Jukuri, open repository of the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) All material supplied via Jukuri is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. Duplication or sale, in electronic or print form, of any part of the repository collections is prohibited. Making electronic or print copies of the material is permitted only for your own personal use or for educational purposes. For other purposes, this article may be used in accordance with the publisher’s terms. There may be differences between this version and the publisher’s version. You are advised to cite the publisher’s version. This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Jaana Sorvali, Janne Kaseva, Annukka Vainio, Markku Verkasalo & Pirjo Peltonen- Sainio Title: Year: Value priorities of the Finnish farmers—Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional 2022 Version: Published version Copyright: Rights: The Author(s) 2022 CC BY 4.0 Rights url: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Please cite the original version: Sorvali, J., Kaseva, J., Vainio, A., Verkasalo, M., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2022). Value priorities of the Finnish farmers—Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32( 2), 212– 240. https://doi.org/10.1002/ casp.2561 R E S E A R CH A R T I C L E Value priorities of the Finnish farmers—Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional Jaana Sorvali1 | Janne Kaseva2 | Annukka Vainio3 | Markku Verkasalo4 | Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio1 1Natural Resources Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Helsinki, Finland 2Natural Resources Unit, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland 3Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland 4Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychology and Logopedics, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Correspondence Jaana Sorvali, Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Latokartanonkaari 9, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland. Email: jaana.sorvali@luke.fi Funding information European Commission, Grant/Award Number: LIFE14 CCM/FI/000254 Abstract Farming communities are becoming more heterogeneous and multifunctional due to various structural and environmental changes. However, it is not known if farmers' values have also become more heterogeneous. We wanted to explore potential heterogeneity in farmers' value priorities in detail across differ- ent farmer groups in Finland using the refined Schwartz theory of 19 basic human values. A representative sample of 4,401 Finnish farmers responded to a survey in 2018. The data were analysed with multidimensional scaling, confirmatory factor analysis and one-way analysis of variance. The results show that farmers' values were heterogeneous, and differences were associated with socio-demographic characteristics. Our find- ings confirmed the motivational continuum structure of values, with the exception of societal-value. Security-societal was the most important value for the Finnish farmers. The theory of 19 values proved useful in uncovering value priorities in detail. The security-societal value is more a part of national identity rather than a personal motivational value in the Finnish farming community. The heterogeneity of farmers' values should be considered in more targeted policy planning. K E YWORD S agriculture, farmers, Finland, Schwartz, survey, values Received: 11 August 2020 Revised: 18 June 2021 Accepted: 21 June 2021 DOI: 10.1002/casp.2561 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 212 J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2022;32:212–240.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/casp https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0371-7149 mailto:jaana.sorvali@luke.fi http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/casp http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1002%2Fcasp.2561&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2021-07-18 1 | INTRODUCTION Currently, agriculture faces challenges related to changes in growing conditions, extreme weather and pest and disease outbreaks, which may severely damage agricultural production and become more severe due to climate change (Hakala, Hannukkala, Huusela-Veistola, Jalli, & Peltonen-Sainio, 2011; Olesen et al., 2012; Peltonen-Sainio, Hakala, & Jauhiainen, 2011; Rötter et al., 2011). Farming communities play a central role in the future sustainability of agriculture. Farming systems have undergone profound changes in recent decades, and further changes, or even a large-scale transformation of agricultural production, will need to be made in future to accommodate environmental, economic and social sustainability targets (Foley et al., 2011). These expectations and associated policies need to be in line with the personal values of target communities in order to be successful (Axsen & Kurani, 2013; Huijts, Molin, & Steg, 2012; Lincoln & Ardoin, 2016; Vainio et al., 2020). However, there is evidence that the recent agricultural policy strategies do not sufficiently resonate with farmers' basic values (Dobricki, 2011). Farmers have become more heterogeneous, but it is not known if it is reflected in their values. Previous studies have often described farmer communities as homogeneous, traditional and conservative. A study of northern and central European farmers applied the Schwartz's (1992) theory of basic human values and showed that compared to the general population, farmers are less open to change and more conservative, as well as less motivated by self- interest and more with common welfare (Baur, Dobricki, & Lips, 2016). Tradition and continuity were also identified as the core values of Finnish farmers (Niska, Vesala, & Vesala, 2012; Silvasti, 2001). A Swiss study indicated that the most important higher-order value for farmers was conservation, followed by self-transcendence, self-enhancement and openness to change (Dobricki, 2011). Yet, there is some evidence that farmers' values are more heterogeneous than generally thought. For example, Finnish farmers who are rural business owners regard autonomy and economic values as more important than societal or traditional values (Niska, Vesala, & Vesala, 2016). However, more studies are needed to understand the heterogeneity of values in agricultural farming communities. The aim of this research was to provide an updated analysis of farmers' values, focussing on potential heterogene- ity in them. We used the refined theory of basic human values by Schwartz et al. (2012), which proposes a more detailed circular continuum of 19 values instead of the 10 values in the original theory (Schwartz, 1992). This detailed research will update the current understanding of farmers' values and provide a basis for future studies of farmer atti- tudes and behaviour. The refined theory of 19 basic human values is interesting in the agricultural context because it enables a differentiation between the values supporting possibilities of change in human behaviour. In addition, the study will fill the research gap regarding the connections of Schwartz' basic human values to different demographic variables, attitudes and behaviours, which have been studied widely (Schwartz, 2015), but not in connection with farmers. We aim to answer the following questions: 1. Can the motivational structure of 19 values as presented in Schwartz's refined theory of basic human values be found among the Finnish farmers? 2. What are the value and higher-order value priorities of the Finnish farmers? 3. Do these value priorities differ according to demographics or farming choices? We then proceed to ask: 4. How do our results relate to other studies on farmer values? And finally: 5. What do our results mean concerning the future transition pathways of agriculture? 2 | BASIC HUMAN VALUES 2.1 | Schwartz' theory of basic human values Basic human values are defined as ‘desirable trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding prin- ciples in the life of a person or other social entity’ (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1994). Values have been found to be SORVALI ET AL. 213 hierarchically structured in a similar way across countries: benevolence, self-direction and universalism values were consistently regarded as the most important, while power, tradition and stimulation values were the least important (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Our research is based on the refined theory of 19 basic human values, where 6 (self-direction, power, security, conformity, universalism and benevolence) of the 10 original values were divided for the sake of better explanatory power, and two new values (humility [HUM] and face) were introduced (Table 1). The values form a circular continuum (Figure 1) presenting compatible and conflicting motivations: the further from each other the two values are in the circle, the more they are in conflict. Figure 1 also shows the four higher- order values: openness to change; self-enhancement; conservation and self-transcendence. These are separated between values with a more personal focus (openness to change and self-enhancement) and those with a social focus (conservation and self-transcendence) and self-protection—anxiety—avoidance (conservation and self- enhancement) and growth—anxiety-free (self-transcendence and openness to change) (Schwartz et al., 2012). 3 | DATA AND METHODS 3.1 | Participants The survey was conducted in 2018. It was delivered via email to all Finnish farmers who, in 2016, had an email address in the registry of the Finnish Food Authority. The survey was sent to 38,091 (80%) of the total 47,688 of TABLE 1 The definitions of the 19 basic human values (Schwartz et al., 2012) Value (abbr.) Conceptual definition in terms of motivational goals Self-direction-thought (SDT) Freedom to cultivate one's own ideas and abilities Self-direction-action (SDA) Freedom to determine one's own actions Stimulation (ST) Excitement, novelty and change Hedonism (HE) Pleasure and sensuous gratification Achievement (AC) Success according to social standards Power-dominance (POD) Power through exercising control over people Power-resources (POR) Power through control of material and social resources Face (FAC) Security and power through maintaining one's public image and avoiding humiliation Security-personal (SEP) Safety in one's immediate environment Security-societal (SES) Safety and stability in the wider society Tradition (TRA) Maintaining and preserving cultural, family or religious traditions Conformity-rules (COR) Compliance with rules, laws and formal obligations Conformity-interpersonal (COI) Avoidance of upsetting or harming other people Humility (HUM) Recognising one's insignificance in the larger scheme of things Benevolence-dependability (BED) Being a reliable and trustworthy member of the ingroup Benevolence-caring (BEC) Devotion to the welfare of ingroup members Universalism-concern (UNC) Commitment to equality, justice and protection for all people Universalism-nature (UNN) Preservation of the natural environment Universalism-tolerance (UNT) Acceptance and understanding of those who are different from oneself 214 SORVALI ET AL. Finnish farmers in 2018 (Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2019). Twenty per cent of farmers were omitted because they could not be reached via email. Altogether, 4,401 respondents answered, making the response rate 12% of the farmers who were reached and 9% of all Finnish farmers. The value survey was conducted as part of a larger data inquiry concerning farmers' views on farming practices, climate change and the future of agriculture in Finland. The value statements were at the end of the survey. Responding was voluntary and encouraged by the chance to win a drone worth €1,000. The person mainly responsible for decision-making on the farm was instructed to answer the questions. This resulted in 87% of respondents being male. The respondents were aged between 18 and 78 years (M = 51.0 years, standard deviation [SD] = 11.0), and the average farm size was 51 ha (SD = 50.2). Fifteen per cent were organic farms (Table A1). About a half of the respondents were cereal producers (51%), and the second largest group were dairy farmers (18%). The sample covered all the geographical areas of Finland. About 65% had completed secondary education, and 25% had a university degree. Revenue for agricultural production was €100,000 or less for 66% of respondents (x¼ €65,000). No significant distortions of representativeness was found for gender, age, farming sys- tem, farm size, farm organisation, farm type or the respondents' geographical area. Our data were interpreted as a fairly representative sample of the Finnish farming community. The respondents seemed to have more vocational schooling than Finnish farmers as a whole. For revenue, our sample was under-presented in the under €20,000 class. 3.2 | Instruments The revised Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-RR) was used (McQuilkin, Garðarsd�ottir, Thorsteinsson, & Schwartz, 2016; Schwartz et al., 2017; Schwartz & Butenko, 2014). Authorized Finnish- and Swedish-language ver- sions of the PVQ-RR were used alongside each other. The PVQ-RR consists of 57 statements or descriptions of goals important to a person (Table A2). Three statements represented each value, and the respondents were asked, ‘How much like you is this person?’ A 6-point response scale ranging from 1 = ‘Not at all like me’ to 6 = ‘Very much like me’ was used. F IGURE 1 The circular continuum of the 19 values (Schwartz et al., 2012) SORVALI ET AL. 215 There were no missing data, but the respondents who used the same scale anchor ≥35 times or did not use ≥2 scale anchors to 57 questions were removed from the analyses (McQuilkin et al., 2016). The data analysed therefore consisted of 4,160 respondents. The response scale was corrected for scale bias (Schwartz, 2016). The value aver- ages were calculated, and the internal consistencies of the 19 values, measured using Cronbach's alpha, ranged from poor to good (0.52–0.86). HUM and security-personal had poor alphas (<0.60), but 14 out of 19 values had accept- able alphas (≥0.70) (Table A3). The correlation matrix of 19 values is shown in Table A4. 3.3 | Statistical analysis The structure of values was analysed by multidimensional scaling (MDS) approach. Non-metric MDS with weighted Euclidean distances from a standardized dissimilarity matrix was used. Several optional models were compared, based on graphical solutions and the badness-of-fit-criterion (BOC), which measure how far the total residuals diverge from the real values. Criteria for acceptance vary, but BOC < 0.15 is considered a good fit for a 19-variable analysis and BOC >0.20 a poor fit (Borg, Groenen, & Mair, 2018). The chosen model was found extremely suitable, having a BOC value of 0.04. Based on the MDS results, HUM and face were included in con- servation in the following confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which was used to test the structure of four higher- order values. CFAs were performed separately for every higher-order value (Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2012). For example, we received more precise information about each part of the circle, avoided possible disturbances caused by the complexity of the whole model and obtained more reliable test statistics caused by the lower number of estimated parameters. Respondents' raw value scores were used in CFA. As CFA is relatively robust to modest vio- lations of normality with ordinal data, standard CFA was used rather than categorical analysis (Davidov, Datler, Schmidt, & Schwartz, 2011). Only one item out of 57 (SES1; see Table A3) did not pass the assumption of jskewnessj ≤ 2 and jkurtosisj ≤ 7 (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). The violations were minor (2.3 and 7.2), and we therefore decided to retain the item in the analysis. Three criteria (comparative fit index [CFI], standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] and root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA]) were used to evaluate the four models' goodness of fit. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), CFI ≥ 0.90 can be considered an indicator of reasonable fit, and CFI ≥ 0.95 a good fit, while SRMR and RMSEA≤0.08 can be considered as indicators of reasonable fit and RMSEA≤0.05, a good fit. Modification indices were not used to improve models. The means of the values were calculated and compared across different categories of background variables. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used, and pairwise comparisons were based on Tukey's HSD (Salkind, 2010). Effect sizes were evaluated with Hedges' g, which takes account of different sample sizes between groups. The g values above 0.8 were interpreted as large, above 0.5 as medium and above 0.2 as small effects (Ellis, 2010). Statistical analyses were performed through MEANS, UNIVARIATE, CORR, FREQ, ANOVA, GLIMMIX, MDS and CALIS procedures, using the SAS Enterprise Guide 7.15 software package (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). 4 | RESULTS 4.1 | Theory-based value structure in farmer data First, we analysed the motivational continuum structure of 19 basic human values according to Schwartz's theory (2012) in the data. The MDS analysis supported the continuum structure of values except with security-societal, which was positioned almost at the opposite side of its theoretical place (Figure 2). CFA was conducted separately for all four higher-order values, and only for the self-enhancement was the RMSEA below a reasonable fit (RMSEA = 0.093), while the others showed either a reasonable or good fit (Table 2). 216 SORVALI ET AL. Based on Schwartz's theory and the results of MDS, we also conducted CFAs to test the placements of the border values of hedonism, HUM and face. For self-transcendence, the addition of HUM did not significantly change the goodness of fit indices, validating its place in conservation. The addition of hedonism or face into self-enhancement F IGURE 2 Multidimensional scaling (MDS) results of 19 values clustered in two dimensions. The different colours show in which higher-order values the individual values were placed. AC, achievement; BEC, benevolence- caring; BED, benevolence-dependability; COI, conformity-interpersonal; COR, conformity-rules; FAC, face; HE, hedonism; HUM, humility; POD, power-dominance; POR, power-resources; SDA, self-direction-action; SDT, self-direction-thought; SEP, security-personal; SES, security-societal; ST, stimulation; TRA, tradition; UNC, universalism-concern; UNN, universalism-nature; UNT, universalism-tolerance TABLE 2 Goodness-of-fit indices from the CFAs of the four higher-order values including the values in each confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) Models used in analysis df X2 CFI SRMR RMSEA (90% CI) Openness to change (SDT, SDA, ST, HE) 48 1,061.75 0.932 0.0514 0.071 [0.068, 0.075] Self-enhancement (AC, POD, POR) 24 884.27 0.938 0.0511 0.093 [0.088, 0.098] Conservation (FAC, SEP, SES, TR, COR, COI, HUM) 168 2,431.44 0.925 0.0471 0.057 [0.055, 0.059] Self-transcendence (UNN, UNC, UNT, BEC, BED) 80 1,201.58 0.952 0.0378 0.058 [0.055, 0.061] Modified models Self-enhancement (with hedonism (HE)) 48 1,625.20 0.918 0.0585 0.089 [0.085, 0.093] Self-enhancement (with face (FAC)) 48 1,563.48 0.918 0.0560 0.087 [0.091, 0.083] Self-transcendence (with humility (HUM)) 120 1,644.15 0.941 0.0380 0.055 [0.053, 0.058] Note: Three modified models are also shown. Explanations for the abbreviations of the values are presented in Table 1. Abbreviations: AC, achievement; BEC, benevolence-caring; BED, benevolence-dependability; COI, conformity- interpersonal; COR, conformity-rules; FAC, face; HE, hedonism; HUM, humility; POD, power-dominance; POR, power- resources; SDA, self-direction-action; SDT, self-direction-thought; SEP, security-personal; SES, security-societal; ST, stimulation; TRA, tradition; UNC, universalism-concern; UNN, universalism-nature; UNT, universalism-tolerance. SORVALI ET AL. 217 slightly weakened the CFI and SRMR indices, thus validating their place in openness to change and conservation, respectively. 4.2 | Finnish farmers' value priorities Of the four higher-order values, self-transcendence scored highest (x¼4:63 ), followed by conservation and open- ness to change (x¼4:18 and 4.11, respectively). Self-enhancement values scored significantly lower (x¼2:97) than the three other values. With 10 values, benevolence was rated highest among Finnish farmers, followed by security and self-direction. Power was rated lowest. Of the 19 values, security-societal was clearly the most important value for Finnish farmers, followed by benevolence-caring, self-direction-action, benevolence-dependability and self- direction-thought (SDT) (Figure 3). (a) (b)  F IGURE 3 Farmers' mean values using the 10 (graph A) and 19 (graph B) value models. AC, achievement; BEC, benevolence-caring; BED, benevolence-dependability; COI, conformity-interpersonal; COR, conformity-rules; FAC, face; HE, hedonism; HUM, humility; POD, power-dominance; POR, power-resources; SDA, self-direction-action; SDT, self-direction-thought; SEP, security-personal; SES, security-societal; ST, stimulation; TRA, tradition; UNC, universalism-concern; UNN, universalism-nature; UNT, universalism-tolerance 218 SORVALI ET AL. (a) (b)  (c)  (d)  (e) F IGURE 4 Legend on next page. SORVALI ET AL. 219 4.3 | Association between demographics, farming choices and value priorities Men and women differed in all other value motivations except tradition, security-societal and HUM (Figure 4, all ANOVA results are shown in Table A5 and the means, SDs for different groups in Table A6). The biggest gender dif- ferences were in self-transcendence values, especially universalism (ΔUNC = 0.40, g = 0.43; ΔUNN = 0.47, g = 0.51; ΔUNT = 0.42, g = 0.44), which women rated more highly than men. Self-enhancement values were all rated more highly by men than women (ΔAC = 0.26, g = 0.28; ΔPOD = 0.28, g = 0.28; ΔPOR = 0.40, g = 0.40), and of openness to change values, men rated hedonism (ΔHE = 0.30, g = 0.28) and stimulation (ΔST = 0.16, g = 0.17) more highly, while women rated both self-direction values (ΔSDT = 0.15, g = 0.19; ΔSDA = 0.21, g = 0.27) more highly. All gender differences in conservation values were low (g < 0.20). There was a strong age differentiation in values. Large- and medium-sized differences, measured by Hedges' g (g), were found with many values, especially hedonism. The biggest differences were between the youngest (≤30 years) and oldest (≥71 years) age groups (Δ1vs4 = 1.08, g = 1.05), but the youngest and the 31–50 years' groups (Δ1vs2 = 0.33, g = 0.32), the youngest and the 51–70 years' groups (Δ1vs3 = 0.80, g = 0.74), the 31–50 years' group and the 51–70 years' group (Δ2vs3 = 0.47, g = 0.44), and the 31–50 years' group vs the oldest age group differed markedly (Δ2vs4 = 0.75, g = 0.72). Self-enhancement values of achievement, power-dominance and power-resources were more highly rated by younger farmers (Figure 4 and Appendices 5 and 6). Tradition values were more highly regarded by older farmers, and they differed from the two youngest groups (Δ2vs4 = 0.52, g = 0.51; Δ1vs4 = 0.48, g = 0.51). Universalism values, especially universalism-nature (UNN), were more highly rated by older groups (Δ1vs3 = 0.43, g = 0.48; Δ1vs4 = 0.52, g = 0.57). Farmers' education level was also associated with their values. The greatest differences were between the groups with comprehensive and university education. University-educated farmers tended to place more emphasis on openness to change and self-enhancement than those with comprehensive education and less on conservation values (Figure 4 and Appendices 5 and 6). For example, achievement was much more motivating for university- educated farmers than those with comprehensive schooling (Δ = 0.42, g = 0.46). At the same time, conformity-inter- personal was lower for university-educated farmers than those with vocational schooling (Δ = 0.47, g = 0.44). As a trend, the more highly rated all openness to change and self-enhancement values were, the more educated the respondents were, and vice versa for conservation values. Self-transcendence values were not related to education level. There was a statistical difference between organic and conventional farmers in 12 out of the 19 values. How- ever, the difference was strong only in the self-transcendence values of universalism, which organic farmers rated more highly than conventional farmers (UNN Δ = 0.45 g = 0.49; UNC Δ = 0.27, g = 0.29 and UNT Δ = 0.25, g = 0.26) (Figure 4 and Appendices 5 and 6). Openness-to-change values were also rated slightly more highly by organic farmers (ST Δ = 0.19, g = 0.20; SDT Δ = 0.13, g = 0.17 and SDA Δ = 0.11, g = 0.14). Revenue was associated with farmers' values, and medium to large effects measured by the Hedges' g were found between the opposing ends of the different groups. The differences became smaller or non-existent the closer the groups were to each other (Table A6). The highest differences overall were in self-enhancement values, where farmers with revenue of more than € one million rated achievement and power much more highly than farms with revenue of less than €20,000 (AC Δ1vs7 = 0.76, g = 0.81; POD Δ1vs7 = 0.72, g = 0.73 and POR Δ1vs7 = 0.52, F IGURE 4 Value differences for different genders (graph A), age groups (graph B), by level of education (graph C), by farming system (graph D) and by farm size (graph E, hectares). The statistically significant differences are indicated by *** p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05 or �p < .10. AC, achievement; BEC, benevolence-caring; BED, benevolence-dependability; COI, conformity-interpersonal; COR, conformity-rules; FAC, face; HE, hedonism; HUM, humility; POD, power-dominance; POR, power-resources; SDA, self-direction-action; SDT, self-direction-thought; SEP, security-personal; SES, security-societal; ST, stimulation; TRA, tradition; UNC, universalism-concern; UNN, universalism-nature; UNT, universalism-tolerance 220 SORVALI ET AL. g = 0.51). The self-transcendence values of UNN and universalism-concern (UNC Δ1vs7 = 0.67, g = 0.74; UNN Δ1vs7 = 0.47, g = 0.52) and most conservation values were rated more highly by small revenue farms (HUM Δ1vs7 = 0.44, g = 0.47; COR Δ1vs7 = 0.46, g = 0.40; SEP Δ1vs7 = 0.29, g = 0.35 and TRA Δ1vs7 = 0.35, g = 0.34). Differences were greatest between the smallest (<50 ha) and biggest (≥150 ha) farm groups. Self-enhancement values and especially achievement were more important the bigger the farm was (AC Δ1vs4 = 0.47, g = 0.52; POR Δ1vs4 = 0.36, g = 0.36 and POD Δ1vs4 = 0.30, g = 0.31). Stimulation was also more important for bigger than smaller farms (ST Δ1vs4 = 0.37, g = 0.39). UNN and UNC, on the other hand, were ranked most highly by the smallest farms (UNN Δ1vs4 = 0.27, g = 0.29 and UNC Δ1vs4 = 0.23, g = 0.25). For the smallest and biggest farms, the differences found in conformity (Δ1vs4 = 0.27, g = 0.25) and tradition (Δ1vs4 = 0.20, g = 0.20) values were also noteworthy. A trend in value differences according to farm size was that small farms placed more emphasis than any other farm on conservation (except for face and security-societal) and universalism values, while bigger farms placed more empha- sis on self-enhancement values (Figure 4 and Appendices 5 and 6). The region in which the farm was located was weakly associated with values. Most differences were negligible (g < 0.20) for the four major regions of Finland. Farmers in Southern Finland tended to highlight openness to change and self-enhancement more than their northern colleagues (HE Δ = 0.24, g = 0.23; AC Δ = 0.17, g = 0.19). Farmers in Eastern Finland tended to place a little more emphasis on universalism than farmers in Western Finland (UNN Δ = 0.14, g = 0.15; UNC Δ = 0.19, g = 0.21 and UNT Δ = 0.19, g = 0.20). Farm type was even less important for value priorities than the region (Appendices 5 and 6). The security-societal was the most important value for Finnish farmers and the one not following the logic of the basic human values theory. This value varied little with demographic variables or farming choices. This indicates its importance to all farmers, irrespective of their background. Face and benevolence-dependability were similarly rated across all farmers. The overall variance in basic human values explained by different demographic variables and farming choices varied depending on the value (Table A5). The reported variance in hedonism, for example, was explained by age but not so much by other demographic variables. Overall, age had the most explanatory power followed by revenue among the background variables studied. Looking at the values, variance in achievement was best explained by background variables, followed by UNN (Table A5). 5 | DISCUSSION The Schwartz refined theory of 19 basic human values and the circular continuum of values were confirmed by this representative survey of Finnish farmers, with one notable exception to the theoretical model, security-societal value. The same value was also found to be the most important for Finnish farmers. Our results showed that farmers cannot be regarded as a single homogenous group in their motivational values as many differences between different farmer groups were found. In our research, security-societal value, that is, safety and stability in the wider society, was separated from the security-personal value and placed between benevolence and self-direction values at the opposite side of the model than suggested by the theory. Similar to our results, in a study of Finnish values conducted in a workplace context, Koivula (2008) found that security values were placed against the original theory. Her research placed security adja- cent to benevolence and universalism values. She explained this anomaly as a reflection of beliefs affecting the sense of Finland's national security as a relatively young nation that still feels vulnerable because of its history, powerful neighbours, international conflict or sense of social incoherence. Following this logic, the security values would be a means to preserve the universalism values that they were closely connected to in Koivula's research and thus part of national identity rather than personal values (Helkama, 2018; Maio, 2017). Schwartz et al. (2001) have also found that security values move on the motivational continuum suggesting that the value structure might be sensitive to powerful historical events. The research was done in the context of the apartheid past of South Africa. As the posi- tioning of security has been random and contextual in different studies, no restructuring of the theory itself has been SORVALI ET AL. 221 proposed. Other anomalies to the original theory have been also noted, for example, equality (universalism value according to theory) was placed midst achievement values for Israeli women (Prince-Gibson & Schwartz, 1998). However, previous value studies from Finland have not found this same anomaly with security-societal value (Pohjanheimo, 1997; Puohiniemi, 1995; Schwartz et al., 2012) as in the current study. Security values have a protec- tive function (Schwartz et al., 2012), which have been argued to activate in the face of threat (Helkama, 2018). Our survey was sent out in early 2018. In August 2017, the first terrorist attack on Finnish soil was performed, and attacks were reported from other close-by regions. The Syrian war and the refugee crisis were reported constantly in the media (SUPO, 2020; IEP, 2018). The on-going Finnish presidential election debates highlighted foreign and security policy issues as the Finnish president acts as a leader of Finnish foreign policy and is the Supreme Com- mander of the Finnish Defence Forces. These co-occurring events might explain our results as security-related threats were actively discussed during the survey. It is noteworthy that values were surveyed simultaneously with climate change related threats, also discussed in the media more than before (Lyytimäki, 2020). In contrast to Koivula (2008), our results positioned security-social between benevolence and self-direction values, not between universalism and benevolence values. If security-societal value is accepted as more of a compo- nent of national identity than a personal motivational goal, this might suggest a more closed-up definition for national identity, as benevolence values relate to the welfare and trustworthiness of one's in-group members. This might be logical also in the context where the survey was realised. Security-societal was also the most important value for Finnish farmers, followed by benevolence-caring and SDT values. Another explanation for the anomaly might be a technical one discussed by Koivula (2008), where the most important values position together as the rela- tive importance of them is connected. This hypothesis is also supported by our results. As different research shows different findings that challenge the original theory, future research could strive for explanations through innovative empirical methods, such as analysis of conceptual similarity judgements of values (Coelho et al., 2019). Previous research has established the importance of benevolence and security as the top guiding value principles for different groups in Finland (Karppinen & Korhonen, 2013; Koivula, 2008; Puohiniemi, 2006) and benevolence, self-direction and universalism internationally (Schwartz & Bardi, 2001). Our results are also consistent with the results of European Social Survey where Finland has been placed among the countries with high emphasis on self- transcendence and openness to change values (Tormos, Vauclair, & Dobewall, 2017). As most previous studies of farmers' values have stressed the importance of conservation values and especially tradition in motivating farmer behaviour (Baur et al., 2016; Dobricki, 2011; Gasson, 1973; Silvasti, 2003), it is noteworthy that a more detailed approach with 19 values showed that it was in fact security-societal, which raised the importance of conservation values. Without the security-societal, the mean for conservation values would drop (to 3.99 from 4.18), thus raising openness to change values above conservation values, and to second place after self-transcendence values. According to our results, it is time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional as presented by previous research. Comparisons between the farmers and the non-farmers by the 19 values questionnaire could elaborate more, if there are differences between these two groups or have the previous notion of farmers as tradi- tional been merely due to the shorter construct of the value questionnaire. Women farmers emphasized the self-transcendence values of universalism, whereas men emphasized the self- enhancement values located on the opposite sides of the Schwartz value continuum. Our results mirror the gender differences found in previous research (e.g., Schwartz & Rubel, 2005). The UNN was especially a more important value for women than men. Value differences based on age were greatest between the youngest and oldest age groups, and the biggest difference was noted in hedonism. The values of tradition and universalism showed also notable differences and were more highly rated among the oldest age groups, a result consistent with previous research (Robinson, 2013). University-educated farmers rated the openness to change and self-enhancement values more highly than less-educated farmers, which is also consistent with previous results from non-farming groups (Verkasalo, Lönnqvist, Lipsanen, & Helkama, 2009). Values differed quite similarly with different farm size and reve- nue classes indicating that these variables measure the same thing, farms' economic wealth. Most differences in all the groups were found on the self-enhancement versus self-transcendence axis. 222 SORVALI ET AL. Differences in values were largely due to demographics (gender, age and education) and economic variables (reve- nue and farm size). Farmers' values were less connected with the farm type, that is, if they produced wheat or pork, or to the region where they lived. The farming system (organic or conventional) was relevant in explaining especially univer- salism values. There were also similarities: societal-security, face and benevolence-dependability were quite similarly rated across all the studied groups. It has to be noted that in our data, the organic farmers were more educated than conventional farmers, the two youngest age groups also had better income than the two oldest age groups and high education also raises income, so it is not possible to exactly pinpoint what is the primary reason for the value differences in different groups. The explanatory power of different variables varies a lot from value to value, and no single variable was found to explain all the values in a coherent way. This is well in line with the theoretical assumption of the motiva- tional basis of the basic human values. Hedonism's strong connection to age connects to stages in peoples' lives when the individualistic needs of young age give way to responsibilities towards others in older age. It is also clear that other factors besides demographic or farming choices studied here have a significant role in shaping basic human values. Previous farmers' value studies have rarely examined variations associated with demographics or farming choices. Many studies have also reached their conclusions with a relatively small sample and/or based on the four higher-order value outcomes. Given that several of these studies claim to be of use in planning agricultural or envi- ronmental policy, it is very doubtful that differences between farmer groups were not considered at all. The possibil- ity of a more detailed value research with the renewed value theory of 19 values also proved its worth when comparing value priorities with demographic variables and farming choices. As universalism was divided into three components, UNC, nature and tolerance, we found much variation in the different components when comparing dif- ferent demographic means. This will be helpful, for example, in targeted agri-environmental policy planning. Although our survey was responded to by 4,401 Finnish farmers, the response rate was still quite low. This can be considered as a limitation of the research as respondents with certain values might be more eager to answer to surveys in general. The respondents were in many ways a representative sample of the Finnish farmer population, but they were slightly more educated and had higher revenue than the total farmer population. Younger age groups were slightly over-represented in our survey sample (Table A1). As we were interested in building bridges between values and future transformations of agriculture, this bias was deemed acceptable. A review of the background vari- able connections showed that there is some distortion in the compositions of different groups. For example, university-educated respondents were more often women than men (Table A7). The survey was cross-sectional, and therefore, causal associations between the values, farming styles and socio-demographical variables cannot be made. The value statements were placed last in a questionnaire dealing with manifold issues on farming practices, climate change and future of agriculture. These questions might have emphasized the perceived importance of certain values over others while responding to the value statements. The number of farms is declining rapidly all over Europe. At the same time, the land area in agricultural use has remained stable, indicating larger farms (Eurostat, 2018). In Finland too, the number of farms has declined, and the scale of farming has increased at the same pace (Natural Resources Institute Finland, 2019). The results reveal that the most important values of Finnish farmers were benevolence, security and self-direction. Previously, farmers have been found to emphasize conservation values, whereas a more nuanced analysis showed that farmers distinguish between differ- ent types of conservation values and consider only security as very important. Moreover, giving high importance to the self-direction value suggests that farmers might have become more entrepreneurial than in the past. This may be a reflection of the structural change towards bigger farm units mentioned above because the management of larger farms can be compared to that of any other company. However, achievement and stimulation values, which often have been associated with entrepreneurship (Kennedy & Ho, 2020), were relatively low among farmers. The average age of farmers is quite high in Finland, suggesting that a generational change is on the horizon. The younger generation of farmers is also likely to be more highly educated than their parents. The younger, highly edu- cated farmers of the future with large farms producing high revenues are an indication of an even greater shift from conservation values towards values of openness to change. For a sector facing pressures to regenerate and adapt to new demands, this seems promising from the economic point of view. SORVALI ET AL. 223 The sustainability transition in agriculture is strongly linked to farmers' environmental concerns. Connections between values and environmental attitudes are well established and show association of self-transcendence values with concern for environmental issues (Hansla, Gamble, Juliusson, & Gärling, 2008; Schultz et al., 2005; Stern, 2000). According to our results, Finnish farmers are in general terms strongly inclined towards self-transcendence values and supporting universalism values, which are especially connected to pro-environmental concerns (Hansla et al., 2008). Despite the differences between farmer groups in universalism values, they are still highly endorsed in all groups. The connection between farmers' values, environmental concern and farming practices should be further studied to fully understand agriculture's transition pathways. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work was financed by the European Commission Life-Programme and Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) as a part of a consortium project called Optimising Agricultural Land Use to Mitigate Climate Change (OPAL-Life, LIFE14 CCM/FI/000254; this paper only reflects the authors' view, and the EASME/Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains). The authors would also like to thank Lauri Jauhianen and Eino Uotila for primary data processing. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors have declared no conflict of interest. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conceptualization: Jaana Sorvali; methodology: Jaana Sorvali, Markku Verkasalo and Annukka Vainio; formal analysis and investigation: Janne Kaseva and Jaana Sorvali; writing—original draft preparation: Jaana Sorvali; writing—review and editing: Jaana Sorvali, Markku Verkasalo, Annukka Vainio, Janne Kaseva and Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio; funding acquisition: Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio and Jaana Sorvali; resources: Jaana Sorvali; supervision: Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. ORCID Jaana Sorvali https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0371-7149 REFERENCES Axsen, J., & Kurani, K. S. (2013). Developing sustainability-oriented values: Insights from households in a trial of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.08.002 Baur, I., Dobricki, M., & Lips, M. (2016). The basic motivational drivers of northern and central European farmers. Journal of Rural Studies, 46, 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.001 Borg, I., Groenen, P. J. F., & Mair, P. (2018). Applied multidimensional scaling and unfolding (2nd. ed.). Springer Publishing Company Incorporated. Cieciuch, J., & Schwartz, S. H. (2012). The number of distinct basic values and their structure assessed by PVQ–40. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(3), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.655817 Coelho et al. (2019) Mapping the structure of human values through conceptual representations. European Journal of Person- ality, 33:1, 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2170 Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16. Davidov, E., Datler, G., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). Testing the invariance of values in the Benelux countries with the European social survey: Accounting for ordinality. In E. Davidov, P. Schmidt, & J. Billiet (Eds.), Cross-cultural analysis (1st ed., pp. 149–173). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Dobricki, M. (2011). Basic human values in the Swiss population and in a sample of farmers. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 70 (3), 119, 127. https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000047 224 SORVALI ET AL. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0371-7149 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0371-7149 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.08.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2016.06.001 https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.655817 https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2170 https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185/a000047 Ellis, P. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eurostat. (2018). Agriculture, forestry and fishery statistics. European Union, 195. https://doi.org/10.2785/340432KS-FK- 18-001-EN-N Eurostat. (2019). Females in the field: More women managing farms across Europe. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/ info/news/queens-frontage-women-farming-2019-mar-08_en Finnish Food Authority. (2019). Luomuvalvonnan tilastot ja tietohaut. Retrieved from https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/viljelijat/ luomumaatilat/tilastot-ja-tietohaut/ Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy, E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., … Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature, 478(7369), 337–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 Gasson, R. (1973). Goals and values of farmers. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 24(3), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1477-9552.1973.tb00952.x Hakala, K., Hannukkala, A., Huusela-Veistola, E., Jalli, M., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2011). Pests and diseases in a changing cli- mate a major challenge for Finnish crop production. Agricultural and Food Science, 20, 3–14. Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). The relationships between awareness of consequences, environ- mental concern, and value orientations. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp. 2007.08.004 Helkama, K. (2018). Suomalainen identiteetti ja arvot: Sosiaalipsykologista historiaa. Psykologia, 53(4), 302–319. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Huijts, N. M. A., Molin, E. J. E., & Steg, L. (2012). Psychological factors influencing sustainable energy technology acceptance: A review-based comprehensive framework. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16(1), 525-531. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 IEP, Institute for Economics & Peace. Global Terrorism Index 2018: Measuring the impact of terrorism, Sydney, Retrieved from http://visionofhumanity.org/reports Karppinen, H., & Korhonen, M. (2013). Do forest owners share the public's values? An application of Schwartz's value the- ory. Silva Fennica, 47(1), 1–16. Kennedy, J. C., & Ho, M. H. R. (2020). The influence of values on entrepreneurial, professional, and career motivations. In M. Ho, J. Kennedy, M. Uy, & K. Y. Chan (Eds.), Entrepreneurship–professionalism–leadership. Singapore: Springer. Koivula, N. (2008). Basic human values in the workplace (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Department of Social Psy- chology, University of Helsinki. (17). Retrieved from http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-4691-9 Lincoln, N. K., & Ardoin, N. M. (2016). Cultivating values: Environmental values and sense of place as correlates of sustain- able agricultural practices. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(2), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9613-z Lyytimäki, J. (2020). Ilmastonmuutos isosti otsikoissa—kirittääkö uutisointi kestävyysmurrokseen? Yhteiskuntapolitiikka, 2, 191–196. Maio, R. G. (2017). The psychology of human values. Milton Park: Routledge. McQuilkin, J., Garðarsd�ottir, R. B., Thorsteinsson, T., & Schwartz, S. H. (2016). An Icelandic translation and validation of the revised 19-value portrait values questionnaire. Personality and Individual Differences, 101, 428–434. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.paid.2016.06.050 Natural Resources Institute Finland. (2019). Structure of agricultural and horticultural enterprises. Retrieved from https:// stat.luke.fi/en/structure-of-agricultural-and-horticultural-enterprises. Niska, M., Vesala, H. T., & Vesala, K. M. (2012). Peasantry and entrepreneurship as frames for farming: Reflections on farmers' values and agricultural policy discourses. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(4), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 9523.2012.00572.x Niska, M., Vesala, H. T., & Vesala, K. M. (2016). The use of social psychology in rural development? Two readings of rural business owners' values. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 26(6), 581–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/ casp.2290 Olesen, J. E., Borgesen, C. D., Elsgaard, L., Palosuo, T., Rotter, R. P., Skjelvag, A. O., … van der Fels-Klerx, H. J. (2012). Changes in time of sowing, flowering and maturity of cereals in europe under climate change. Food Additives & Contaminants. Part A, Chemistry, Analysis, Control, Exposure & Risk Assessment, 29, 1527–1542. https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2012.712060 Peltonen-Sainio, P., Hakala, K., & Jauhiainen, L. (2011). Climate-induced overwintering challenges for wheat and rye in northern agriculture. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica: Section B, Soil & Plant Science, 61, 75–83. Pohjanheimo, E. (1997). Arvojen muutos, työ ja sosiaalinen tausta. Tutkimus työikäisistä pyhtääläisistä 1982–1993. Sosiaalipsykologian laitos, Helsingin yliopisto. Prince-Gibson, E., & Schwartz, S. H. (1998). Value priorities and gender. Social Psychology Quarterly, 61(1), 49–66. https:// doi.org/10.2307/2787057 Puohiniemi, M. (2006). Täsmäelämän ja uusyhteisöllisyyden aika. [Time of precise life and neocommunity]. Limor kustannus. Puohiniemi, Martti (1995): Values, attitudes and consumer behaviour. An application of Schwartz's value theory to the anal- ysis of consumer behaviour and attitudes in two national samples. Research reports 3/1995. Department of Social Psy- chology. University of Helsinki. (Dissertation). SORVALI ET AL. 225 https://doi.org/10.2785/340432KS-FK-18-001-EN-N https://doi.org/10.2785/340432KS-FK-18-001-EN-N https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/queens-frontage-women-farming-2019-mar-08_en https://ec.europa.eu/info/news/queens-frontage-women-farming-2019-mar-08_en https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/viljelijat/luomumaatilat/tilastot-ja-tietohaut/ https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/viljelijat/luomumaatilat/tilastot-ja-tietohaut/ https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10452 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1973.tb00952.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1973.tb00952.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.08.018 http://visionofhumanity.org/reports http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-10-4691-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9613-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.050 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.050 https://stat.luke.fi/en/structure-of-agricultural-and-horticultural-enterprises https://stat.luke.fi/en/structure-of-agricultural-and-horticultural-enterprises https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00572.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2012.00572.x https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2290 https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2290 https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2012.712060 https://doi.org/10.2307/2787057 https://doi.org/10.2307/2787057 Robinson, O. C. (2013). Values and adult age: Findings from two cohorts of the European social survey. European Journal of Ageing, 10(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0247-3 Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press. Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Pirttioja, N. K., Dubrovsky, M., Salo, T., Fronzek, S., … Carter, T. R. (2011). What would happen to barley production in Finland if global warming exceeded 4�C? A model-based assessment. European Journal of Agronomy, 35, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.06.003 Salkind, N. J. (2010). Encyclopedia of research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/ 9781412961288 Schultz, P. W., Gouveia, V. V., Cameron, L. D., Tankha, G., Schmuck, P., & Franek, M. (2005). Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36(4), 457–475. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022105275962 Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zonna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–66). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. Schwartz, S. H. (2015). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In D. Sander & T. Brosch (Eds.), Handbook of value. Oxford University Press: Oxford, England. Schwartz, S. H. (2016). Coding and analyzing PVQ-RR data (instructions for the revised portrait values questionnaire). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35393.56165 Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002 Schwartz, S. H., & Butenko, T. (2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2053 Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., … Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393 Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Torres, C., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Butenko, T. (2017). Value tradeoffs propel and inhibit behavior: Validating the 19 refined values in four countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(3), 241– 258. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2228 Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001 Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010 Silvasti, T. (2001). Talonpojan elämää. tutkimus elämäntapaa jäsentävistä kulttuurisista malleista. Helsinki, Finland: Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Silvasti, T. (2003). The cultural model of “the good farmer” and the environmental question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values, 20(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024021811419 Stern, P. C. (2000). New environmental theories: Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 SUPO 2020. Finnish security and intelligence service. Retrieved from https://www.supo.fi/counterterrorism/terrorism_ threat_assessment Tormos, R., Vauclair, C., & Dobewall, H. (2017). Does contextual change affect basic human values? A dynamic comparative multilevel analysis across 32 European countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 48(4), 490–510. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022022117692675 Vainio, A., Tienhaara, A., Haltia, E., Hyvönen, T., Pyysiäinen, J., & Pouta, E. (2020). The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers' and citizens' perceptions. Land Use Policy, 107, 104358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104358 Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J. E., Lipsanen, J., & Helkama, K. (2009). European norms and equations for at two dimensional presentation of values as measures with Schwartz's 21-item portrait values questionnaire. European Journal of Social Psy- chology, 39, 780–792. How to cite this article: Sorvali, J., Kaseva, J., Vainio, A., Verkasalo, M., & Peltonen-Sainio, P. (2022). Value priorities of the Finnish farmers—Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 32(2), 212–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2561 226 SORVALI ET AL. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-012-0247-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.06.003 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288 https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412961288 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275962 https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35393.56165 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2053 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2228 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.1010 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024021811419 https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175 https://www.supo.fi/counterterrorism/terrorism_threat_assessment https://www.supo.fi/counterterrorism/terrorism_threat_assessment https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117692675 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022117692675 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104358 https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2561 APPENDIX A TABLE A1 Basic characteristics of the respondents and the total Finnish farming population Finnish farmers, total Survey sample N % N % Number of farms 48,562 4,401 Gendera Female 5,900 12 569 13 Male 43,820 88 3,831 87 Age 30 and under 1,376 3 137 3 31–50 15,214 36 1,844 42 51–70 23,343 56 2,289 52 71 and over 1,945 5 129 3 Educationb Comprehensive 8,741 18 325 7 Vocational 27,195 56 2,871 65 University 12,626 26 1,119 25 Other 84 2 Farming system Organicc 4,665 10 657 15 Conventional 43,897 90 3,743 85 Farm size (ha) less than 50 33,238 69 2,751 63 50–99 9,917 20 1,069 25 100–149 3,262 7 327 8 more than 150 2,145 4 191 4 Revenue (euros)d less than 20 000 23,592 50 886 20 20 000–50 000 9,359 20 1,111 25 50 000–100 000 5,939 13 914 21 100 000–300 000 6,385 13 1,032 23 300 000–500 000 1,101 2 280 6 500 000–1 000 000 676 1 176 4 more than 1 000 000 636 1 51 1 Farm type Family farm 41,878 86 3,707 84 Agricultural alliance 4,178 9 433 10 Limited liability company 931 2 84 2 Death estate 1,227 2 93 2 Other 348 1 82 2 (Continues) SORVALI ET AL. 227 TABLE A1 (Continued) Finnish farmers, total Survey sample N % N % Production line Cereals and other field crop 30,619 63 2,248 51 Dairy production 6,704 14 804 18 Beef production 3,485 7 287 7 Outdoor production 1,477 3 130 3 Pig production 607 1 165 4 Poultry production 436 1 65 1 Other 5,234 11 497 11 Not known 0 0 205 5 Region Southern Finland 14,809 31 1,471 35 Uusimaa 3,173 7 313 7 Southwest Finland 5,175 11 537 13 Southeast Finland 2,957 6 277 7 Häme 3,504 7 344 8 Western Finland 19,298 39 1,627 38 Satakunta 2,976 6 334 8 Pirkanmaa 3,782 8 405 10 Central Finland 2,576 5 238 6 South Ostrobothnia 5,411 11 364 9 Ostrobothnia 4,553 9 286 7 Eastern Finland 8,443 17 698 17 South Savo 2,339 5 193 5 North Savo 3,448 7 295 7 North Karelia 2,009 4 151 4 Kainuu 647 1 59 1 Northern Finland 5,609 12 399 9 North Ostrobothnia 4,273 9 314 7 Lapland 1,336 3 85 2 Åland (i.e, archipelago) 403 1 30 1 Note: Data for the total farming population in Finland is from 2017 because of the lack of comparable data from 2018. All data from Natural Resources Institute Finland 2019 unless otherwise stated. a(Eurostat, 2019). bNumbers for education are indicative due to limited data availability and differences in classification. c(Finnish Food Authority, 2019). dData for total of Finnish farmers from 2018. 228 SORVALI ET AL. TABLE A2 Values, items and corresponding statements Value Item Statement Self-direction-thought SDT1 It is important to him/her to form his/her views independently SDT2 It is important to him/her to develop his/her own opinions SDT3 It is important to him/her to figure things out him/herself Self-direction-action SDA1 It is important to him/her to make his/her own decisions about his/her life SDA2 It is important to him/her to plan his/her activities independently SDA3 It is important to him/her to be free to choose by him/herself what he does Stimulation ST1 It is important to him/her always to look for different things to do ST2 It is important to him/her to take risks that make life exciting ST3 It is important to him/her to have all sorts of new experiences Hedonism HE1 It is important to him/her to have a good time HE2 It is important to him/her to enjoy life’s pleasures HE3 It is important to him/her to take advantage of every opportunity to have fun Achievement AC1 It is important to him/her to have ambitions in life AC2 It is important to him/her to be very successful AC3 It is important to him/her that people recognize what he achieves Power-dominance POD1 It is important to him/her that people do whatever he says they should POD2 It is important to him/her to have the power to make people do what he wants POD3 It is important to him/her to be the one who tells others what to do Power-resources POR1 It is important to him/her to have the power that money can bring POR2 It is important to him/her to be wealthy POR3 It is important to him/her to own expensive things that show his/her wealth Face FAC1 It is important to him/her that no one should ever shame him/her FAC2 It is important to him/her to protect his/her public image FAC3 It is important to him/her never to be humiliated Security-personal SEP1 It is very important to him/her to avoid disease and protect his/her health SEP2 It is important to him/her to be personally safe and secure SEP3 It is important to him/her to avoid anything dangerous Security-societal SES1 It is important to him/her that his/her country is secure and stable SES2 It is important to him/her that the state is strong and can defend its citizens SES3 It is important to him/her that his/her country protect itself against all threats Tradition TR1 It is important to him/her to maintain traditional values and ways of thinking TR2 It is important to him/her to follow his/her family’s customs or the customs of a religion TR3 It is important to him/her to honor the traditional practices of his/her culture Conformity-rules COR1 It is important to him/her never to violate rules or regulations COR2 It is important to him/her to follow rules even when no-one is watching COR3 It is important to him/her to obey all the laws Conformity- interpersonal COI1 It is important to him/her to avoid upsetting other people COI2 It is important to him/her never to annoy anyone COI3 It is important to him/her never to make other people angry Humility HUM1 It is important to him/her never to think he deserves more than other people HUM2 It is important to him/her to be humble HUM3 It is important to him/her to be satisfied with what he has and not ask for more (Continues) SORVALI ET AL. 229 TABLE A2 (Continued) Value Item Statement Universalism-nature UNN1 It is important to him/her to care for nature UNN2 It is important to him/her to take part in activities to defend nature UNN3 It is important to him/her to protect the natural environment from destruction or pollution Universalism-concern UNC1 It is important to him/her that the weak and vulnerable in society be protected UNC2 It is important to him/her that every person in the world have equal opportunities in life UNC3 It is important to him/her that everyone be treated justly, even people he doesn’t know Universalism-tolerance UNT1 It is important to him/her to be tolerant toward all kinds of people and groups UNT2 It is important to him/her to listen to and understand people who are different from him/her UNT3 It is important to him/her to accept people even when he disagrees with them Benevolence-care BEC1 It is important to him/her to take care of people he is close to BEC2 It is very important to him/her to help the people dear to him/her BEC3 It is important to him/her to concern him/herself with every need of his/her dear ones Benevolence- dependability BED1 It is important to him/her that people he knows have full confidence in him/her BED2 It is important to him/her to be a dependable and trustworthy friend BED3 It is important to him/her that all his/her friends and family can rely on him/her completely TABLE A3 Basic statistics of value items Value Item Item mean Item SE Value mean Value SE Factor loading Cronbach's α Self-direction-thought SDT1 4.55 0.02 4.78 0.02 0.568 0.675 SDT2 4.93 0.01 0.778 SDT3 4.87 0.01 0.583 Self-direction-action SDA1 5.14 0.01 4.84 0.02 0.702 0.728 SDA2 4.53 0.02 0.663 SDA3 4.85 0.02 0.699 Stimulation ST1 3.99 0.02 3.61 0.02 0.520 0.680 ST2 3.06 0.02 0.606 ST3 3.79 0.02 0.797 Hedonism HE1 3.80 0.02 3.21 0.02 0.736 0.783 HE2 3.61 0.02 0.843 HE3 2.22 0.02 0.644 Achievement AC1 4.39 0.02 3.47 0.02 0.459 0.626 AC2 3.07 0.02 0.835 AC3 2.95 0.02 0.551 Power-dominance POD1 2.83 0.02 2.65 0.02 0.601 0.762 POD2 2.24 0.02 0.830 POD3 2.88 0.02 0.724 230 SORVALI ET AL. TABLE A3 (Continued) Value Item Item mean Item SE Value mean Value SE Factor loading Cronbach's α Power-resources POR1 3.27 0.02 2.80 0.02 0.736 0.770 POR2 3.12 0.02 0.868 POR3 1.99 0.02 0.614 Face FAC1 4.03 0.02 3.86 0.02 0.761 0.767 FAC2 3.98 0.02 0.702 FAC3 3.56 0.02 0.710 Security-personal SEP1 4.83 0.02 4.41 0.02 0.500 0.569 SEP2 4.97 0.01 0.673 SEP3 3.43 0.02 0.513 Security-societal SES1 5.56 0.01 5.27 0.01 0.590 0.765 SES2 5.12 0.01 0.805 SES3 5.14 0.02 0.792 Tradition TR1 4.43 0.02 3.97 0.02 0.704 0.778 TR2 3.40 0.02 0.705 TR3 4.09 0.02 0.797 Conformity-rules COR1 4.11 0.02 4.24 0.02 0.821 0.860 COR2 4.41 0.02 0.782 COR3 4.21 0.02 0.857 Conformity- interpersonal COI1 4.06 0.02 3.59 0.02 0.626 0.789 COI2 3.34 0.02 0.812 COI3 3.38 0.02 0.809 Humility HUM1 4.12 0.02 3.88 0.02 0.377 0.523 HUM2 3.77 0.02 0.621 HUM3 3.75 0.02 0.558 Universalism-nature UNN1 5.07 0.01 4.34 0.02 0.749 0.771 UNN2 3.32 0.02 0.607 UNN3 4.62 0.02 0.839 Universalism-concern UNC1 4.85 0.02 4.52 0.02 0.635 0.745 UNC2 3.96 0.02 0.710 UNC3 4.74 0.02 0.753 Universalism-tolerance UNT1 4.29 0.02 4.34 0.02 0.721 0.779 UNT2 4.19 0.02 0.759 UNT3 4.55 0.02 0.725 Benevolence-care BEC1 5.30 0.01 4.81 0.01 0.731 0.696 BEC2 5.08 0.01 0.769 BEC3 4.05 0.02 0.482 Benevolence- dependability BED1 4.87 0.02 5.13 0.01 0.635 0.748 BED2 5.17 0.01 0.722 BED3 5.36 0.01 0.763 SORVALI ET AL. 231 T A B L E A 4 C o rr el at io ns be tw ee n va lu es Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- th o ug ht Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- ac ti o n St im ul at io n H ed o ni sm A ch ie ve m en t P o w er - do m in an ce P o w er - re so ur ce s F ac e Se cu ri ty - p er so n al Se cu ri ty - so ci et al Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- th o ug ht 1 Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- ac ti o n 0 .5 2 1 St im ul at io n 0 .0 7 0 .1 1 1 H ed o ni sm �0 .1 0 0 .0 2 0 .3 7 1 A ch ie ve m en t �0 .0 8 0 .0 4 0 .2 8 0 .2 2 1 P o w er -d o m in an ce �0 .0 7 -0 .0 2 0 .2 5 0 .2 4 0 .4 8 1 P o w er -r es o ur ce s �0 .1 2 0 .0 4 0 .2 3 0 .3 3 0 .5 4 0 .5 0 1 F ac e �0 .1 8 �0 .1 1 �0 .2 0 �0 .0 9 0 .1 5 0 .0 9 0 .1 1 1 Se cu ri ty -p er so na l �0 .1 7 �0 .1 3 �0 .4 1 �0 .2 0 �0 .2 1 �0 .2 2 �0 .1 0 0 .1 4 1 Se cu ri ty -s o ci et al 0 .1 3 0 .1 2 �0 .2 5 �0 .2 3 �0 .1 8 �0 .2 1 �0 .1 8 �0 .0 5 0 .1 1 1 T ra di ti o n �0 .1 5 �0 .1 7 �0 .2 3 �0 .2 3 �0 .0 7 0 .0 1 �0 .0 9 0 .0 6 0 .0 4 0 .0 8 C o nf o rm it y- ru le s �0 .1 8 �0 .2 5 �0 .3 6 �0 .4 0 �0 .2 4 �0 .2 7 �0 .2 8 0 .0 0 0 .2 0 0 .0 3 C o nf o rm it y- in te rp er so na l �0 .3 6 �0 .3 8 �0 .3 3 �0 .1 8 �0 .2 5 �0 .2 2 �0 .1 6 0 .2 0 0 .2 5 �0 .1 3 H um ili ty �0 .1 4 �0 .2 6 �0 .2 2 �0 .2 3 �0 .3 7 �0 .2 5 �0 .3 7 �0 .0 8 0 .0 4 �0 .0 9 U ni ve rs al is m -n at ur e 0 .0 2 �0 .0 8 �0 .0 8 �0 .2 3 �0 .3 3 �0 .3 2 �0 .3 7 �0 .2 5 �0 .0 1 0 .0 0 U ni ve rs al is m -c o nc er n 0 .0 0 �0 .1 3 �0 .2 0 �0 .2 4 �0 .4 7 �0 .4 7 �0 .5 0 �0 .2 5 0 .0 0 0 .0 4 U ni ve rs al is m -t o le ra nc e 0 .0 0 �0 .1 1 �0 .0 3 �0 .1 5 �0 .3 6 �0 .4 1 �0 .4 2 �0 .3 6 �0 .0 9 �0 .0 9 B en ev o le nc e- ca re 0 .1 0 0 .0 6 �0 .0 8 �0 .1 1 �0 .1 9 �0 .2 4 �0 .2 4 �0 .1 9 0 .0 0 0 .1 5 B en ev o le nc e- de pe nd ab ili ty 0 .0 9 0 .0 8 �0 .1 9 �0 .2 0 �0 .2 6 �0 .3 2 �0 .3 5 � 0 .1 8 0 .0 8 0 .2 7 T ra di ti o n C o nf o rm it y- ru le s C o nf o rm it y- in te rp er so na l H um ili ty U ni ve rs al is m - na tu re U ni ve rs al is m - co nc er n U ni ve rs al is m - to le ra nc e B en ev o le n ce - ca re B en ev o le n ce - d ep en d ab ili ty Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- th o ug ht Se lf -d ir ec ti o n- ac ti o n St im ul at io n H ed o ni sm 232 SORVALI ET AL. T A B L E A 4 (C o nt in ue d) A ch ie ve m en t P o w er -d o m in an ce P o w er -r es o ur ce s F ac e Se cu ri ty -p er so na l Se cu ri ty -s o ci et al T ra di ti o n 1 C o nf o rm it y- ru le s 0 .1 2 1 C o nf o rm it y- in te rp er so na l 0 .0 7 0 .2 0 1 H um ili ty 0 .0 7 0 .1 5 0 .3 0 1 U ni ve rs al is m -n at ur e �0 .1 2 0 .1 0 �0 .0 8 0 .0 8 1 U ni ve rs al is m -c o nc er n �0 .1 8 0 .1 1 0 .0 7 0 .2 3 0 .3 9 1 U ni ve rs al is m -t o le ra nc e �0 .2 4 0 .0 9 0 .0 3 0 .1 7 0 .3 4 0 .5 9 1 B en ev o le nc e- ca re �0 .0 5 �0 .0 5 �0 .1 6 �0 .0 6 0 .0 4 0 .1 0 0 .0 7 1 B en ev o le nc e- de pe nd ab ili ty 0 .0 4 0 .0 4 �0 .1 1 0 .0 2 0 .0 4 0 .1 1 0 .0 8 0 .4 2 1 SORVALI ET AL. 233 T A B L E A 5 R es ul ts o f o ne -w ay A N O V A fo r va lu es ,F -v al ue s (F )a nd st at is ti ca ls ig ni fi ca nc e (Δ ) G en de r A ge Le ve lo f ed uc at io n Fa rm sy st em Fa rm si ze R ev en ue Fa rm ty pe R eg io n SD T F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 7 .6 2 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 0 .8 3 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 3 1 .5 5 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 5 .4 4 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 0 .4 6 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 .4 0 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .9 8 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .7 1 Δ ** * ** * ** * o R ² 0 .4 0 .1 1 .5 0 .4 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .1 SD A F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 3 .6 7 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 0 .1 1 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 3 .4 4 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 0 .0 9 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 0 .5 5 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 .4 2 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .3 3 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 3 .1 6 Δ ** * ** * ** * ** * * R ² 0 .8 0 .7 0 .7 0 .2 0 .0 0 .2 0 .3 0 .2 ST F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 3 .4 6 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 9 .3 4 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 2 .7 2 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 2 1 .1 4 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 2 .7 9 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 7 .3 5 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 3 .5 3 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 3 .5 2 Δ ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * R ² 0 .3 1 .4 0 .6 0 .5 0 .9 1 .1 0 .7 0 .3 H E F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 6 .1 3 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 8 5 .4 3 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 8 .1 9 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .6 9 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 6 .7 6 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 7 .9 5 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 2 .1 9 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 5 .1 8 Δ ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * * ** R ² 0 .9 5 .8 0 .4 0 .0 0 .5 1 .1 0 .4 0 .4 A C F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 8 .2 4 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 3 8 .0 6 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 3 4 .0 1 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 .0 0 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 3 1 .0 1 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 2 1 .6 8 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 3 .3 5 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 8 .9 4 Δ ** * ** * ** * o ** * ** * ** ** * R ² 0 .9 2 .7 1 .6 0 .1 2 .2 3 .0 0 .7 0 .7 P O D F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 8 .6 2 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 4 0 .9 1 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 7 .7 8 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 4 .8 8 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 2 .5 5 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 1 .7 6 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .7 5 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 5 .9 9 Δ ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * o ** * R ² 0 .9 2 .9 0 .9 0 .1 0 .9 1 .7 0 .4 0 .5 P O R F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 7 7 .5 6 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 3 6 .5 9 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 7 .2 5 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 6 .7 0 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 5 .6 7 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 1 .2 1 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 4 .5 6 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 4 .3 1 Δ ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** R ² 1 .8 2 .6 0 .8 0 .4 1 .1 1 .6 0 .9 0 .3 F A C F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 4 .4 1 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 4 .9 1 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 5 .8 0 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 5 .9 8 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 0 .5 8 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 0 .6 2 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .7 0 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .2 7 Δ * ** ** * * R ² 0 .1 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0 .3 0 .0 SE P F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 0 .2 7 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 5 .3 3 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 0 .1 2 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 2 .2 7 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 2 .4 7 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 4 .6 6 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .5 1 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .7 8 Δ ** * ** ** * o ** * R ² 0 .2 0 .4 0 .5 0 .1 0 .2 0 .7 0 .3 0 .1 SE S F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .9 2 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 3 .4 7 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 5 .5 0 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 4 .4 4 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 .2 6 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 .8 5 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .0 2 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 1 .3 4 Δ * ** * o R ² 0 .0 0 .2 0 .3 0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .2 0 .1 234 SORVALI ET AL. T A B L E A 5 (C o nt in ue d) G en de r A ge Le ve lo f ed uc at io n Fa rm sy st em Fa rm si ze R ev en ue Fa rm ty pe R eg io n T R A F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .0 6 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 9 .6 9 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 2 .6 8 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 5 .9 9 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 3 .3 7 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 6 .5 0 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 3 .5 6 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 8 .7 5 Δ ** * ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * R ² 0 .0 0 .7 0 .6 0 .4 0 .2 0 .9 0 .7 0 .7 C O R F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 5 .9 5 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 0 .0 9 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 1 .9 3 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .8 6 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 4 .3 1 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 5 .5 4 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 0 .8 7 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .3 1 Δ ** * ** * ** * ** ** * R ² 0 .4 0 .7 0 .6 0 .0 0 .3 0 .8 0 .2 0 .0 C O I F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 7 .2 7 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 4 .2 8 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 4 5 .5 9 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 .9 5 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 2 .1 0 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 3 .8 8 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 2 .5 1 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .7 1 Δ ** * ** ** * o ** * * R ² 0 .4 0 .3 2 .2 0 .0 0 .2 0 .6 0 .5 0 .1 H U M F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 .0 1 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 0 .5 4 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 2 2 .6 0 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .1 9 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 2 .1 8 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 4 .0 8 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 2 .0 5 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .8 3 Δ ** * o ** * * R ² 0 .0 0 .0 1 .1 0 .0 0 .2 0 .6 0 .4 0 .1 U N N F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 2 4 .2 3 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 3 2 .2 1 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 3 .0 8 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 1 2 8 .5 4 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 9 .3 0 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 5 .9 8 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 3 .7 7 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 6 .4 8 Δ ** * ** * * ** * ** * ** * ** * ** * R ² 2 .9 2 .3 0 .2 3 .0 1 .4 2 .3 0 .8 0 .5 U N C F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 8 7 .9 0 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 8 .8 7 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 6 .5 2 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 4 5 .2 0 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 0 .2 5 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 1 .3 6 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 2 .9 7 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 7 .8 1 Δ ** * ** * ** ** * ** * ** * ** ** * R ² 2 .1 1 .3 0 .3 1 .1 0 .7 1 .6 0 .6 0 .6 U N T F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 9 1 .7 5 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 0 .1 4 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 1 .4 0 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 6 .0 4 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 .8 9 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 2 .7 4 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .8 7 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 7 .1 5 Δ ** * ** * ** * * o ** * R ² 2 .2 0 .7 0 .0 0 .9 0 .1 0 .4 0 .4 0 .5 B E C F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 3 3 .0 5 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 .7 9 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 0 .8 4 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 4 .5 6 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 0 .9 6 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 2 .1 2 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 1 .1 3 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 2 Δ ** * * * R ² 0 .8 0 .1 0 .0 0 .1 0 .1 0 .3 0 .2 0 .2 B E D F F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 8 .4 8 F 3 ,4 1 5 3 = 0 .0 0 F 2 ,4 0 7 8 = 4 .0 9 F 1 ,4 1 5 8 = 0 .0 1 F 3 ,4 0 9 7 = 1 .3 1 F 6 ,4 1 5 3 = 1 .3 8 F 7 ,3 4 3 4 = 0 .9 0 F 3 ,3 9 6 6 = 0 .6 1 Δ ** * R ² 0 .2 0 .0 0 .2 0 .0 0 .1 0 .2 0 .2 0 .0 N ot e: T he st at is ti ca lly si gn if ic an t di ff er en ce s in di ca te d w it h ** * p < .0 0 1 ,* *p < .0 1 ,* p < .0 5 o r p < .1 0 .N o in fo rm at io n m ea ns no st at is ti ca ls ig ni fi ca nc e. R -s qu ar ed va lu e (R 2 )i s m ar ke d as p er ce n t. E xp la n at io n s fo r th e ab br ev ia ti o ns o f th e va lu es ar e pr es en te d in T ab le 1 . SORVALI ET AL. 235 T A B L E A 6 M ea n va lu e (μ ), st an da rd de vi at io n (σ )a nd di ff er en ce s (Δ )b et w ee n gr o up s fo r 1 9 ba si c hu m an va lu es SD T SD A ST H E A C P O D P O R FA C SE P SE S μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ G en d er F em al e 4 .9 1 0 .8 0 a 5 .0 2 0 .7 8 a 3 .4 7 1 .0 3 a 2 .9 5 1 .1 3 a 3 .2 5 0 .9 4 a 2 .4 1 1 .0 0 a 2 .4 5 0 .9 6 a 3 .7 7 1 .1 6 a 4 .5 1 0 .8 2 a 5 .3 0 0 .7 2 M al e 4 .7 6 0 .7 6 b 4 .8 1 0 .7 9 b 3 .6 3 0 .9 4 b 3 .2 5 1 .0 7 b 3 .5 1 0 .9 0 b 2 .6 9 0 .9 6 b 2 .8 5 0 .9 9 b 3 .8 7 1 .0 1 b 4 .4 0 0 .7 6 b 5 .2 7 0 .7 5 A ge 3 0 an d un de r 4 .7 7 0 .6 9 4 .9 5 0 .7 7 a 3 .9 0 0 .8 6 a 3 .8 0 1 .0 6 a 3 .9 3 0 .8 3 a 2 .9 0 0 .9 6 a 3 .0 9 1 .0 8 a 4 .0 2 1 .0 3 4 .3 8 0 .7 7 b 5 .2 2 0 .7 9 3 1 –5 0 4 .8 0 0 .7 5 4 .9 1 0 .7 5 a 3 .7 2 0 .9 3 ab 3 .4 7 1 .0 4 b 3 .6 0 0 .8 8 b 2 .8 2 0 .9 7 a 2 .9 6 1 .0 0 a 3 .9 2 1 .0 0 4 .3 8 0 .7 7 b 5 .2 4 0 .7 6 5 1 –7 0 4 .7 7 0 .7 8 4 .7 8 0 .8 2 ab 3 .5 1 0 .9 7 b 3 .0 0 1 .0 7 c 3 .3 4 0 .9 1 c 2 .5 0 0 .9 5 b 2 .6 5 0 .9 7 b 3 .8 0 1 .0 5 4 .4 3 0 .7 7 b 5 .3 0 0 .7 3 7 1 an d o ve r 4 .8 2 0 .8 6 4 .7 2 0 .8 5 b 3 .6 6 0 .9 3 b 2 .7 2 0 .9 8 d 3 .4 9 0 .9 0 d 2 .7 1 0 .9 8 ab 2 .6 7 0 .9 8 b 3 .8 5 1 .0 9 4 .6 5 0 .7 3 a 5 .3 7 0 .7 3 E d uc at io n C o m pr eh en si ve 4 .6 4 0 .8 0 b 4 .7 0 0 .8 6 c 3 .4 9 0 .9 9 b 3 .0 2 1 .0 7 b 3 .2 3 0 .8 9 a 2 .4 5 0 .8 8 a 2 .5 5 0 .9 4 a 3 .7 3 1 .0 7 a 4 .5 3 0 .8 0 a 5 .2 9 0 .7 9 V o ca ti o na l 4 .7 4 0 .7 6 b 4 .8 2 0 .7 9 b 3 .5 8 0 .9 5 b 3 .2 0 1 .0 7 a 3 .4 3 0 .9 0 b 2 .6 2 0 .9 6 b 2 .7 8 0 .9 8 b 3 .9 0 1 .0 1 b 4 .4 3 0 .7 6 a 5 .3 0 0 .7 2 U ni ve rs it y 4 .9 3 0 .7 5 a 4 .9 3 0 .7 7 a 3 .7 3 0 .9 6 a 3 .2 9 1 .1 2 a 3 .6 4 0 .9 0 c 2 .7 8 1 .0 0 c 2 .9 1 1 .0 1 c 3 .8 0 1 .0 6 ab 4 .3 3 0 .7 7 b 5 .2 1 0 .7 7 Fa rm in g sy st em O rg an ic 4 .8 9 0 .7 8 a 4 .9 3 0 .7 6 a 3 .7 7 0 .9 7 a 3 .2 4 1 .1 2 3 .4 1 0 .9 4 2 .5 7 0 .9 6 a 2 .6 5 1 .0 4 a 3 .7 7 1 .0 9 a 4 .3 7 0 .8 0 5 .2 2 0 .8 1 a C o nv en ti o na l 4 .7 6 0 .7 6 b 4 .8 2 0 .8 0 b 3 .5 8 0 .9 5 b 3 .2 0 1 .0 8 3 .4 8 0 .9 0 2 .6 6 0 .9 7 b 2 .8 2 0 .9 9 b 3 .8 7 1 .0 2 b 4 .4 2 0 .7 7 5 .2 8 0 .7 3 b Fa rm si ze (h a) Le ss th an 5 0 4 .7 9 0 .7 8 4 .8 3 0 .8 1 3 .5 7 0 .9 5 b 3 .1 6 1 .0 8 3 .3 7 0 .9 1 c 2 .5 9 0 .9 6 b 2 .7 2 0 .9 9 c 3 .8 5 1 .0 5 4 .4 3 0 .7 9 a 5 .2 6 0 .7 6 5 0 –9 9 4 .7 6 0 .7 6 4 .8 3 0 .7 7 3 .5 9 0 .9 5 b 3 .2 9 1 .0 7 3 .5 8 0 .8 8 b 2 .7 2 0 .9 7 ab 2 .8 8 0 .9 7 bc 3 .8 5 0 .9 9 4 .4 1 0 .7 1 ab 5 .3 1 0 .6 9 1 0 0 –1 4 9 4 .8 1 0 .7 2 4 .8 8 0 .7 0 3 .7 8 0 .9 3 a 3 .3 5 1 .1 1 3 .6 6 0 .9 0 b 2 .8 3 0 .9 5 a 2 .9 8 1 .0 1 ab 3 .9 3 0 .9 8 4 .3 6 0 .7 3 ab 5 .2 7 0 .7 2 1 5 0 o r m o re 4 .7 9 0 .7 7 4 .8 8 0 .8 2 3 .9 4 0 .9 1 a 3 .3 4 1 .0 9 3 .8 5 0 .8 7 a 2 .8 9 1 .0 1 a 3 .0 9 1 .0 3 ab 3 .8 5 0 .9 9 4 .2 9 0 .7 8 b 5 .2 8 0 .7 8 R ev en ue Le ss th an 2 0 0 0 0 4 .7 8 0 .8 0 ab 4 .8 4 0 .8 3 ab 3 .5 5 0 .9 9 c 3 .0 5 1 .1 0 b 3 .2 8 0 .9 4 d 2 .5 4 0 .9 8 d 2 .6 4 1 .0 0 d 3 .8 3 1 .1 1 4 .4 4 0 .8 1 a 5 .2 4 0 .8 0 ab 2 0 –5 0 0 0 0 4 .7 5 0 .7 7 ab 4 .8 0 0 .8 0 b 3 .5 4 0 .9 2 c 3 .1 5 1 .0 6 b 3 .3 8 0 .8 8 d 2 .5 8 0 .9 3 cd 2 .7 4 0 .9 9 cd 3 .8 5 1 .0 4 4 .4 6 0 .7 7 a 5 .2 7 0 .7 3 ab 5 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 4 .8 0 0 .7 6 a 4 .8 6 0 .7 7 ab 3 .6 0 0 .9 4 c 3 .2 7 1 .0 5 b 3 .5 2 0 .8 8 cd 2 .6 8 0 .9 6 cd 2 .8 6 0 .9 5 bc d 3 .9 0 1 .0 0 4 .4 1 0 .7 6 a 5 .3 0 0 .7 1 a 1 0 0 –3 0 0 0 0 0 4 .8 1 0 .7 4 a 4 .8 5 0 .7 8 ab 3 .6 5 0 .9 6 bc 3 .2 8 1 .0 9 b 3 .5 4 0 .9 1 cd 2 .6 5 0 .9 8 cd 2 .8 0 0 .9 8 cd 3 .8 7 1 .0 0 4 .4 1 0 .7 5 a 5 .2 9 0 .7 3 a 3 0 0 –5 0 0 0 0 0 4 .8 1 0 .7 2 a 4 .8 4 0 .7 4 ab 3 .7 3 0 .9 4 bc 3 .2 7 1 .1 0 b 3 .7 2 0 .8 3 bc 2 .8 7 0 .9 5 bc 2 .9 7 1 .0 1 ab c 3 .8 0 0 .9 1 4 .3 0 0 .7 4 ab 5 .3 1 0 .6 7 a 236 SORVALI ET AL. T A B L E A 6 (C o nt in ue d) SD T SD A ST H E A C P O D P O R FA C SE P SE S μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ 5 0 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 .7 8 0 .7 7 ab 4 .9 1 0 .7 4 ab 4 .0 3 0 .9 4 a 3 .6 3 1 .1 1 a 3 .9 3 0 .8 6 ab 3 .0 5 0 .9 8 ab 3 .2 6 1 .0 7 a 3 .8 6 1 .0 8 4 .1 7 0 .7 4 b 5 .1 5 0 .8 0 ab M o re th an 1 m ill io n 4 .5 6 1 .1 0 b 5 .0 7 0 .8 7 a 3 .9 2 1 .0 1 ab 3 .3 7 1 .2 0 ab 4 .0 3 0 .8 6 a 3 .2 6 1 .2 0 a 3 .1 6 1 .3 2 ab 3 .7 6 1 .1 6 4 .1 5 0 .9 6 b 5 .0 6 1 .1 2 b Fa rm ty pe D ai ry 4 .7 0 0 .7 9 4 .7 5 0 .8 2 3 .4 7 0 .9 7 3 .1 2 1 .0 9 3 .4 0 0 .8 8 2 .6 0 0 .9 5 ab 2 .7 1 0 .9 6 3 .8 6 0 .9 8 b 4 .4 1 0 .7 2 5 .3 0 0 .7 0 B ee f 4 .8 3 0 .7 7 4 .8 9 0 .8 0 3 .6 0 0 .9 5 3 .2 5 1 .1 0 3 .3 7 0 .9 2 2 .6 0 0 .9 8 ab 2 .7 1 0 .9 8 3 .7 6 1 .0 1 b 4 .3 2 0 .7 7 5 .2 6 0 .7 6 P ig 4 .7 5 0 .7 6 4 .8 4 0 .7 9 3 .7 5 1 .0 1 3 .3 0 1 .1 1 3 .6 3 0 .8 8 2 .7 3 0 .9 6 ab 2 .8 7 0 .9 9 3 .7 7 1 .0 3 b 4 .3 3 0 .7 9 5 .2 2 0 .7 9 P o ul tr y 4 .7 0 0 .6 7 4 .8 7 0 .6 4 3 .6 8 1 .1 2 3 .4 5 1 .1 5 3 .5 5 0 .8 6 2 .7 6 1 .0 4 ab 2 .8 6 1 .0 6 3 .7 5 1 .1 0 b 4 .4 3 0 .8 6 5 .1 3 0 .8 4 C er ea ls 4 .7 8 0 .7 5 4 .8 4 0 .7 8 3 .6 3 0 .9 3 3 .2 5 1 .0 7 3 .5 3 0 .9 1 2 .6 9 0 .9 7 ab 2 .9 0 1 .0 0 3 .9 0 1 .0 1 ab 4 .4 4 0 .7 5 5 .2 9 0 .7 1 Sp ec ia lc ro ps 4 .7 2 0 .7 7 4 .8 4 0 .7 4 3 .6 8 0 .9 3 3 .3 2 1 .1 0 3 .5 6 0 .8 5 2 .7 2 0 .9 1 ab 2 .8 8 0 .9 8 3 .8 5 1 .0 0 b 4 .4 2 0 .7 0 5 .2 7 0 .7 6 H o rt ic ul tu re 4 .8 8 0 .7 5 4 .8 8 0 .7 9 3 .7 3 0 .9 2 3 .1 6 1 .0 0 3 .3 9 0 .9 2 2 .5 1 1 .0 1 b 2 .5 8 1 .0 0 3 .7 4 1 .1 3 b 4 .3 5 0 .8 0 5 .2 3 0 .8 6 G re en ho us e 4 .6 4 0 .7 2 4 .9 1 0 .6 5 3 .9 4 0 .9 9 3 .5 2 0 .8 3 3 .5 8 0 .4 2 3 .1 2 1 .0 2 a 2 .8 2 0 .7 9 4 .4 5 0 .8 7 a 4 .6 1 0 .7 0 5 .5 2 0 .5 6 R eg io n So ut he rn F in la nd 4 .7 9 0 .7 4 4 .8 7 0 .7 6 a 3 .6 3 0 .9 5 a 3 .2 5 1 .0 6 a 3 .5 2 0 .8 9 a 2 .6 7 0 .9 6 ab 2 .8 3 0 .9 8 a 3 .8 5 1 .0 3 4 .4 3 0 .7 6 5 .2 6 0 .7 4 W es te rn F in la nd 4 .7 8 0 .7 7 4 .8 1 0 .8 1 ab 3 .6 3 0 .9 3 a 3 .2 1 1 .1 1 a 3 .5 1 0 .9 0 a 2 .7 0 0 .9 9 a 2 .8 3 0 .9 9 a 3 .8 8 1 .0 1 4 .4 2 0 .7 6 5 .2 7 0 .7 5 E as te rn F in la nd 4 .7 6 0 .7 9 4 .8 4 0 .7 9 ab 3 .5 5 0 .9 7 ab 3 .1 9 1 .0 6 a 3 .3 5 0 .9 0 b 2 .5 4 0 .9 4 bc 2 .7 4 1 .0 0 ab 3 .8 5 1 .0 2 4 .4 2 0 .7 7 5 .3 2 0 .7 4 N o rt he rn F in la nd 4 .7 3 0 .8 1 4 .7 5 0 .8 5 b 3 .4 8 0 .9 7 b 3 .0 1 1 .0 5 b 3 .3 4 0 .9 4 b 2 .5 3 0 .9 4 c 2 .6 6 1 .0 0 b 3 .8 6 1 .0 8 4 .3 6 0 .7 6 5 .3 1 0 .7 2 T R A C O R C O I H U M U N N U N C U N T B E C B E D μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ G en de r F em al e 3 .9 6 1 .1 1 4 .4 1 1 .0 9 a 3 .4 2 1 .1 0 a 3 .8 4 0 .9 4 4 .7 4 0 .9 1 a 4 .8 6 0 .9 0 a 4 .7 1 0 .9 2 a 4 .9 8 0 .7 5 a 5 .2 1 0 .7 3 a M al e 3 .9 8 1 .0 2 4 .2 2 1 .0 8 b 3 .6 2 1 .0 6 b 3 .8 8 0 .9 0 4 .2 8 0 .9 2 b 4 .4 7 0 .9 3 b 4 .2 9 0 .9 5 b 4 .7 8 0 .7 4 b 5 .1 2 0 .7 2 b A ge 3 0 an d un de r 3 .9 8 1 .0 3 b 3 .9 2 1 .2 7 c 3 .7 8 1 .1 1 3 .9 4 0 .9 9 4 .0 2 0 .9 3 b 4 .2 6 0 .9 9 b 4 .2 2 0 .8 8 4 .8 8 0 .7 0 5 .1 3 0 .7 6 3 1 –5 0 3 .9 3 1 .0 3 b 4 .1 7 1 .1 0 bc 3 .5 3 1 .0 7 3 .8 7 0 .9 1 4 .2 0 0 .9 5 b 4 .4 1 0 .9 7 ab 4 .2 6 0 .9 8 4 .8 3 0 .7 5 5 .1 3 0 .7 3 5 1 –7 0 3 .9 8 1 .0 3 b 4 .3 1 1 .0 6 ab 3 .6 2 1 .0 6 3 .8 8 0 .8 9 4 .4 6 0 .9 0 a 4 .6 1 0 .8 9 a 4 .4 2 0 .9 5 4 .8 0 0 .7 4 5 .1 3 0 .7 1 (C o n ti n u es ) SORVALI ET AL. 237 T A B L E A 6 (C o nt in ue d) T R A C O R C O I H U M U N N U N C U N T B E C B E D μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ 7 1 an d o ve r 4 .4 6 0 .8 1 a 4 .4 5 1 .0 7 a 3 .7 3 1 .0 4 3 .9 5 0 .9 2 4 .5 4 0 .8 9 a 4 .6 1 0 .8 7 a 4 .4 4 0 .9 1 4 .7 1 0 .7 7 5 .1 3 0 .7 9 E d uc at io n C o m pr eh en si ve 4 .1 9 0 .9 3 a 4 .3 6 1 .0 0 a 3 .8 1 1 .0 7 a 4 .0 4 0 .8 6 a 4 .4 3 0 .9 7 4 .7 0 0 .8 8 a 4 .3 7 0 .9 8 4 .7 6 0 .7 6 5 .1 5 0 .7 0 V o ca ti o na l 4 .0 0 1 .0 1 b 4 .2 8 1 .0 6 a 3 .6 8 1 .0 5 a 3 .9 2 0 .9 0 a 4 .3 2 0 .9 1 4 .5 2 0 .9 1 b 4 .3 3 0 .9 5 4 .8 1 0 .7 4 5 .1 5 0 .7 1 U ni ve rs it y 3 .8 7 1 .0 8 b 4 .1 1 1 .1 6 b 3 .3 4 1 .0 7 b 3 .7 3 0 .9 1 b 4 .3 7 0 .9 7 4 .4 8 0 .9 9 b 4 .3 9 0 .9 7 4 .8 2 0 .7 4 5 .0 8 0 .7 5 Fa rm in g sy st em O rg an ic 3 .8 2 1 .1 2 a 4 .2 1 1 .1 2 3 .5 4 1 .1 1 3 .8 6 0 .9 3 4 .7 2 0 .8 9 a 4 .7 5 0 .9 3 a 4 .5 6 0 .9 6 a 4 .8 7 0 .7 5 a 5 .1 3 0 .7 1 C o nv en ti o na l 4 .0 0 1 .0 1 b 4 .2 5 1 .0 8 3 .6 0 1 .0 6 3 .8 8 0 .9 0 4 .2 7 0 .9 2 b 4 .4 8 0 .9 3 b 4 .3 1 0 .9 5 b 4 .8 0 .7 4 b 5 .1 3 0 .7 2 Fa rm si ze (h a) Le ss th an 5 0 4 .0 1 1 .0 3 a 4 .2 8 1 .0 8 a 3 .6 2 1 .0 6 3 .9 0 0 .9 0 4 .4 1 0 .9 3 a 4 .5 7 0 .9 2 a 4 .3 7 0 .9 6 4 .8 0 0 .7 5 5 .1 2 0 .7 3 5 0 –9 9 3 .9 4 1 .0 0 ab 4 .2 0 1 .0 7 ab 3 .5 6 1 .0 9 3 .8 5 0 .9 2 4 .2 1 0 .8 9 b 4 .4 7 0 .9 1 ab 4 .3 1 0 .9 4 4 .8 1 0 .7 4 5 .1 3 0 .7 1 1 0 0 –1 4 9 3 .9 2 1 .0 2 ab 4 .2 1 1 .0 6 a 3 .5 4 1 .0 2 3 .8 7 0 .8 6 4 .1 4 0 .9 5 b 4 .3 3 0 .9 5 b 4 .2 6 0 .9 4 4 .8 3 0 .7 1 5 .1 9 0 .6 4 1 5 0 o r m o re 3 .8 1 1 .1 3 b 4 .0 1 1 .1 9 b 3 .4 7 1 .1 7 3 .7 4 1 .0 5 4 .1 4 1 .0 0 b 4 .3 4 1 .0 3 b 4 .3 0 1 .1 0 4 .8 9 0 .7 5 5 .2 0 0 .7 2 R ev en ue Le ss th an 2 0 0 0 0 4 .0 8 1 .0 1 a 4 .3 0 1 .1 2 a 3 .6 2 1 .1 0 a 3 .9 4 0 .9 3 a 4 .5 5 0 .9 1 a 4 .7 0 0 .8 7 a 4 .4 5 0 .9 4 4 .8 2 0 .7 6 5 .1 2 0 .7 1 2 0 –5 0 0 0 0 4 .0 4 1 .0 1 ab 4 .2 8 1 .0 6 a 3 .6 7 1 .0 3 a 3 .9 1 0 .8 8 ab 4 .3 8 0 .9 2 ab 4 .5 5 0 .9 2 a 4 .3 4 0 .9 4 4 .8 0 0 .7 4 5 .1 2 0 .7 2 5 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 3 .9 8 0 .9 9 ab 4 .2 7 1 .0 5 a 3 .5 8 1 .0 6 ab 3 .8 6 0 .8 8 ab 4 .3 1 0 .8 9 ab c 4 .4 6 0 .9 0 ab 4 .2 9 0 .9 4 4 .7 7 0 .7 3 5 .1 3 0 .7 1 1 0 0 –3 0 0 0 0 0 3 .9 1 1 .0 7 ab c 4 .2 3 1 .0 9 a 3 .5 9 1 .0 7 a 3 .8 9 0 .9 0 ab 4 .2 6 0 .9 7 ab c 4 .4 6 0 .9 5 ab 4 .3 4 0 .9 7 4 .8 7 0 .7 2 5 .1 8 0 .7 1 3 0 0 –5 0 0 0 0 0 3 .8 0 1 .0 1 ab c 4 .1 8 1 .0 8 a 3 .4 6 1 .0 3 ab 3 .7 9 0 .9 6 ab 4 .1 2 0 .8 4 bc d 4 .4 2 0 .9 8 ab 4 .2 8 1 .0 1 4 .7 4 0 .7 6 5 .0 8 0 .6 9 5 0 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .6 6 1 .0 5 c 3 .7 8 1 .0 9 b 3 .2 6 1 .0 6 b 3 .6 4 0 .9 0 bc 3 .9 4 0 .9 9 d 4 .2 3 1 .0 0 bc 4 .2 3 0 .9 8 4 .7 9 0 .7 4 5 .0 5 0 .8 0 M o re th an 1 m ill io n 3 .7 3 1 .2 0 bc 3 .8 4 1 .3 4 b 3 .4 1 1 .2 6 ab 3 .5 0 1 .1 3 c 4 .0 8 1 .1 3 cd 4 .0 3 1 .2 7 c 4 .1 9 1 .4 0 4 .7 1 1 .0 2 5 .0 7 1 .0 3 Fa rm ty pe D ai ry 3 .8 8 1 .0 1 4 .2 7 1 .0 2 3 .6 0 1 .0 4 b 3 .9 0 0 .8 9 b 4 .2 1 0 .9 2 4 .5 3 0 .9 0 ab 4 .3 3 0 .9 3 4 .7 6 0 .7 3 5 .1 0 0 .7 1 B ee f 3 .8 9 1 .0 9 4 .1 6 1 .1 0 3 .4 9 1 .0 5 b 3 .8 8 0 .9 0 b 4 .2 8 0 .9 7 4 .5 4 0 .9 5 ab 4 .3 5 0 .9 8 4 .7 6 0 .7 8 5 .1 0 0 .7 5 P ig 3 .8 7 1 .0 2 4 .1 7 1 .1 0 3 .6 7 0 .9 9 b 3 .7 0 0 .8 4 b 4 .1 4 0 .9 1 4 .4 9 0 .9 5 ab 4 .3 2 0 .9 9 4 .7 9 0 .7 2 5 .1 4 0 .7 3 P o ul tr y 3 .9 0 1 .0 0 4 .1 1 1 .0 2 3 .4 8 1 .1 9 b 3 .7 7 0 .9 5 b 4 .1 4 1 .0 4 4 .4 8 0 .9 4 ab 4 .3 6 0 .9 4 4 .8 3 0 .7 5 5 .2 8 0 .6 1 238 SORVALI ET AL. T A B L E A 6 (C o nt in ue d) T R A C O R C O I H U M U N N U N C U N T B E C B E D μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ μ σ Δ C er ea ls 4 .0 5 1 .0 0 4 .2 7 1 .0 9 3 .6 5 1 .0 5 b 3 .8 7 0 .8 9 b 4 .3 4 0 .9 1 4 .4 7 0 .9 2 ab 4 .3 0 0 .9 5 4 .8 1 0 .7 4 5 .1 4 0 .7 0 Sp ec ia lc ro ps 4 .0 0 1 .0 3 4 .2 2 1 .0 7 3 .5 7 1 .0 5 b 3 .8 5 0 .9 2 b 4 .2 4 0 .9 5 4 .3 4 0 .9 6 b 4 .3 0 0 .9 5 4 .8 4 0 .7 0 5 .1 2 0 .7 4 H o rt ic ul tu re 3 .7 7 1 .0 0 4 .2 2 1 .1 1 3 .4 3 1 .0 5 b 3 .9 4 0 .8 8 b 4 .5 4 0 .9 0 4 .6 9 0 .9 1 ab 4 .5 7 0 .9 2 4 .8 9 0 .6 5 5 .1 2 0 .7 4 G re en ho us e 4 .2 7 0 .7 9 4 .5 8 0 .7 2 4 .3 9 1 .0 4 a 4 .4 5 0 .9 5 a 4 .5 5 0 .6 2 4 .8 5 0 .7 7 a 4 .7 9 0 .9 1 5 .1 2 0 .4 0 5 .3 6 0 .3 5 R eg io n So ut he rn F in la nd 3 .9 8 1 .0 2 ab 4 .2 4 1 .0 7 3 .5 8 1 .0 6 3 .8 5 0 .9 0 4 .3 9 0 .9 0 a 4 .4 9 0 .9 3 bc 4 .3 7 0 .9 5 ab 4 .8 2 0 .7 2 5 .1 2 0 .7 0 W es te rn F in la nd 4 .0 6 1 .0 0 a 4 .2 4 1 .0 8 3 .6 3 1 .0 6 3 .8 8 0 .9 1 4 .2 5 0 .9 7 b 4 .4 6 0 .9 3 c 4 .2 6 0 .9 7 b 4 .8 2 0 .7 4 5 .1 5 0 .7 2 E as te rn F in la nd 3 .8 8 1 .0 3 bc 4 .2 8 1 .1 1 3 .6 1 1 .0 4 3 .9 1 0 .8 7 4 .3 9 0 .8 8 a 4 .6 5 0 .9 1 a 4 .4 6 0 .9 4 a 4 .7 4 0 .7 7 5 .1 1 0 .7 7 N o rt he rn F in la nd 3 .8 2 1 .0 5 c 4 .2 7 1 .0 7 3 .6 2 1 .0 7 3 .9 1 0 .9 2 4 .3 1 0 .9 2 ab 4 .6 0 0 .9 0 ab 4 .3 6 0 .9 2 ab 4 .8 1 0 .7 5 5 .1 2 0 .7 0 N ot e: M ea ns w it h th e sa m e le tt er do n o t d if fe r si gn if ic an tl y fr o m ea ch o th er (a t si gn if ic an ce le ve lα = 0 .0 5 ). T he ab se nc e o f le tt er s in di ca te s no n- si gn if ic an t di ff er en ce s. D ar k gr ee n in di ca te s hi gh an d lig ht -y el lo w lo w va lu es . E xp la na ti o ns fo r th e ab b re vi at io ns o f th e va lu es ar e p re se nt ed in T ab le 1 . SORVALI ET AL. 239 T A B L E A 7 P er ce nt ag e o f re sp o nd en ts in ea ch gr o up o f se le ct ed ba ck gr o un d va ri ab le s G en de r A ge E d u ca ti o n Fa rm in g sy st em R ev en ue Fe m al e M al e 3 0 an d un de r 3 1 –5 0 5 1 –7 0 7 1 an d o ve r C o m pr eh en si ve V o ca ti o na l U ni ve rs it y O rg an ic C o nv en ti o na l Le ss th an 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 – 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 – 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 – 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 – 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 M o re th an m ill io n F em al e 1 0 0 0 3 4 6 4 9 2 5 5 6 4 0 2 0 8 0 2 7 2 5 1 9 2 0 6 3 0 M al e 0 1 0 0 3 4 1 5 3 3 8 6 8 2 4 1 4 8 6 1 9 2 5 2 1 2 4 7 3 1 3 0 an d u nd er 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 4 3 2 3 7 7 1 1 1 6 2 5 3 5 9 2 2 3 1 –5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 6 1 3 5 1 5 8 5 1 6 2 1 2 0 2 7 9 5 2 5 1 –7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 7 0 1 7 1 5 8 5 2 3 2 8 2 1 2 1 4 2 1 7 1 an d o ve r 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 5 0 2 9 1 2 8 8 3 6 4 3 8 1 0 3 0 1 C o m pr eh en si ve 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 8 2 6 3 2 2 3 1 6 3 1 1 V o ca ti o na l 0 1 0 0 0 1 4 8 6 1 8 2 5 2 0 2 5 7 3 1 U ni ve rs it y 0 0 1 0 0 1 8 8 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 5 4 1 O rg an ic 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 4 2 3 2 4 5 3 1 C o nv en ti o na l 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 4 7 3 1 Le ss th an 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 –5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 –3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 –5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 –1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 M o re th an m ill io n 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N ot e: U ni ve rs al is m na tu re (U N N )v al ue w as u se d as th e re sp o ns e va ri ab le ,b ut th e pe rc en ta ge s ar e ap pr o xi m at el y th e sa m e fo r th e o th er va ri ab le s. T he bi gg es t d if fe re n ce s b et w ee n th e gr o up s ar e hi gh lig ht ed . Sorvali_et_al_2021.pdf Sorvali et al 2021.pdf Sorvali et al 2021 Value priorities Value priorities of the Finnish farmers-Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BASIC HUMAN VALUES 2.1 Schwartz' theory of basic human values 3 DATA AND METHODS 3.1 Participants 3.2 Instruments 3.3 Statistical analysis 4 RESULTS 4.1 Theory-based value structure in farmer data 4.2 Finnish farmers' value priorities 4.3 Association between demographics, farming choices and value priorities 5 DISCUSSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT REFERENCES Community Applied Soc Psy - 2021 - Sorvali - Value priorities of the Finnish farmers Time to stop thinking of farmers as Value priorities of the Finnish farmers-Time to stop thinking of farmers as inherently conservative and traditional 1 INTRODUCTION 2 BASIC HUMAN VALUES 2.1 Schwartz' theory of basic human values 3 DATA AND METHODS 3.1 Participants 3.2 Instruments 3.3 Statistical analysis 4 RESULTS 4.1 Theory-based value structure in farmer data 4.2 Finnish farmers' value priorities 4.3 Association between demographics, farming choices and value priorities 5 DISCUSSION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT REFERENCES