, rather than for economic reasons. One of them noted: “I am
(Jeffrey, 1992), they have dominated the cultivation of these and other basically a couch-potato who is interested in growing my own food
crops such as cashew, cardamom, and pepper. These activities have without any pesticides”. Another said: “I get satisfaction from farming.
made many Syrian Christians affluent. I’m working [in the office] and most of the time I’m not satisfied in this
Their influence has been further strengthened through their highly work. […] But in my farming, I get more satisfaction”.
effective political organization, because of the extensive network of Hobby farmers noted that their most important motivation for
their church (Thomas, 2018). Indeed, as discussed in Section 5.1, the practicing OA was to avoid chemical inputs, which they believed led to
cancer and deformities in children. They also saw themselves as stew­
ards of the land and believed that farming had an important societal
5
They claim descent from high caste Brahmins converted to Christianity by role. They were well versed in organic ideas, and deeply involved in the
the apostle St. Thomas, who is believed to have arrived in Kerala in 52 CE. OA movement (Table 2), organizing meetings, teaching, editing jour­
Because of the pervasiveness of caste in India, and its persistence even after nals, and writing on OA. Drawing on the constructs of the TPB, hobby
conversion, Syrian Christians claim, and are regarded to have, upper caste farmers were strongly driven by their attitudes toward and self-
status in Kerala (Thomas, 2018). identification with OA, and the belief that their actions made a differ­
6
Lower class Syrian Christian peasants migrated in the early 20th century ence (response efficacy).
from Travancore in southern Kerala to Wayanad in northern Kerala, where they Non-certified farmer motivations. Non-certified farmers we
bought land cheaply and cultivated it (Thottathil, 2014).

6
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 3. Livelihood assets of the three organic farmer groups. Spider diagrams are scaled by the maximum value of each indicator across farmer groups (including
conventional farmers, who are not depicted here). Farmer education (years of schooling) is used to depict human capital, consumer goods (number of goods owned,
out of 8 key consumer goods) for financial capital, housing type (on a 4-point scale) for physical capital, social capital indicator (see Table 1) for social capital and
size of land holding (acres) for natural capital.

Table 2
Organic management and marketing characteristics of organic farmer groups. Values are percentages of all farmers, unless otherwise indicated.
Hobby Non-certified Export

Farming some area conventionally (%) 25 13 63

% of farm area organica 100 ± 0b 100 ± 0b 88 ± 18b
Duration farming organic (years)a 12.0 ± 11.1 7.5 ± 5.2 6.5 ± 3.0
Previously farmed conventionally (%) 73 69 100
Receives premium price (%) 22 73 100
Receives premium on all produce (%) 0 33 13
Knows of organic farm subsidies (%) 60 17 57
Receives organic farm subsidies (%) 30 8 43
Taken OA courses (%) 63 86 100
from NGO 50 29 100
from university/government 13 21 25
from organic movementc 0 36 0
Learned organic management (%)
from NGO 29 23 88
from university/government 0 23 13
from organic movementc 0 38 0
from childhood 29 8 13
from media 29 15 0
from friends or family 0 23 13
Member of organic NGO (%) 25 7 100
Participation in organic movementc (%) 25 20 0
Commitment indicator (out of 1)a 0.75 ± 0.37 0.67 ± 0.25 0.12 ± 0.19
a
Represents median ± MAD.
b
Note that these values represent medians, which explains why e.g., 25% of Hobby farmers farm some area conventionally, but the median of the farm area that is
farmed organically is 100%.
c
Organic movement here denotes talks, workshops organized by, or membership in the Kerala Organic Farming Association (KOFAI), or lectures or talks by key
figures of the organic movement.

interviewed started OA on their own, without NGO intervention. They food security, and that they were playing an important societal role
reported learning about OA from talks, media, friends, or members of through it. Non-certified farmer motivations to adopt OA were similar to
the organic movement (Table 2). Like hobby farmers, they were often those of hobby farmers, strongly driven by attitudes, self-identity, and
influenced by Subhash Palekar’s ‘Zero Budget Spiritual Farming’ response efficacy. However, social norms were likely to hinder persist­
(Münster, 2016; Palekar, 2010). ing with organic because some non-certified farmers felt isolated from
Non-certified farmers practiced OA mostly for ideological rather their neighbouring conventional farmers.
than economic reasons. They were typically unaware of, nor receiving, Export farmer motivations. Export farmers have been strongly
subsidies or financial support (Table 2). Their most common motiva­ motivated to adopt OA by NGOs such as the Catholic Wayanad Social
tions included better food quality and health (reduced exposure to Service Society (WSSS), Organic Wayanad, and Fair Trade Association
chemicals, and chemical-free, nutritious food), improved soil fertility, Kerala (FTAK), who often aim to convert entire villages to organic
more resistant crops, and better long-term yields. farming, and provide training, organic certification, and access to in­
For some non-certified farmers, OA provided a ‘lifeline’ amidst ternational organic markets. Farmers frequently reported considerable
financial and personal hardships. One farmer had lost his wife to cancer pressure to convert from the NGO or their neighbours. One young export
and decided to transform his lifestyle, adopting a vegetarian diet and farmer reported that, according to an NGO, “there is no other way, the
OA. For another, OA, along with naturopathy, meditation, and religious only way is to cultivate organically”. Organizations like WSSS have
practices, was a response to health and financial problems. They firmly leveraged their connections to the Church to successfully develop export
believed in the superiority of OA in terms of higher yields and addressing markets, and promote OA among Syrian Christian farmers.

7
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Export farmers were also motivated by the premium price for certi­ subsidised by organic NGOs. Export farmers often perceived OA as an
fied organic cash crops, especially after the low prices of the late 1990s intensive system dependent on external inputs. As one young export
and early 2000s (Section 2), which caused financial distress for many farmer from Wayanad explained: “In OA, we receive everything from the
farmers producing for export (Mohanakumar and Sharma, 2006; Thot­ outside. Even the organic manures; all the things we use, we buy from
tathil, 2012). According to an export farmer in our focus group: “We outside. While in traditional farming everything is obtained from the
decided to try organic expecting higher prices … and … more money. field itself.” Export farmers also often managed parts of their land
Only for that reason we adopted organic agriculture. Or else what is the conventionally and used chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Tables 2, 3).
advantage for us to cultivate coffee and pepper organically? Because Commitment to organic agriculture. Organic farmers also differed
we’re not eating that”. in their commitment to organic farming. Hobby farmers were typically
Export farmers also frequently emphasized family values, social highly committed, having farmed their entire land organically longer
status, and the desire to provide a good education and standard of living than others (Table 2). Indeed, almost one third of them had never
to their children. Another farmer in the same focus group added: “We farmed conventionally (Table 2). Non-certified farmers were also highly
need money, we want to educate our children, we want to live presti­ committed, farming all their land organically, often being involved in
giously in society. We don’t wish to live for long but we would like to the organic movement, and some never having farmed conventionally
live prestigiously as long as we live. For that we need money. We’re not (Table 2). Export farmers were the only ones who applied chemical fer­
thinking of adopting organic to improve our health. We don’t have time tilizers on some of their plots (Table 3), and typically practiced both
to think about that. How can a person without money think in such a organic and conventional farming (Table 2). They had adopted OA more
way?”. recently than other groups, having previously farmed conventionally
Nonetheless, a few export farmers also spoke about being motivated (Table 2).
by organic principles and its benefits for the land and people. Drawing
on the constructs of TPB, export farmers were mainly motivated to adopt
5.3. Livelihood outcomes from organic agriculture
by social norms (pressure from neighbours and NGOs). But organic
farming was inconsistent with many of their attitudes and beliefs, nor
It is difficult to tease apart livelihood characteristics that drive OA,
were they motivated by wanting to make a difference (response effi­
from livelihood outcomes that result from the adoption of OA (Fig. 2).
cacy). Importantly, OA was not a part of their self-identity.
We asked farmers about their perceptions of how OA had changed their
lives and livelihoods, to assess its livelihood outcomes, and examine
5.2. Organic farming strategies changes in livelihood capitals. Self-expressed, emic, perspectives are
more culturally appropriate and sensitive, than externally assessed etic
Given their differing livelihood characteristics and motivations, quantitative indicators like household income or food security. We did
different types of organic farmers adopted different farming strategies, not assess changes in farmers’ physical capital since adopting OA in
using different marketing channels and management methods, with Kerala primarily involves changes in inputs but not crop types, har­
differing levels of commitment to OA. vesting methods, or other management methods requiring changes to
Marketing characteristics. Hobby farmers typically sold their pro­ farm buildings, infrastructure, or machinery.
duce in conventional markets,7 often without premium prices (Table 2, Financial capital. Most hobby farmers said that organic management
Fig. 4). Most non-certified farmers sold their organic produce (especially had caused declining yields and income share from agriculture (Fig. 5).
paddy rice and vegetables) in organic stores or directly to consumers However, for non-certified farmers, OA often improved incomes (Fig. 5b);
(Fig. 4), often receiving a premium price (Table 2). Export farmers, a non-certified farmer in Thrissur explained: “There is no question -
usually associated with NGOs exporting certified organic coffee and organic is … much, much, much [more] profitable than conventional
spices, consequently produced more coffee and pepper than other farming”. This was likely because they produced most of their agricul­
farmers (Supplementary Materials Fig. S1), and received a premium tural inputs themselves and employed little labour, while receiving
price for at least a portion of their produce (Table 2). higher prices for their produce. Indeed, over one third of them said they
Management characteristics. Hobby farmers often used agricultural did so on all of their produce (much higher than other groups, Table 2).
practices requiring minimal labour (e.g., no livestock, mechanical Unlike other groups, export farmers typically voiced strong discontent
weeding, and fertilizer; Tables 1, 3); they employed few part-time with the economic performance of OA; several of them felt it was
workers8 and were often unable to work on their farms due to other inadequate for maintaining their livelihoods.
employment or old age. Non-certified farmers, being relatively poor, used The lower income from OA was due to yield reductions, cost in­
little labour (Table 1) and agricultural inputs (Table 3). They owned creases, and insufficient premium prices (Table 4). According to export
more livestock than other farmer groups (Table 1) and used complex farmers, organic yields for coffee are half that of conventional (as in
organic composts and pesticides – often based on Palekar’s ‘Zero Budget Latin America, Lyngbaek et al., 2001; Valkila, 2009), while pepper can
Spiritual Farming’ (Münster, 2016; Palekar, 2010). The most common perform as well (or better) with organic methods. The higher costs
crops grown by both groups were coconut, arecanut, banana and pepper, resulted from expensive inputs and higher labour requirements for
while export farmers most commonly grew pepper, coffee, coconut and producing and applying organic fertilizers and pesticides. Farm labour is
banana (Supplementary Materials Fig. S1). Similar to hobby farmers, scarce in Thrissur (due to higher education levels and a strong tertiary
export farmers purchased about half their nutrient inputs (Table 3) in the sector) and Wayanad (partly due to the Rural Employment Guarantee
form of manure, or other organic inputs like oilcakes or bacterial in­ Scheme9) (Thadathil and Mohandas, 2012). Labour scarcity and costs
oculants (e.g., Trichoderma or Pseudomonas). Some of these inputs were affected export farmers the most due to their strong reliance on hired
labour (see Table 1). Finally, the premium they received for their
certified organic produce did not compensate for yield losses and higher
7
Conventional markets are the predominant type of market, and do not focus labour costs. Even the head of a large organic export NGO in Wayanad
exclusively on organic produce. When farmers sell their produce in conven­
tional markets, they access the current market price, but not the organic
9
premium. In 2006, the national government introduced the Mahatma Gandhi National
8
While hobby farmers employ full-time workers more than other farmer Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, which guarantees work for part of the
groups, they usually employ single labourers who also help with household year to eligible households. This scheme has been criticized for removing la­
chores. These single labourers cannot work as much as dozens of temporary bour from agriculture, but under some conditions, can provide cheap farm la­
labourers employed throughout the season, e.g. by export farmers. bour (Thadathil, 2012).

8
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 4. Marketing channels of organic farmer groups. ‘Conventional outside agents’ represents agents from neighbouring states (e.g., Karnataka) who come to the
farm and buy produce from the farmers.

2013), premiums dropped to only 15–20 percent for organic coffee.

Table 3
Additionally, export farmers often experienced marketing problems.
Management practices of different organic farmer groups. Values are percent­
NGOs that provided an organic premium were considered unreliable
ages of all farmers, unless otherwise indicated.
regarding their purchase quantities and timing; the periods of highest
Hobby Non- Export international market and NGO demand often did not coincide with
certified
harvest periods. Consequently, many export farmers had to sell part of
Fertilizer Chemical fertilizer 0 0 50 their organic produce in conventional markets without any premium
Animal manure 100 73 75
(Fig. 4).
Compost 42 60 50
Jeevamruthaa 25 47 38 Natural capital. While the size of their land holdings had usually not
Oilcakes 25 27 63 changed recently, 75 percent of hobby farmers, 80 percent of non-
Bacterial inoculants 8 7 25 certified farmers, and 88 percent of export farmers, as against 26
Purchasing fertilizers 83 60 88 percent of conventional farmers, experienced increased soil fertility on
% of fertilizers purchased 50 ± 8 20 ± 30 47 ± 31
Purchasing animal 67 27 38
their farms over the previous 10 years, after adopting OA (Fig. 5c).
manure Additionally, many organic farmers reported increased pest resistance
Pest control Chemical pesticides 8 7 13 due to improved soil health. OA thus appeared to restore soil fertility,
Organic pesticides 58 80 75 increase pest resistance, and – as many farmers believed – improve long-
Biological pesticides 17 0 50
term yields. Most organic farmers across all groups reported these nat­
No pesticides 33 13 13
Weed Herbicides 0 0 0 ural capital benefits of OA.
control Manual weeding 75 93 100 Human capital. Adopting OA often enhanced human capital
Mechanical weeding 42 20 38 through increased knowledge and training for some farmers. For hobby
a
Jeevamrutha is a fermented compost mixture based on the principles of ‘Zero farmers, who were already highly educated, OA provided limited
Budget Spiritual Farming’ (Münster, 2016; Palekar, 2010). knowledge gains, and only a few had received associated training
(Table 2). Most non-certified farmers, however, had received training
acknowledged this situation. through the Kerala Organic Farmer Association (KOFAI), as did all export
Although NGOs introduced OA to address the dramatic price drops in farmers from NGOs (Table 2).
cash crops in the early 2000s, it appears not to provide financial benefits Social capital. While hobby farmers generally had few close re­
under current economic conditions. Market prices were as low as as 60 lationships within their local communities and thus low social capital
INR ($0.84) per kg for pepper, and 28 INR ($0.39) per kg for coffee, in (Table 1), they often had strong relationships with fellow organic
2004–2005 (Government of Kerala and State Plannning Board, 2008), farmers and key figures within the organic movement. Non-certified
and organic farmers received a price premium of 50–100 percent over farmers had high social capital that was critical to their success – they
conventional markets. By 2013, as conventional market prices increased were well integrated into their local communities and depended on so­
considerably (to 347 INR ($4.86) per kg for pepper, and 66 INR ($0.92) cial networks to access organic markets and premium prices, given their
per kg for coffee; Government of Kerala and State Planning Board, lack of organic certification (Table 1). Non-certified farmers were often

9
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 5. Livelihood changes experienced by the three organic farmer groups after adoption of OA (panels a and b) and explanations for these changes across all farmer
groups (panels c and d). Income changes refer to changes in total household income due to adoption of OA resulting from changes in crop production, management
costs or prices received for produce.

association with an organic NGO created a strong social network and a

Table 4
sense of belonging. Adopting OA thus clearly improved their social
Impact of OA on livelihood outcomes of different organic farmer groups. This
capital (Table 4).
table summarizes the most common tendencies for each group. An upward
Resilience. As described in our methods, changes in resilience from
arrow indicates a positive impact (e.g., lower production costs, higher resil­
ience), a downward arrow a negative impact (e.g., higher production costs, adopting OA were measured relative to conventional farmers, not over
lower resilience) and a long dash indicates no or little change in livelihood time. Hobby farmers showed intermediate resilience similar to conven­
outcomes (relative to previous conventional management). Social capital for tional farmers. They had low labour dependency, and high economic
non-certified farmers shows both an up and down arrow as social capital production diversity (due to diverse crops), but low caloric productivity
increased for some non-certified farmers but declined for others (see main text). and dependency on nutrient inputs (Fig. 6). Non-certified farmers showed
Changes to physical capital were not assessed as we assumed negligible impacts the highest resilience (Fig. 6), despite often being poorer, with fewer
from the adoption of OA. assets, than other farmers (Table 1). They were ‘globally autonomous
Hobby Non-certified Export and locally interdependent’, using Cabell and Oelofse (2012)’s terms, as
Financial capital ↓ ↑ ↓ they employed little external labour, applied few external inputs, sold
Yields ↓ ↓ ↓ directly in local rather than export markets (Fig. 4), and produced a
Low production costs ↓ ↑ ↓ diversity of high calorie crops (Fig. 6), thus spreading economic risk
Prices — ↑ ↑ more widely. Despite strong social networks, export farmers showed low
Natural capital
resilience (Fig. 6) since they depended on a few cash crops, high labour,
↑ ↑ ↑
Social capital ↑ ↑↓ ↑
Human capital — ↑ ↑ external nutrient inputs, and external marketing agencies (that dictated
Resilience — ↑ ↓ prices, the quality and quantity of produce purchased, and management
rules). Export farmers also highlighted the sad irony that they were
growing conventional produce for the domestic market and their own
members of KOFAI (Table 2), which enabled them to receive training,
consumption, while exporting their organic produce, because of inade­
exchange knowledge, and access organic markets. Many non-certified
quate domestic demand.
farmers were highly respected in their communities for their entrepre­
Satisfaction with organic agriculture. Hobby farmers commonly
neurship. However, some, often the only ones in their village farming
experienced income decreases after adopting OA, as discussed (Fig. 5b).
organically, reported antagonism with neighbours. One such farmer in
Yet, their livelihoods were not significantly affected, as they were
Thrissur explained: “There was a lot of animosity because my products
financially well off, and agriculture was not their major source of in­
were getting more profits, and more demand. […] and many people
come. Further, since they farmed organically for ideological reasons,
became enemies”. For export farmers, organic certification required
they would never consider returning to conventional agriculture. Non-
participation in farmer groups resulting in close relationships and
certified farmers adopted OA on their own initiative to align their
cooperation with neighbours who also farmed organically. Additionally,

10
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 6. Resilience outcomes of organic farmers due to adoption of OA, measured relative to the resilience of conventional farmers as the reference. Spider diagrams
are scaled by the maximum value of each indicator across farmer groups (except for labour dependency and caloric plot productivity, where median + MAD (median
absolute deviation) is used to scale due to existence of high outliers). Units are: member of farmer group (% of farmers); crop diversity (average number of crop
species grown per plot); economic production diversity (Shannon diversity index of economic production in INR/acre, see methods); low external nutrient de­
pendency (proportion of nutrient inputs purchased); caloric plot productivity (cal/acre, see methods); low labour dependency (part-time labour employed, in la­
bour-days).

livelihood with their values. They often did so believing that it would Export farmers, who had typically entered OA for higher profits,
increase long-term yields, although very few had experienced yield in­ voiced the strongest concerns about it and their own future. They
creases (Fig. 5a). Despite reduced yields, and selling some produce in the complained about having to follow onerous guidelines, and incurring
conventional market (Fig. 4), they were typically adamant about never extra charges by the exporting NGO, while also facing yield reductions
reverting to conventional agriculture. As one non-certified farmer in (which were particularly pronounced for coffee), high labour costs, and
Wayanad explained: threats such as climate change and pest outbreaks. Importantly, they felt
"Chemical and organic agriculture are like using allopathic or ayur­ neglected by the government, which they believed provided little sup­
vedic medicines. If you’re using ayurvedic medicines, it’ll take time to port. As one put it: “Organic is promoted only with the tongue”. Many
get absorbed in the body, but it acts long-term. On the other hand, if export farmers were considering reverting to conventional methods.
you’re using allopathic medicines it will work quickly. The disease will However, some said they would continue organic farming longer, hop­
be cured easily but after some time it will start again. […] And it’s the ing for improved yields after the transition period; they also hoped that
same way with chemical fertilisers compared to organic fertiliser: For an organic NGO’s new processing plant would help them sell more
chemicals, good yield will be there, but it will slowly destroy the soil." produce at a premium.

11
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Fig. 7. Overview of key differences in livelihood characteristics and organic farming strategies between organic farmer groups. The size of each icon is scaled by the
maximum value amongst farmer groups. The first two indicators are the ones used to categorize farmers into farmer groups. Indicators include: % income from
agriculture (Farming income), % farmers certified organic (Organic certification), years of schooling (Education), wealth indicator (Wealth), LSU (Livestock), part-
time labour employed (Part-time labour), farming some area conventionally (Farm area conventional), use of chemical fertilizers (Chemical fertilizers), member of
organic NGO (NGO member), receives premium prices (Premium prices). For values of indicators see Tables 2, 3 and 4.

Fig. 8. Conceptual summary of study results. Different organic farmer types differed in their livelihood characteristics, their motivations to adopt, as well as the
livelihood outcomes from adopting OA. No arrow in the livelihood outcomes 5 capitals pentagon indicates no change in this dimension. H in the asset pentagon
denotes human capital, N natural, F financial, P physical and S social capital. See Fig. 3 for further details on livelihood characteristics, Table 4 for further details on
livelihood outcomes and Fig. 2 for further explanation of the conceptual framework used in the study.

6. Discussion and conclusions Fairweather, 1999). Similar typologies have been developed for other
agro-environmental decisions (Fish et al., 2003). Our study is one of the
We have identified three broad types of organic farmers in Kerala’s first, to our knowledge, to create a typology of organic farmers in the
Thrissur and Wayanad districts: hobby, non-certified, and export Global South, and investigate comparative motivations and livelihood
farmers. Creating this typology is useful to highlight clear differences in outcomes.
farmer characteristics (Fig. 7), motivations, and livelihood outcomes
(Table 4) – it offers insights into differing pathways into, and outcomes 6.1. Success of organic agriculture depends on who adopts it and why
of, OA. In turn, we argue that different policy interventions are vital for
different types of organic farmers. We examined the success of OA based on farmers’ own emic per­
Studies in the Global North have classified organic farmers according ceptions of its outcomes. Farmers defined success as enhanced financial
to their ‘pragmatic’ or ‘committed’ motivations (Darnhofer et al., 2005; capital and well-being, which included health benefits, social

12
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

connections, and livelihoods aligning with personal values. Our case and childrens’ education might be shaped by their relative ‘taste of
study highlights how tightly linked the success of a livelihood strategy is luxury’ due to larger financial assets.
with farmers’ beliefs and motivations, and their livelihood characteris­ The success of OA thus depends on who adopts OA (the livelihood
tics (Fig. 8). The degree of positive livelihood outcomes and satisfaction characteristics of farmers, their financial capabilities and expectations),
farmers noted with OA was influenced by their motivations for adopting what type of OA is adopted (traditional or modern farming), and why
it, the form of OA they practiced (e.g., staple versus cash crops, for farmers adopt OA (for ideological or economic reasons).
domestic versus export markets), and their livelihood assets (e.g., poor
versus middle-class versus wealthy, owning livestock or not) (Fig. 8). 6.2. Internalized ideological commitments are a necessity for the
Although hobby farmers were motivated by their positive attitudes persistence of organic agriculture
and self-identity as organic farmers, rather than improved livelihood
assets, adopting OA did influence some of their livelihood outcomes Although economic factors are often emphasized in farmer decision-
(Table 4, Fig. 8). Notably their financial capital decreased, while their making, it is also strongly influenced by personality traits, attitudes, and
social and natural capital improved. Yet the reduced financial capital values (Austin et al., 2001; Mills et al., 2017; Siebert et al., 2006). As we
was not as important for hobby farmers given that their livelihood assets reported, export farmers were motivated to adopt OA primarily due to
were not determined by their farming activities. financial and social factors. Meanwhile, non-certified and hobby farmers
Non-certified farmers generally had positive livelihood outcomes typically adopted OA following strong beliefs about its superiority (i.e.,
from OA (Table 4, Fig. 8), due to reduced costs, better prices, and personal attitudes) and internalized organic values as important parts of
increased resilience. They prioritized risk minimization and stability their self-identity. Many export farmers in our study were considering
over maximizing production and income. Their OA practices resembled reverting to conventional farming, while hobby and non-certified
low-input traditional Indian farming that inspired Howard (1943) to farmers were committed to continuing OA. Studies have shown that
promote OA in the west. environmentally responsible behaviour that is intrinsically motivated,
Export farmers experienced negative livelihood outcomes due to initiated, and maintained is more likely to be sustained than when
lower yields, higher costs, and lower resilience, despite receiving higher driven by extrinsic motivations like monetary incentives or social norms
prices and other benefits from belonging to organic farmer associations (Brown and Kasser, 2005; De Young, 1996; Zepeda et al., 2013). Simi­
(Table 4, Fig. 8). Their OA resembled modern farming, reliant on larly, the success of agro-ecological programs is often hindered by
external labour, fertilizer inputs, distant markets, and profit maximiza­ environmental values not being internalized (Nelson et al., 2009;
tion. Thus, export farmers practised a type of ‘conventionalized’ OA Stobbelaar et al., 2009). Other studies have also highlighted the
(Darnhofer et al., 2010). Münster (2016, p. 232) similarly observed that importance of self-identity for pro-environmental farmer behaviour
certified organic farmers in Wayanad “change as little as possible and (Burton and Wilson, 2006; Lokhorst et al., 2014; Lokhorst et al., 2011).
simply [to] replace chemical inputs with ‘permitted’ organic inputs”. Self-identifying with organic values thus emerges as a key pre-requisite
Given high labour costs, low organic premiums, and generally low for continued commitment to and the perceived success of OA in our
livestock (and manure) levels in Kerala, the most successful type of OA study.
appears to be practiced by non-certified farmers, who use more live­ Our study also highlights that personal attitudes are important for
stock compared to other farmer types (Table 1). Non-certified farmers the perceived success of OA. For example, non-certified farmers were
thus closely follow traditional farming practices, rather than a modern typically convinced that OA would produce long-term yield increases,
farming system as practiced by export farmers. This conclusion aligns despite not necessarily having experienced them. Alternatively, export
with results from neighbouring Karnataka, which has a similar agri­ farmers expressed disappointment about the same yield losses, without
cultural context. There, modelling studies concluded that OA benefitted believing in long-term yield benefits. Ideological commitment and
farmer livelihoods if organic inputs were produced on the farm rather positive personal attitudes therefore appear to be crucial for sustained
than purchased (Purushothaman et al., 2013), with smaller farms participation in OA, particularly given the challenges during the
benefitting more than larger ones (Purushothaman et al., 2012). transition.
Our study also underscores the importance of attitudes and self- Interestingly, institutional support through NGOs, or their attempts
identity (a key TPB construct) in how farmers experienced livelihood to generate social or human capital – suggested as important pre­
changes from adopting OA. Non-certified farmers had voluntarily conditions for successful uptake of environmental practices (Burton and
adopted, and were strongly committed to, OA. Their livelihood out­ Paragahawewa, 2011; Mills et al., 2017) - did not, by themselves, create
comes were often accompanied by other changes in their lives (e.g., positive attitudes towards OA. Rather, our study shows that the degree
becoming vegetarian, and more religious), so OA was an important part to which farmers self-identified with OA, and felt control over the
of their self-identity and they had strong positive attitudes towards it. adoption of OA, are key preconditions for this purpose. We thus hy­
We suggest that this, in turn, influenced how they experienced the pothesize that the TPB constructs that proved important for continued
adoption of OA – they expected and experienced positive outcomes. In adoption of OA in this study (i.e., attitudes, self-identity, perceived
contrast, export farmers did not self-identify with OA. They adopted it behavioural control) are inter-dependent: positive attitudes towards OA
due to subjective norms/social influences (i.e., pressure from NGOs and were only persistent in farmers for whom organic values had become a
peers), and anticipated financial benefits. As they depended on NGOs for part of their identity, adoption had been initiated voluntarily, and
marketing and premium prices, they also felt a lack of control over control was felt over their management and marketing activities.
farming and its outcomes. They had negative attitudes towards OA to Siebert et al. (2006: 318) note that “financial compensation and in­
begin with, which, we suggest, influenced how they experienced and centives [are] a necessary, though clearly not sufficient condition” for
interpreted their experiences with it. farmers to adopt conservation measures. However, by drawing on our
Importantly, personal beliefs and values resulting in satisfaction (or conceptual framework, we conclude that strong pro-organic attitudes
not) with OA also depend on the economic capabilities of farmers, i.e., and self-identity as organic farmers are a necessary condition for the
the ‘willingness to adopt’ is influenced by the ‘ability to adopt’ (Mills adoption of, and continued satisfaction with, OA, in a context that is
et al., 2017). Norms and concepts regarding what constitutes ‘good unfavourable for agriculture generally, and OA particularly.
farming’ are culturally constructed and shaped by economic context
(Sutherland, 2013). Non-certified farmers perhaps value environmental 6.3. Implications for the success of organic agriculture as a livelihood
stewardship and chemical-free food more than profitability due to their strategy in the Global South
limited financial options (the ‘taste of necessity’, ibid). Meanwhile, the
emphasis by export farmers on economic profitability, consumer goods, OA is frequently portrayed as a success story with a growing market

13
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

and expanding area (Willer and Lernoud, 2017). However, this view are usually neither linear nor rapid, but dynamic, often including time
might hide complex dynamics of entrance and exit (Harris et al., 2008). delays between changes in the ‘rules of the game’ (i.e., changes in policy,
EU data suggests that at least half as many farmers are leaving as are economic or socio-economic context) and changes in ‘habitus’ (i.e.,
entering the sector annually (European Commission, 2010). However, farmers’ habits and dispositions, including attitudes and self-identity).
the degree of exit, and its reasons, are not well studied (Flaten et al., Importantly, given the high value farmers place on economic viability,
2010; Harris et al., 2008). profitability of OA might still be a pre-requisite for many farmers
Kerala and India have seen considerable fluctuation in the area of (particularly for ‘pragmatic’ export farmers) to consider adopting OA.
certified OA (Government of Kerala and State Planning Board, 2015; But once they have converted to OA, continued exposure to OA practices
NCOF, 2010; similar documents from Government of Kerala for 2013 and principles can change farmers’ attitudes (Sutherland and Darnhofer,
and NCOF for 2005–2010 and 2012 were reviewed to compile this data). 2012). This suggests that if enough farmers transition to OA through
We believe that this might be caused by concurrent high levels of entry increased policy support and better economic conditions, a tipping point
into and exit from the sector. Several export farmers and key informants could be reached that shifts the dominant notion of what ‘good farming’
we interviewed reported high drop-out from OA. In one village, of the 48 is, enabling an easier and more enduring transition to OA.
farmers who had adopted OA, only 16 were practicing it four years later;
in another, this number dropped from 98 to five. The experience of the
Organic Wayanad NGO (formerly the largest organic marketing agency CRediT authorship contribution statement
in Kerala) is similar: of the 2000 new members in Wayanad in 2004, only
350 remained in 2013. As a key informant from Organic Wayanad Verena Seufert: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation,
explained, most members left because they did not receive the expected Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization,
financial benefits, as yield losses were not compensated by organic Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Stephanie E.
premiums. Organic Wayanad now only accepts new members if farmers Austin: Investigation. Madhav G. Badami: Conceptualization, Meth­
approach them, having learned that only those committed to OA will odology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing. Sarah Turner:
remain in it. Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review &
The many challenges facing organic farmers in Kerala highlight the editing. Navin Ramankutty: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
need for increased policy support. While all the organic farmers in our Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – review &
study were facing labour shortages and yield reductions, many chal­ editing.
lenges were particular to specific farmer groups across our typology - e.
g., procurement problems for export farmers, expensive external inputs
for export and hobby farmers, and a sense of isolation for some non- Declaration of Competing Interest
certified farmers.
Kerala has continued to promote and support OA. We argue that the The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
nuanced understandings of organic farmers, and their diverse motiva­ interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
tions and livelihood characteristics generated by our study will enable the work reported in this paper.
more effective policies and support mechanisms to be tailored to the
particular needs, motivations, and concerns of each organic farmer type Data availability
we have identified. We recommend that policy support for OA should
primarily target non-certified farmers, who are the poorest group and Some of the data are confidential and cannot be shared as per the
have a strong ideological commitment to OA, and are thus likely to ethics agreement of our research, but any publicly available data that we
persist with it long-term. Policy support for them should foremost compiled can be made available upon request.
include strengthening and improving access to the domestic organic
market. Also important would be subsidies during the transition, help Acknowledgements
with certification (e.g., participatory guarantee systems), and access to
services including extension and peer-to-peer networks. We are grateful for the extensive and thoughtful comments from 3
While export farmers show low commitment to OA, they are likely to anonymous reviewers, which greatly improved this manuscript in the
persist with it if economic conditions for OA become more favourable. course of the review process. This work was supported by a Heller
This would require a higher premium for organic coffee and spices, more Fellowship awarded to V. Seufert, and a Natural Sciences and Engi­
reliable marketing outlets, and targeted research and extension support neering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant (RGPIN 341935-12)
to reduce yield losses keeping in mind their specific management awarded to N. Ramankutty. We thank Dr. Kunhamu T. K. and the Kerala
characteristics (e.g., low livestock numbers, high labour costs). Agricultural University, as well as Wayanad Social Service Society
Assuming funding constraints, our findings do not justify policy support (WSSS), Rasta, Organic Wayanad, and Fair Trade Association Kerala
for hobby farmers. They are as ideologically committed to OA as non- (FTAK) for hosting us and for providing logistical support. We are also
certified farmers, but are not farming for economic reasons, and will grateful to Haseena Kadiri and Vishnu Satheesan for their outstanding
continue their practice without further support. research assistance in the field, Thomas Fox for logistical support in the
Our study also suggests that a large-scale transition to OA requires a field, and Kathy Impey, Aneeta Antony, Lea Rakovsky and Luca Seufert
cultural shift in farmer (and consumer) mindsets about what is ‘good for help with transcription. We also thank Natasha Salter for help with
farming’, alongside changes in the economic context. Only if farmers the price and calorie analysis, Dr. Kimberly Nicholas and Dr. Hannah
identify with and internalize organic values will they remain in OA long- Wittman for helpful feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript, as
term, even under changing economic conditions. Such a cultural trans­ well as the farmers and key informants for sharing their knowledge and
formation is already on-going in Kerala, as evidenced by all farmer types opinions with us. Finally, we would like to thank Julie Fortin for help
in our study expressing serious concerns regarding the detrimental ef­ with some of the figures, and Yogi Joseph, Jacob Baby, and Sreelakshmi
fects of chemical inputs for human health, soil fertility and the envi­ Ramachandran for useful discussions on Syrian Christians.
ronment, and aspiring to play a role in mitigating these effects. But many
Keralan farmers still see such inputs as a necessary evil for achieving Appendix A. Supplementary data
sufficient yields and income (see e.g., recent large-scale farmer protests
against slashing fertilizer subsidies; NewsClick (2022)). Sutherland and Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
Darnhofer (2012) argue that changes to cultural norms around farming org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2022.103670.

14
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

References Government of India, 2022. Consolidated organic agricutural statistics for the year 2020-
21.
Government of Kerala, Department of Agricutlure, 2010. Kerala State Organic Farming
Alexander, W.M., 2000. Normal Kerala within Abnormal India: Reflections on Gender
Policy, Strategy and Action Plan.
and Sustainability. In: Parayil, G. (Ed.), Kerala: The Development Experience –
Government of Kerala, State Plannning Board, 2008. Economic Review 2008,
Reflections on Sustainability and Replicability. Zed Books, London, pp. 139-156.
Thiruvananthapuram.
Austin, E.J., Deary, I.J., Willock, J., 2001. Personality and intelligence as predictors of
Government of Kerala, State Planning Board, 2013. Economic Review 2013,
economic behaviour in Scottish farmers. Eur. J. Pers. 15 (S1), S123–S137.
Thiruvananthapuram.
Bacon, C., 2005. Confronting the coffee crisis: can fair trade, organic, and specialty
Government of Kerala, State Planning Board, 2015. Economic Review 2015,
coffees reduce small-scale farmer vulnerability in northern Nicaragua? World Dev.
Thiruvananthapuram.
33 (3), 497–511.
Government of Kerala, 2022. Organic farming and good agricultural practices.
Bakewell-Stone, P., Lieblein, G., Francis, C., 2008. Potentials for organic agriculture to
Department of Agriculture Development and Farmers Welfare.
sustain livelihoods in Tanzania. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 6 (1), 22–36.
Grimm, M., Luck, N., 2020. Can Training Enhance Adoption, Knowledge and Perception
Beedell, J.D.C., Rehman, T., 1999. Explaining farmers’ conservation behaviour: Why do
of Organic Farming Practices? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment in
farmers behave the way they do? J. Environ. Manage. 57 (3), 165–176.
Indonesia. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
Bennett, M., Franzel, S., 2013. Can organic and resource-conserving agriculture improve
Gulati, L., 1990. Agricultural Workers’ Pension in Kerala: An Experiment in Social
livelihoods? A synthesis. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 11 (3), 193–215.
Assistance. Econ. Pol. Wkly 25 (6), 339–343.
Bolwig, S., Gibbon, P., Jones, S., 2009. The economics of smallholder organic contract
Harris, F., Robinson, G.M., Griffiths, I., 2008. A Study of the Motivations and Influences
farming in tropical Africa. World Dev. 37 (6), 1094–1104.
on Farmers’ Decisions to Leave the Organic Farming Sector in the United Kingdom.
Bray, D.B., Sanchez, J.L.P., Murphy, E.C., 2002. Social dimensions of organic coffee
Sustainable rural systems: Sustainable agriculture and rural communities, 99.
production in Mexico: lessons for eco-labeling initiatives. Soc. Nat. Resour. 15 (5),
Heller, P., 1999. The labor of development: workers and the transformation of capitalism
429–446.
in Kerala, India.
Brown, K.W., Kasser, T., 2005. Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible?
Heong, K.L., Escalada, M.M., 1999. Quantifying rice farmers’ pest management
The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle. Soc. Indic. Res. 74 (2), 349–368.
decisions: beliefs and subjective norms in stem borer control. Crop Prot. 18 (5),
Burton, R.J.F., Paragahawewa, U.H., 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agri-
315–322.
environmental schemes. J. Rural. Stud. 27 (1), 95–104.
Herath, H.M.G., Hardaker, J.B., Anderson, J.R., 1982. Choice of varieties by Sri Lanka
Burton, R.J.F., Wilson, G.A., 2006. Injecting social psychology theory into
rice farmers: comparing alternative decision models. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 64 (1),
conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-
87–93.
identity? J. Rural. Stud. 22 (1), 95–115.
Hindu, T., 2020. Kerala local bodies to take up organic farming, vegetable production,
Cabell, J.F., Oelofse, M., 2012. An indicator framework for assessing agroecosystem
The Hindu Business Line, Kochi.
resilience. Ecol. Soc. 17 (1).
Howard, A., 1943. An Agricultural Testament. Oxford University Press, New York.
Calo, M., Wise, T.A., 2005. Revaluing peasant coffee production: Organic and fair trade
Jacobi, J., Schneider, M., Pillco Mariscal, M., Huber, S., Weidmann, S., Bottazzi, P.,
markets in Mexico. Globalization and Sustainable Development Program, Global
Rist, S., 2015. Farm Resilience in Organic and Non-Organic Cocoa Farming Systems
Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
in Alto Beni, Bolivia. Agroecol. Sustainable Food Syst. 39 (7), 798–823.
Chambers, R., Conway, G., 1991. Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the
Jeffrey, R., 1992. Politics, Women, and Well-Being: How Kerala Became “A Model”.
21st century. IDS Discussion Paper.
Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Chand, R., Raju, S.S., Pandey, L.M., 2007. Growth crisis in agriculture: Severity and
Jose, D., Shanmugaratnam, N., 1993. Traditional homegardens of Kerala: a sustainable
options at national and state levels. Econ. Pol. Wkly 2528–2533.
human ecosystem. Agrofor. Syst. 24 (2), 203–213.
Chongtham, I.R., Neergaard, A., Pillot, D., 2010. Assessment of the strategies of organic
Kallungal, D., 2021. Kerala draws lesson from Subhash Palekar’s Andhra model farming.
fruit production and fruit drying in Uganda. J. Agric. Rural Dev. Tropics Subtropics
The New Indian Express.
(JARTS) 111 (1), 23–34.
Kumar, B.M., 2005. Land use in Kerala: changing scenarios and shifting paradigms.
Cope, M., 2010. Coding Qualitative Data, in: Hay, I., Hay, I. (Eds.), Qualitative Research
J. Trop. Agric.
Methods in Human Geography, Oxford, pp. 281-294.
Lin, W., Dean, G.W., Moore, V.C., 1974. An empirical test of utility vs. profit
Crowder, D.W., Reganold, J.P., 2015. Financial competitiveness of organic agriculture on
maximization in agricultural production. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 56 (3), 497–508.
a global scale. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112 (24), 7611–7616.
Lokhorst, A.M., Staats, H., van Dijk, J., van Dijk, E., de Snoo, G., 2011. What’s in it for
Darnhofer, I., Schneeberger, W., Freyer, B., 2005. Converting or not converting to
Me? Motivational differences between farmers’ subsidised and non-subsidised
organic farming in Austria: Farmer types and their rationale. Agric. Hum. Values 22
conservation practices. Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev. 60 (3), 337–353.
(1), 39–52.
Lokhorst, A.M., Hoon, C., le Rutte, R., de Snoo, G., 2014. There is an I in nature: The
Darnhofer, I., Lindenthal, T., Bartel-Kratochvil, R., Zollitsch, W., 2010.
crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy 39, 121–126.
Conventionalisation of organic farming practices: from structural criteria towards an
Lotter, D.W., Seidel, R., Liebhardt, W., 2003. The performance of organic and
assessment based on organic principles. A review. Agronomy Sustain. Dev. 30 (1),
conventional cropping systems in an extreme climate year. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 18
67–81.
(3), 146–154.
De Young, R., 1996. Some Psychological Aspects of Reduced Consumption Behavior The
Lyngbaek, A.E., Muschler, R.G., Sinclair, F.L., 2001. Productivity and profitability of
Role of Intrinsic Satisfaction and Competence Motivation. Environ. Behav. 28 (3),
multistrata organic versus conventional coffee farms in Costa Rica. Agrofor. Syst. 53
358–409.
(2), 205–213.
DFID, 1999. Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets, in: Development, D.f.I. (Ed.), UK,
Mendoza, T.C., 2004. Evaluating the benefits of organic farming in rice agroecosystems
London.
in the Philippines. J. Sustain. Agric. 24 (2), 93–115.
Einhorn, H.J., Hogarth, R.M., 1981. Behavioral decision theory: Processes of judgment
Milestad, R., Darnhofer, I., 2003. Building farm resilience: the prospects and challenges
and choice. J. Account. Res. 1–31.
of organic farming. J. Sustain. Agric. 22 (3), 81–97.
European Commission, 2010. An analysis of the EU organic sector.
Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Ingram, J., Dwyer, J., Reed, M., Short, C., 2017. Engaging farmers in
Eurostat, 2015. Glossary: Livestock unit (LSU). Available at: https://ec.europa.
environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour. Agric.
eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Livestock_unit_(LSU).
Hum. Values 34 (2), 283–299.
Last accessed October 10, 2015.
Mohanakumar, S., Sharma, R.K., 2006. Analysis of farmer suicides in Kerala. Econ. Pol.
Eyhorn, F., Ramakrishnan, M., Mäder, P., 2007. The viability of cotton-based organic
Wkly 1553–1558.
farming systems in India. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 5 (1), 25–38.
Münster, D., 2012. Farmers’ suicides and the state in India: Conceptual and ethnographic
Fairweather, J.R., 1999. Understanding how farmers choose between organic and
notes from Wayanad, Kerala. Contribut. Indian Sociol. 46 (1–2), 181–208.
conventional production: Results from New Zealand and policy implications. Agric.
Münster, D., 2016. Agro-ecological double movements? Zero Budget Natural Farming
Hum. Values 16 (1), 51–63.
and alternative agricultures after the neoliberal crisis in Kerala, in: Mohanty, B.B.,
Fish, R., Seymour, S., Watkins, C., 2003. Conserving English landscapes: land managers
Mohanty, B.B. (Eds.), Critical Perspectives on Agrarian Transition: India in the
and agri-environmental policy. Environ Plan A 35 (1), 19–42.
Global Debate, Oxdon, pp. 222-244.
Flaten, O., Lien, G., Koesling, M., Løes, A.-K., 2010. Norwegian farmers ceasing certified
Nair, K.N., Menon, V., 2004. Reforming Agriculture in a Globalising World - the Road
organic production: Characteristics and reasons. J. Environ. Manage. 91 (12),
Ahead for Kerala, IP6 Working Paper, Thiruvananthapuram.
2717–2726.
Nair, K., Menon, V., 2009. Distress, debt, and suicides among farmer households:
Forster, D., Andres, C., Verma, R., Zundel, C., Messmer, M.M., Mäder, P., 2013. Yield and
findings from village studies in Kerala. Agrarian Crisis India 230–260.
economic performance of organic and conventional cotton-based farming
NCOF, 2010. Statewise area under organic farming (registered under accredited
systems–results from a field trial in India. PLoS One 8 (12), e81039.
certficiation bodies) for the year 2010-11. National Centre for Organic and Natural
Fox, T.A., Rhemtulla, J.M., Ramankutty, N., Lesk, C., Coyle, T., Kunhamu, T.K., 2017.
Farming.
Agricultural land-use change in Kerala, India: Perspectives from above and below the
Nelson, E., Scott, S., Cukier, J., Galán, Á.L., 2009. Institutionalizing agroecology:
canopy. Agr Ecosyst Environ 245, 1–10.
successes and challenges in Cuba. Agric. Hum. Values 26 (3), 233–243.
Franke, R.W., Chasin, B.H., 1994. Kerala: Radical reform as development in an Indian
Newsclick, 2022. Sudden switch to organic farming impractical: Kerala farmers protest
state.
fertiliser subsidy cut, Newsclick, Thiruvananthapuram.
Freidberg, S., Goldstein, L., 2011. Alternative food in the global south: Reflections on a
Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., Henley, R., 2010. Multi-layered social resilience a new approach in
direct marketing initiative in Kenya. J. Rural. Stud. 27 (1), 24–34.
mitigation research. Prog. Dev. Stud. 10 (4), 283–293.
Goldberger, J.R., 2008. Diffusion and adoption of non-certified organic agriculture: a
Padel, S., 2001. Conversion to organic farming: a typical example of the diffusion of an
case study from semi-arid Makueni District, Kenya. J. Sustainable Agric. 32 (4),
innovation? Sociol. Rural. 41 (1), 40–61.
531–564.

15
V. Seufert et al. Geoforum 138 (2023) 103670

Padel, S., 2008. Values of organic producers converting at different times: results of a Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., Mayerhofer, T., 2017. What is this thing called organic?–
focus group study in five European countries. Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol. 7 (1), How organic farming is codified in regulations. Food Policy 68, 10–20.
63–77. Shi, Y., Cheng, C., Lei, P., Wen, T., Merrifield, C., 2011. Safe food, green food, good food:
Palackal, A., 2019. Organic Agriculture in Kerala: A Counter-discourse from the Margins. Chinese Community Supported Agriculture and the rising middle class. Int. J. Agric.
Sociol. Bull. 68 (2), 169–182. Sustain. 9 (4), 551–558.
Palekar, S., 2010. The Philosophy of Spiritual Farming: Zero Budget of Natural Farming, Siebert, R., Toogood, M., Knierim, A., 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’
Maharashtra, India. participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 46 (4), 318–340.
Panneerselvam, P., Hermansen, J.E., Halberg, N., 2011. Food Security of Small Holding Simon, H.A., 1982. Models of bounded rationality: Empirically grounded economic
Farmers: Comparing Organic and Conventional Systems in India. J. Sustain. Agric. reason.
35 (1), 48–68. Stobbelaar, D.J., Groot, J.C.J., Bishop, C., Hall, J., Pretty, J., 2009. Internalization of
Panneerselvam, P., Halberg, N., Vaarst, M., Hermansen, J.E., 2012. Indian farmers’ agri-environmental policies and the role of institutions. J. Environ. Manage. 90,
experience with and perceptions of organic farming. Renewable Agric. Food Syst 27 S175–S184.
(02), 157–169. Stock, V.P., Forney, J., Emery, S.B., Wittman, H., 2014. Neoliberal natures on the farm:
Parayil, G., 1996. The’Kerala model’of development: development and sustainability in farmer autonomy and cooperation in comparative perspective. J. Rural. Stud. 36,
the Third World. Third World Q. 17 (5), 941–958. 411–422.
Patil, S., Reidsma, P., Shah, P., Purushothaman, S., Wolf, J., 2014. Comparing Sutherland, L.-A., 2013. Can organic farmers be ‘good farmers’? Adding the ‘taste of
conventional and organic agriculture in Karnataka, India: Where and when can necessity’to the conventionalization debate. Agric. Hum. Values 30 (3), 429–441.
organic farming be sustainable? Land Use Policy 37, 40–51. Sutherland, L.-A., Darnhofer, I., 2012. Of organic farmers and ‘good farmers’: changing
Planning Commission, Government of India, 2014. Data-book Compiled for use of habitus in rural England. J. Rural. Stud. 28 (3), 232–240.
Planning Commission. Thadathil, M.S., Mohandas, V., 2012. Impact of MGNREGS on labour supply to
Prakash, B.A., 1998. Gulf migration and its economic impact: the Kerala experience. agricultural sector of Wayanad District in Kerala. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 25 (1), 155.
Econ. Pol. Wkly 3209–3213. Thapa, G.B., Rattanasuteerakul, K., 2011. Adoption and extent of organic vegetable
Purushothaman, S., Patil, S., Francis, I., 2012. Impact of policies favouring organic inputs farming in Mahasarakham province, Thailand. Appl. Geogr. 31 (1), 201–209.
on small farms in Karnataka, India: a multicriteria approach. Environ. Dev. Sustain. Thomas, S., 2018. Privileged Minorities: Syrian Christianity, Gender, and Minority Rights
14 (4), 507–527. in Postcolonial India. University of Washington Press, Seattle.
Purushothaman, S., Patil, S., Francis, I., 2013. Assessing the impact of policy-driven Thottathil, S., 2012. Incredible Kerala? A Political Ecological Analysis of Organic
agricultural practices in Karnataka, India. Sustainability Sci. 8 (2), 173–185. Agriculture in the “Model for Development”.
Ramachandran, V.K., 2000. Kerala’s Development Achievements and their Replicability, Vakkayil, J.D., 2010. Infam in Wayanad, Kerala, in: Harper, M., Harper, M. (Eds.),
in: Parayil, G. (Ed.), Kerala: The Development Experience. Zed Books, London, pp. Inclusive Value Chains: A pathway out of poverty, pp. 67-80.
88-115. Valbuena, D., Verburg, P.H., Bregt, A.K., Ligtenberg, A., 2010. An agent-based approach
Raynolds, L.T., 2004. The globalization of organic agro-food networks. World Dev. 32 to model land-use change at a regional scale. Landsc. Ecol. 25 (2), 185–199.
(5), 725–743. Valkila, J., 2009. Fair trade organic coffee production in Nicaragua-Sustainable
Rehman, T., McKemey, K., Yates, C.M., Cooke, R.J., Garforth, C.J., Tranter, R.B., Park, J. development or a poverty trap? Ecol. Econ. 68 (12), 3018–3025.
R., Dorward, P.T., 2007. Identifying and understanding factors influencing the Venkattakumar, R., Sontakki, B.S., 2012. Producer Companies in India-Experiences and
uptake of new technologies on dairy farms in SW England using the theory of Implications. Indian Res. J. Extension Education Special Issue 1, 154–160.
reasoned action. Agr. Syst. 94 (2), 281–293. Willer, H., Lernoud, J., 2017. The World of Organic Agriculture - Statistics and Emerging
Riar, A., Mandloi, L.S., Poswal, R.S., Messmer, M.M., Bhullar, G.S., 2017. A Diagnosis of Trends 2017, Frick & Bonn.
Biophysical and Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Farmers’ Choice to Adopt Willock, J., Deary, I.J., Edwards-Jones, G., Gibson, G.J., McGregor, M.J., Sutherland, A.,
Organic or Conventional Farming Systems for Cotton Production. Front. Plant Sci. 8, Dent, J.B., Morgan, O., Grieve, R., 1999. The role of attitudes and objectives in
1289. farmer decision making: Business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in
Salazar, R.C., 2014. Going Organic in the Philippines: Social and Institutional Features. Scotland. J. Agric. Econ. 50 (2), 286–303.
Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 38 (2), 199–229. Zachariah, K.C., Rajan, S.I., 2012. Inflexion in Kerala’s Gulf connection: Report on Kerala
Scott, S., Vandergeest, P., Young, M., 2009. Certification Standards and the Governance Migration Survey 2011, Thiruvananthapuram.
of Green Foods in Southeast Asia. In: Clapp, J., Fuchs, D., Clapp, J., Fuchs, D. (Eds.), Zachariah, K.C., 2006. The Syrian Christians of Kerala: Demographic and Socio-economic
Corporate Power in Global Agrifood Governance. Massachusetts, Cambridge, p. 61. Transition in the Twentieth Century. Orient Longman, New Delhi.
Seufert, V., Ramankutty, N., 2017. Many shades of gray—The context-dependent Zepeda, L., Reznickova, A., Russell, W.S., 2013. CSA membership and psychological
performance of organic agriculture. Sci. Adv. 3 (3), e1602638. needs fulfillment: an application of self-determination theory. Agric. Hum. Values 30
(4), 605–614.

16