406 Localized Food Systems
environmental scores (PS1 + PS2) and a low level of participation in quality and
ecolabelling schemes (i.e. not participating at all, IP, or participating in a scheme
thought, a priori, to provide less environmental benefit than some others). Another
cluster (cluster B) also was composed of relatively small farms, but these farms had
high total environmental scores and participated in schemes thought, a priori, to
provide greater environmental benefits (e.g. AB). Larger farms were split in a sim-
ilar fashion, with about half (cluster C) engaged in higher-level quality or ecolabel-
ling schemes and having high environmental scores, and the other half (cluster D)
having low total environmental scores and participating in no or lower-level qual-
ity and ecolabelling schemes. The importance of environmental practices does not
appear to be correlated with the size of the farm. However, on average, large and
small farms participating in a quality scheme have significantly higher environ-
mental scores than the non-participating farms.
Farm production specialization, type of quality or ecolabel
and adoption of environmental practices
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were then run to determine if particular qual-
ity and ecolabelling schemes were associated with the various environmental indi-
cators:
(1) Comparison of quality and ecolabelling schemes on the basis of mean aggre-
gate environmental scores using the first set components ‘PS1 and PS2’ reflect-
ing a global approach of the farming system.
Farmers participating in SOQT schemes had the highest mean score and farmers
involved in AB and SOQ programmes were next highest, but substantially below
the mean for SOQT farmers (Figure 18.2). This high mean environmental score
for farmers in SOQT could be explained by the fact that the majority of them raise
sheep and produce milk for the labelled cheese products, based upon extensive
farming systems with a minimum of negative environmental impact. The types of
farming systems they use have direct effects on environmental scores independent
of farmers’ adoption of particular environmental practices. Farmers not involved
in any ecolabel or quality programmes, as expected, had the lowest average aggre-
gate environmental scores, but that score was only slightly lower than the average
for farmers in CDC schemes. The mean environmental score for SOQT farmers
was significantly higher (at the 5 per cent level) than the mean scores for farmers
in all other categories – including farmers not participating in any quality or eco-
labelling programmes (symbolized by N) – except for farmers in the AB and IP
categories.
(2) Comparison of quality and ecolabelling categories with respect to mean envi-
ronmental scores based on the sums of individual thematic components PE1
through PE6.