Research

INTRODUCTION

Dung beetles are a soil fauna group that provide ecosystem services (ES) to farmers by enhancing agricultural systems (Beynon et al. 2015). ES refer to the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). They are the outputs or benefits that natural processes and functions provide, directly or indirectly, to people. This principle aligns with the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) categories, which categorizes those output and benefits as “provisioning services, regulation and maintenance services” and “cultural services” (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018). In addition to dung beetles, various other species provide ecosystem services such as pollinators (Narjes and Lippert 2016), earthworms (Fonte et al. 2023), and biocontrol agents (parasites and predators involved in integrated pest management).

Dung beetles bury dung and so “clean” pasture, increasing the forage available to livestock for grazing (Nervo et al. 2014, Lopez-Collado et al. 2017). The nutrients released into the soil from the buried dung increase plant growth (Maldonado et al. 2019). The removal of dung from the soil surface reduces pest flies (Wallace and Tyndale-Biscoe 1983), thereby reducing disease transmission (Mullen and Durden 2018), and the population of larval parasites (Sands and Wall 2017). The services of dung beetles to agriculture are often non-rival and non-excludable public goods that benefit industry and the wider community. Although a few studies have valued ES derived by dung beetles in monetary terms (Beynon et al. 2015, Lopez-Collado et al. 2017), there has not been an investigation of how livestock farmers perceive dung beetle ES.

Several dung beetle species were introduced in Australia for their ES to agricultural systems (Bornemissza 1970, 1979). From 1967, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) first started introducing non-native dung beetles in Australia with the aim to address the problem of dung accumulation on pastures, and control bush and buffalo fly infestations. Native dung beetles were ineffective at processing cattle dung. Between 1967 and 1984, 55 dung beetle species were imported into Australia, of which 23 species established (Edwards 2007). Those species that were well-adapted to Australian climatic conditions demonstrated a rapid and natural spread after their introduction (Vieira et al. 2024).

Assessing the value of ES is fundamental for effective environmental management and policy. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) conceptualized ES primarily in terms of benefits people obtain from ecosystems. Building on this, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) developed the framework of Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP), which expands the ES concept by explicitly recognizing pluralistic value systems of how people understand and benefit from nature. IPBES categorizes values into instrumental (economic, utility-based), relational (cultural identity, moral obligation, care), and intrinsic (value of nature in itself). These values help to explain why something matters to an individual or society and influence how people manage biodiversity (Díaz et al. 2015, IPBES 2022a, 2022b). Understanding different types of values farmers have toward adopting farm practice, for instance dung beetles, is crucial for research prioritization (Pannell and Claassen 2020). Such values can then inform agroecological policy decisions (Fonte et al. 2023), which are defined as strategies fostering farm management that relies on natural processes to build environmentally sound and resilient food systems (Wezel et al. 2009). Such informed policies, coupled with research findings, may further influence human behavior (Asah et al. 2014).

Exploring farmer perceptions through qualitative research can help assess ES and their associated value. Perceptions refer to how an individual views, comprehends, and assesses phenomena based on personal experiences (Bennett 2016). Instrumental values are tied to the benefits nature provides, enabling people to achieve well-being through various means, such as the creation and consumption of goods. These values are inherently linked to economic value (e.g., income), including monetary valuations, as they reflect the degree of satisfaction nature directly or indirectly confers upon humans (Díaz et al. 2015). Although Wartenberg et al. (2018) do not explicitly refer to instrumental values, their case study of cocoa agroforests in Indonesia reveals how farmers perceive soil fertility and plant-soil interactions in terms of their practical benefits, reflecting instrumental valuation through decisions about agroecological practice adoption. Farmer perceptions of soil fauna may assist in developing land management practices that increase land productivity (Pauli et al. 2016). A qualitative valuation of farmers’ perceptions of earthworms found there was a positive view of their role in improving soil fertility (Ortiz et al. 1999, Zúñiga et al. 2013). Qualitative methods on perceptions (interviews and focus groups) can provide a rich, contextual understanding of ES and their associated values (e.g., indicative information about their monetary value; Smith and Sullivan 2014, Jericó-Daminello et al. 2021).

Whereas quantitative methods often assess ES associated values in monetary terms (Gallai et al. 2009, Liu et al. 2010, Hernández-Blanco et al. 2021). For example, the value of pollination by honeybees can be assessed using hedonic pricing and contingent valuation, which are quantitative methods to estimate the monetary value of non-market goods or services (Carreck and Williams 1998, Winfree et al. 2011, Breeze et al. 2015, Hanley et al. 2015). Narjes and Lippert (2016) used a choice experiment to quantitatively assess the knowledge and perceptions of Thai longan fruit producers toward native pollinating bees.

However, such assessments of ES and their associated values are challenging because it involves integrating ecological and economic perspectives (Polasky and Segerson 2009) with intangible services that are not easily measurable. From an economic perspective, we can view ES as the “outputs” generated by “natural capital,” essentially, the benefits produced by healthy ecosystems. This allows us to apply the principle of technical efficiency (TE), a concept originally used to evaluate how well human-run operations maximize output from their inputs (Farrell 1957). By adapting this perspective, we can analyze the inherent value linked to how efficiently an ecosystem provides a service (e.g., how effectively a specific wetland purifies water given its natural features; Costanza et al. 1997), thereby enriching our understanding of the associated value derived from nature’s productive output.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to assess livestock farmer perceptions on ES of dung beetles and their associated values. Understanding these perceptions is key for integrating natural processes into sustainable food systems, aligning scientific knowledge with local expertise and fostering strong stakeholder engagement and collaboration (Wezel et al. 2009). Our research questions are the following:

1. What are the perceived ecosystem services provided by dung beetles to Australian livestock farmers in different farming systems (intensive, semi-intensive, extensive)?
2. How do Australian grazing livestock farmers value dung beetles (including monetary valuation)?
3. What environmental and farm management factors affect the adoption of dung beetle friendly farming?

The findings of this study will improve our understanding of livestock farmers’ perceptions of dung beetle ecosystem services and their perceived value (including monetary) to the agricultural sector. Here, we will also identify adoption barriers and guide future investments in new dung beetle introductions.

METHODS

Interview design

To address our research questions, we employed a qualitative method, through interviews. Semi-structured interviews enable the exploration of participant perceptions, facilitating the collection of rich and nuanced data by adapting questions to participant responses (Rubin and Rubin 2012). We conducted semi-structured interviews with beef cattle and mixed system (beef cattle and sheep) farmers. Individual interviews were conducted by phone (n = 27), video conference (Zoom, n = 2), or face-to-face (n = 10). Interviews were conducted between December 2020 and August 2022. Human ethics approval was granted by the University of Western Australia (2020/ET000063).

During the interviews we asked 14 open-ended questions divided into four sections: (1) farming system profile, (2) livestock management, (3) soil management, and (4) general dung beetle knowledge. The interview guide is provided in Appendix 1. We used open-ended questions to capture a broader range of perceptions than would be possible using closed-ended questions (Bazen et al. 2021, Given 2008). The duration of each interview was approximately 30 minutes (total duration). As Fusch and Ness (2015) clarify, in qualitative research, data sufficiency is determined by saturation, not interview length. Saturation point is the stage at which continued data collection no longer reveals new information or themes, indicating that further data collection would be redundant (Fusch and Ness 2015). Our focused design efficiently contributed to thematic saturation, ensuring ample data depth consistent with established qualitative principles. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and subsequently coded using NVivo 12 software (QSR International Pty Ltd 2020).

Sampling

We recruited participants using snowball sampling (Rapley 2014), which is widely used in qualitative research. The approach is by selecting initial participants based on specific criteria, who then refer other potential participants who are not known to the researcher (Naderifar et al. 2017). We selected farmers from agricultural regions across Australia, including Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales, and Victoria (Fig. 1), which were selected for their high variety of introduced non-native dung beetles species (Edwards 2007).

We initially contacted various farmer groups and industry partners (Dung Beetle Ecosystem Engineers Project) in the selected agricultural regions via email. The email contained an invitation for one-on-one interviews, a participant information form (PIF) and participant consent form (PCF; Appendix 2), which we asked them to distribute to their livestock farmer networks. Those livestock farmers who were interested then provided their consent to be directly contacted by the research team.

Each farmer who shared their email address was then contacted individually, provided with the PIF and PCF, and invited to an interview. Those willing to participate returned the written or verbal consent before proceeding with interviews. A suitable date and time were then organized based on the participant preference for an interview via Zoom, phone call, or face-to-face. Some participants referred other suitable livestock farmers, who were subsequently invited using the same procedure. Verbal consent was an option to accommodate farmers with limited access to technology for printing, signing, and scanning consent forms. All participants were over 18 years of age and were de-identified to retain anonymity.

Textual and thematic analysis

We analyzed the data using textual analysis and thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, Clarke and Braun 2017). Thematic analysis allows an exploration of farmers’ perceptions and is an established method used in qualitative research (Braun and Clarke 2006, 2019, Clarke and Braun 2017). Applying a thematic analysis involved the following steps. First, we familiarized ourselves with the data by identifying repetitions among participants’ answers. Second, we coded the data using theories described below. Third, we searched for themes that could answer the three research questions given above. Fourth, we reviewed and refined the codes. Last, we defined each theme (data patterns). Through coding interview responses, we identified themes, which represent the most common perceptions of dung beetle ES within our sample of Australian farmers.

We used a deductive-latent thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006, Clarke and Braun 2017) to extract the main concepts from the interview data and explore perceptions of the dung beetle ES among Australian farmers. Guided by the CICES categories (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018) and IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015, IPBES 2022a), we coded and analyzed the data. The CICES categories provides a standardized structure for categorizing these services, while the IPBES framework allows for a pluralistic understanding of the diverse ways livestock farmers perceive and value dung beetle ecosystem services. We identified themes beyond explicit answers, capturing underlying reasons and meanings.

Perceived ecosystem services

Themes related to perceived ES were identified and categorized following the CICES categories (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018; see Fig. 2). The CICES organizes final ES into three main categories: (1) provisioning services, which are material outputs directly utilized by people (e.g., pasture for livestock, meat and milk produced); (2) regulation and maintenance services, which involve the regulation of environmental conditions and the maintenance of ecological processes (e.g., waste decomposition, pest control); and (3) cultural services, encompassing non-material benefits people derive from ecosystems (e.g., recreation, aesthetic appreciation).

Perceived value

For each interview, we identified all mentions of dung beetle associated values and used the IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015, IPBES 2022a) to analyze their diverse and pluralistic nature. This analysis was complemented by the concept of TE (Farrell 1957), which we used to classify answers into input-oriented and output-oriented measures (see Fig. 2). To explore farmer perceptions of the economic contribution of dung beetles (instrumental value), we included a monetary valuation question in our semi-structured interviews. The question was: “How much is/was the presence of dung beetle’s worth to you per ha of pasture per year?” Our study’ primary objective in asking this question was to conduct a detailed qualitative exploration of individual livestock farmer perceived monetary value of dung beetle services. This necessarily includes their understanding of tangible benefits that, for some farmers, translate into a perceived monetary value or cost saving on their farm. This qualitative elicitation helps uncover the underlying rationale, specific benefits, and non-market factors that influence their economic considerations, which a purely quantitative survey might miss (Chan et al. 2012). The value per hectare/year figures we present later in the Results section are, therefore, individual farmer articulations of worth, reflecting their direct experience and perception of benefits (e.g., reduced input costs, improved pasture quality). These figures serve as exploratory, indicative data points on individual perceptions, and are not intended as the statistically generalizable, aggregated economic valuations typically derived from a large-scale, stated-preference survey.

We used the concept of TE (Farrell 1957) to classify the responses to the monetary valuation question as increasing either input-oriented or output-oriented production efficiency (see Fig. 2). Such values can be interpreted as a private benefit, which refers to a change in farm profit due to the changes in farm management practices, while public benefits accrue to society as a whole (Polyakov et al. 2023). Using the TE concept, we explored how farmers value dung beetles in monetary terms. In the input-oriented approach, TE measures the difference between the actual inputs and the minimum input set required for a given output (for example, weight of beef). In the output-oriented approach, TE measures the difference between the maximum output and the observed output for a given set of inputs (Ray 2004, Coelli et al. 2005). Here, dung beetle value encompasses any increase in farming outputs from a fixed input set or reduction in farming inputs to achieve a given output, as perceived by farmers because of dung beetle ecological processes, such as dung burial.

Adoption of dung beetles, associated barriers, and knowledge gaps

For each interview, we identified any references to adoption and potential barriers to gain insights into farmer perceptions of the key barriers to adopting dung beetle friendly farming practices. We defined adoption as the decision of farmers to integrate dung beetles into their farming practices, and barriers to adoption as any environmental or agricultural management practices that hinder dung beetles, affecting their development and reproduction. Specifically, we asked the question: “Do you identify any barriers to livestock farmers to adopt dung beetles? If so, what do you say are the main ones?” The conventional categorization of adopters proposed by Rogers (1962) is not fully applicable to dung beetles because farmers can sometimes benefit from their arrival by chance, depending on the environmental context. Therefore, we developed an alternative categorization of respondents based on patterns emerging from the interviews, reflecting the ways farmers actively or passively engage with dung beetles in their management practices. Participant answers were used to better understand farmers’ decision making regarding dung beetle friendly farming and to classify farmers based on an a priori definition of their activities: (A) “active adopters” were farmers who actively acquired dung beetles by purchase or relocation from other properties for release on their farms; (B) “passive adopters” were farmers who allowed dung beetles to establish on their farms through national or state-based dung beetle distribution programs or natural spread (Vieira et al. 2024), and used dung beetle friendly farming practices; (C) “non-adopters” were farmers who used management practices without accounting for the viability of the dung beetle population, which may be due to a lack of information or other priorities, such as a focus on cropping; and (D) “indeterminates” were those farmers who did not fall into any of these categories.

RESULTS

All participants who signed consent for the interviews responded to most questions, and none withdrew. A total of 39 semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants from Western Australia (n = 23), South Australia (n = 2), New South Wales (n = 12), and Victoria (n = 2). The average farming experience of participants was 30 years (n = 33). Six participants did not provide numeric responses (e.g., “my whole life” or “x generations”) and were thus not included in the numerical average. All 39 participants had beef cattle (average of 330 head), and 19 participants also had sheep (average 1311 head). The average pasture area of the farms was 1585 ha and over half the participants were classified as having a semi-intensive system (Appendix 3). The results are reported across three sections: (i) a thematic analysis of perceived ES among Australian livestock farmers; (ii) an overview of the perceived value of dung beetles; and (iii) perceived barriers to adopting dung beetle-friendly farm practices and knowledge gaps.

Perceived ecosystem services

We identified three key themes related to dung beetle ES; each theme included various perceived ES, which were categorized using the CICES categories (Table 1). Table 2 shows the differences in the ecosystem services identified by participants varied by farming system (mixed or beef cattle). Among the identified ecosystem services, regulation and maintenance services stood out as the principal category.

Soil improvements was the most mentioned theme reported by 90% of participants (n = 39). Nutrient cycling from dung burial from dung beetle tunnelling activities were frequently mentioned and was the primary reported ES within the theme.

Productivity increase was identified by 67% of participants. Participants highlighted increased pasture cleaning and pasture growth as notable outcomes associated with dung beetle services. More mixed system farmers reported a perceived increase in productivity compared with beef farmers. Beef cattle farmers perceived improvements in grass quality and quantity, leading to healthier cattle. Both beef cattle and mixed system farmers reported a reduced dependence on costly inorganic fertilizers.

Last, the theme animal health improvement was also identified as an ES, with 69% of participants reporting some benefit. Dung beetles were perceived as beneficial because they reduced the habitat available for livestock parasites (flies and nematodes). Beef cattle farmers reported animal health benefits more often than mixed system farmers. Two beef cattle farmers suggested that reducing flies also reduces cases of the bacterial disease “pinkeye” (infectious bovine kerato-conjunctivitis).

Perceived value

Using the IPBES framework (Díaz et al. 2015, IPBES 2022a), we classified participants responses in a more pluralistic way than traditional economic valuation, capturing the various ways farmers value dung beetles. We identified that all participants mentioned some type of instrumental value at least once during the interview questions. In the context of the ecological services dung beetles, their instrumental value are benefits they provide to farmers, serving as a means to achieve desired human outcomes (e.g., pest control, nutrient cycling, pasture cleaning, increased animal performance). Instrumental values can also be translated into monetary value, in the form of changes in farm profit. All participants (100%) mentioned some form of instrumental value, and among them 28% also mentioned relational values (n = 11). No responses were classified as intrinsic values, as asking farmers about dung beetles naturally elicits an anthropocentric perspective, which is inconsistent with the strict definition of intrinsic value. Instrumental values were expressed when farmers referred to the practical benefits of dung beetles for their farms, such as dung burial and improved pasture management. Relational values were highlighted in passages of the interviews were a farmer had a sense of connection, care and responsibility regarding dung beetles and the ecosystems they inhabit, rather than just their utility or inherent existence (e.g., demonstrating care and responsibility through knowledge sharing and fostering connections with the next generation; showing appreciation for broader ecological well-being and interconnectedness). Table 3 provides illustrative quotes with explanations of how they align with these value categories.

Within the mentions of instrumental values (n = 39), only 36% of participants (n = 14) valued dung beetles in monetary terms. Those able to quantify the monetary value of dung beetles conceptualized their value as profit, recognizing their contribution in terms of reduced inputs, such as fertilizer or anthelmintics, or increased outputs, such as beef and wool. Individual monetary values, as directly articulated by interviewed livestock farmers, reflected the perceived economic contribution of dung beetles to their farming system. Values are presented per hectare per year, along with illustrative quotes from farmers who provided an estimate. The perceived value represents these individual self-reported figures of farmers who provided a monetary estimate.

Using the TE concept, we categorized responses: (i) reduced inputs and the same output, input-orientated technical efficiency, which resulted in cost savings with fertilizers and/or veterinary products; and/or (ii) increased output from the same input, output-orientated technical efficiency, which manifested itself through higher pasture growth, stocking rates, improved animal health and growth rates (Table 3). Estimates of the monetary value for ES ranged from AU$45 to AU$2000 per hectare per year (Table 4). Perceived monetary values were classified under instrumental values and estimations of monetary value are given in Australian dollar (AU$).

Adoption of dung beetles, associated barriers, and knowledge gaps

Of all participants, 56% mentioned that agricultural management practices (e.g., drenches) is a key adoption barrier to support healthy dung beetle populations, 31% reported environmental conditions (e.g., temperature and soil type) as a barrier to adoption, and 13% mentioned the high cost of purchasing dung beetles. As reported by farmers, a key driver for adoption of dung beetles would be new species to fill perceived seasonal gaps in dung beetle activity (note species are either summer or winter active; Edwards 2007). However, 38% of farmers who actively introduced dung beetles indicated that the species did not establish in the introduced location as shown by the following quotes: “Through winter, we released some winter active, but for some reason they haven’t flourished” (P16E) and “I also introduced Geotrupes spiniger [dung beetle species] from Northern Tasmania ... but I don’t know if they are successful, we saw some last year but I haven’t seen any since” (P27W).

Farmers often described challenges to sustain healthy dung beetle populations, which might also contribute to the relatively low rate of active adoption. Participants spoke about agricultural management practices that might be detrimental to dung beetle survival, particularly drenches to control worms in livestock. They perceived the use of these and other pest control veterinary products as the main adoption barriers, and a lack of knowledge regarding the negative effects of such products on dung beetle populations. Some farmers in this group could be re-classified as “non-adopters” in the sense that dung beetles were expected to adapt to farm management practices, regardless of how detrimental the farm management practices were to the dung beetle populations on their farms. As one participant stated:

So, if you are operating a farming system and doing whole scale insecticide, if you are spraying your farm this is probably also killing dung beetles. So it is often a matter of not willing to change other practices that I believe are important and that affect the dung beetles ... I think what you will find with many farmers is that if they were using an insecticide they would understand that that insecticide would kill the dung beetles but that doesn’t stop them using the insecticide because of the belief they need to use the insecticide to kill the other things that are eating their pasture or whatever else it is doing overwrites the need to look after the dung beetles. P14E

Within our sample, 33% of participants were active adopters, 64% were passive adopters, with two participants notably falling under both categories (active and passive), and 3% were indeterminates. The participants who fell under both categories reported passively waiting for certain dung beetle species to establish while actively collecting or purchasing others to address seasonal gaps in dung beetle activity. Overall, knowledge gaps mentioned by participants included (1) limited information on return on investment; (2) insufficient incentives to purchase dung beetles and establish long-term monitoring; (3) lack of information on the importance of dung beetles in media sources used by farmers such as monthly magazines or newsletter; and (4) the perception that sheep are not the preferred source of dung for dung beetles (noted by mixed farmers).

Participant livestock management varied across categories (extensive, semi-intensive, or intensive), influencing observed dung beetle adoption strategies: for extensive farms, 100% of participants were passive adopters; among semi-intensive farms, 92.3% were passive adopters, while 7.7% employed a passive/active approach; and for intensive farms, 75% of participants were passive adopters, with 25% adopting both active/passive strategies.

DISCUSSION

A clear majority (67–90%) of the Australian farmers interviewed reported soil improvement, increased productivity, or animal health improvements. However, fewer than half of these farmers (36%) could assign a monetary value to these services. Just over half of farmers (56%) had uncertainty about the impact of veterinary products (drenches) on dung beetle survival. Although we could not compare our results with other qualitative studies on dung beetles because of a lack of other studies; a global review by Pauli et al. (2016) report positive perceptions of soil fauna in relation to soil physical and chemical properties, however, the study does not mention dung beetles. The review highlights the significance of integrating farmers perspectives in soil health improvement programs. Fonte et al. (2023) uses a different approach, spatial data analysis, to assess the value of earthworms to agricultural food production. Their findings suggests that earthworms are key contributors to global food production and adopting agroecological policies that foster earthworm populations could accelerate progress toward agricultural goals.

Regarding the ES of dung beetles, we found that farmers reported soil improvements and increases in productivity (i.e., pasture growth), the two likely connected. Participants often emphasized dung beetles’ role in recycling “organic matter” and improving soil structure, aligning with indicators of soil health visible to farmers, as noted by Luján Soto et al. (2020). Farmers predominantly mentioning soil improvements may be because these changes are more visibly noticeable to them. A meta-analysis by Anderson et al. (2024) suggests that dung beetle services enhanced plant growth by 17%. However, the level of benefits is context-dependent, and likely to vary with dung beetle density. It is important to note that diversity in perceptions are common among individual farmers and across different locations (Wartenberg et al. 2018). These findings suggest that dung beetles are perceived to enhance productivity and decrease input costs.

In terms of the associated values, all participating farmers consistently identified instrumental values associated with dung beetles, with about one third of farmers estimating monetary values, but these had a wide range (AU$45 to AU$2000). The economic valuation of dung beetles was challenging for farmers, because they must imagine their farm without dung beetles, a counterfactual, in order to estimate the cost of management activities and inputs that substitute for dung beetles, for example, harrowing to spread dung on pastures and increasing fertilizer levels. An alternative approach to estimate dung beetle monetary value is to consider the additional marginal value of adding a new dung beetle species, for instance using choice experiments (Vossler et al. 2012). These can be used to quantitatively assess the economic value of a new dung beetle species (e.g., to cover seasonal gaps in activity), and perhaps to capture marginal added value of complex systems. Choice experiments can be used to assess perceived value as willingness to pay for dung beetle attributes by exploring indirect-use values provided by the dung beetles (e.g., dung burial amount, season of activity, and probability of establishment). We suggest that future research assess perceptions of value of dung beetles in dairy farming, which are high intensity farming systems. This result suggests that the true value of ES, especially from biodiversity like dung beetles, extends considerably beyond what can be quantified in monetary terms.

Our findings show that farmers not only emphasized instrumental values but also recognized relational values. Within the IPBES framework, every benefit derived from nature (e.g., dung beetles), inherently possessing instrumental value because of its utility, is concurrently understood to encompass a relational dimension. This signifies that instrumental and relational values are not mutually exclusive but rather co-exist as intertwined aspects of how people engage with and appreciate nature’s diverse contributions (Díaz et al. 2015). Interestingly, some farmers explicitly perceived relational values by acknowledging a form appreciation for the dung beetle contribution that fostered a deeper connection to nature and a sense of stewardship. They reported valuing dung beetles for their positive impact on biodiversity, as P1E mentioned: “The more diversity we have in the forms of flora or fauna, big animals, beetles, ... the better.” Witnessing a thriving, diverse community of dung beetles can evoke appreciation for the complexity and interconnectedness of natural processes, “living in harmony with nature,” as Díaz et al. (2015) describe. Such relational values are increasingly recognized as powerful drivers for the adoption of sustainable practices. Indeed, as highlighted by Geissberger and Chapman (2023), understanding and fostering these intrinsic connections and ethical considerations is key, as they can influence individual willingness to engage in pro-environmental behaviors and implement conservation measures that benefit both nature and future generations.

Thus, supporting dung beetle friendly farming transforms into an act of communal stewardship, benefiting not only individual farmers but the broader community and amplifying the overall ecological and social well-being. This relationship is reflected in farmers changing their agricultural practices to support dung beetles, perceiving them as essential to soil fauna and overall ecosystem health. Given the non-rival and non-excludable nature of dung beetles, one farmer can benefit from dung beetles without reducing benefits for others and dung beetle positive impact is accessible to all farmers without restriction.

Almost all participant farmers were adopters; we did not find non-adopters, which may suggest our snowball sampling was biased. Active adoption (33%) farmers often reported that dung beetle establishment efforts were often unsuccessful. Adoption of agricultural innovations is influenced by factors such as economic considerations and the advantages or disadvantages of the innovation itself (Pannell et al. 2006, Montes de Oca Munguia et al. 2021). Lack of knowledge about a species may have contributed for farmers to have a passive attitude towards dung beetle adoption.

By understanding farmers perceptions toward adoption and knowledge gaps, policy makers can invest in strategies that accelerate the adoption of profitable agricultural practices (Karbo et al. 2024) that support dung beetle populations. To achieve a socially optimal level of dung beetle provision, widespread adoption of dung beetle friendly farming practices among farmers may be necessary. This collective effort helps maintain stable dung beetle populations, allowing for natural fluctuations and re-colonization from neighboring farms, ultimately benefiting all livestock farmers in a region. A review paper by Perri et al. (2023) on dung beetle ecological functions in livestock production contexts shows that although their ecological functions and benefits to rangelands have been widely studied, there are significant knowledge gaps in certain areas and geographical regions. The review highlights the potential benefits of dung beetles that could lead to increased livestock production but notes a lack of studies demonstrating this increase, emphasizing the need for future research on dung beetle effects on livestock production (Perri et al. 2023).

Farmers reported a high level of uncertainty regarding the negative effects of anthelminthics on dung beetle survival (Li et al. 2023). Anthelminthics such as ivermectin can reduce dung beetle survival (Ambrožová et al. 2021), and so their use can limit dung beetle ES to farmers. Farmers understood the trade-off between anthelminthic application to reduce nematode pests and supporting healthy dung beetle populations. To address this challenge, educational programs and extension services can play a crucial role in filling this knowledge gap (Wyckhuys et al. 2019). Farmers would benefit from extension services that included education about agricultural practices that support a resilient livestock system while maintaining healthy dung beetle populations. We recommend that extension services inform farmers about the nature of adoption of dung beetles, communicating that dung beetles are public goods, and the benefits are extended to other farmers and the wider community. Although research agencies and landcare groups can accelerate adoption through financial incentives, it is still necessary that farmers collectively adopt dung beetle friendly farming to increase benefits to farmers and the wider community.

Future introductions and policy implications

Integrating farmer perspectives is important for effective agroecological programs to maximize benefits to communities and the environment (Scobie et al. 2023). Understanding how key stakeholders perceive ES value, especially economically, may help to improve agricultural policies (Smith and Sullivan 2014), conservation efforts (Mikołajczak et al. 2022), and change behavior. Farmers driven by non-monetary values (like care for nature or a sense of responsibility) may be more likely to adopt and sustain sustainable agricultural practice in the long term, even without constant financial compensation (Geissberger and Chapman 2023). However, a comprehensive review and synthesis of existing research in valuation methods reveals that stakeholder participation is often excluded from valuation studies. In particular, the review notes that most valuation studies, particularly those related to nature, do not incorporate stakeholder involvement in the valuation process and highlights obstacles to integrating nature’s diverse values into decision-making processes (Pascual et al. 2023).

The introduction of dung beetles by CSIRO into Australia is regarded as a success. This success depended on farmers perceptions of dung beetle value. This perception of a value to their businesses encouraged farmers to modify their farming systems by introducing new dung beetle species and avoiding unnecessary harmful practices, such as reducing pesticides, drenches, and replanting pasture. These actions allowed dung beetles to spread and maintain viable populations.

However, not all of Australia has high dung beetle populations (Edwards 2007). This is likely due to market failure as active adoption by one farmer becomes passive adoption by all (as they spread naturally), consequently there is no incentive for a farmer to be the active adopter and bear the prohibitively high cost of the initial R&D that is required for adoption. Government intervention is necessary to avoid this “prisoner’s dilemma” (Campbell and Sowden 1985). Once introduced and established, dung beetle ES are endogenous to the agricultural system. They will increase if farmers collectively adopt management practices that encourage them, which in turn increases the public good provided and resilience to environmental shocks. Even so, more farmers will be convinced to encourage dung beetles with better knowledge of ES.

A key result from this study is that more research is required to understand the economic value of dung beetles. Given farmers most often identified soil improvements as a ES, economic valuations could concentrate on quantifying soil health changes resulting from dung beetle services. Further, once known, the economic value should be shared with farmers using appropriate messages and methods, thus facilitating their understanding through tangible changes in input-oriented and output-oriented farming.

LITERATURE CITED

Ambrožová, L., F. X. J. Sládeček, T. Zítek, M. Perlík, P. Kozel, M. Jirků, and L. Čížek. 2021. Lasting decrease in functionality and richness: effects of ivermectin use on dung beetle communities. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 321:107634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107634

Anderson, D. J., J. D. Berson, R. K. Didham, L. W. Simmons, and T. A. Evans. 2024. Dung beetles increase plant growth: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 291:20232885. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2885

Asah, S. T., A. D. Guerry, D. J. Blahna, and J. J. Lawler. 2014. Perception, acquisition and use of ecosystem services: human behavior, and ecosystem management and policy implications. Ecosystem Services 10:180-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.08.003

Bazen, A., F. K. Barg, and J. Takeshita. 2021. Research techniques made simple: an introduction to qualitative research. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 141(2):241-247.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2020.11.029

Bennett, N. J. 2016. Using perceptions as evidence to improve conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology 30(3):582-592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12681

Beynon, S. A., W. A. Wainwright, and M. Christie. 2015. The application of an ecosystem services framework to estimate the economic value of dung beetles to the U.K. cattle industry. Ecological Entomology 40:124-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.12240

Bornemissza, G. F. 1970. Insectary studies on the control of dung breeding flies by the activity of the dung beetle, Onthophagus gazella f. (Coleoptera: Scarabaeinae). Australian Journal of Entomology 9(1):31-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-6055.1970.tb00767.x

Bornemissza, G. F. 1979. The Australian Dung Beetle Research Unit in Pretoria. South African Journal of Science 75(6):257-260.

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2):77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2019. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4):589-597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Breeze, T. D., A. P. Bailey, S. G. Potts, and K. G. Balcombe. 2015. A stated preference valuation of the non-market benefits of pollination services in the UK. Ecological Economics 111:76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.12.022

Campbell, R., and L. Sowden. 1985. Paradoxes of rationality and cooperation. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

Carreck, N., and I. Williams. 1998. The economic value of bees in the UK. Bee World 79(3):115-123. https://doi.org/10.1080/0005772X.1998.11099393

Chan, K. M. A., T. Satterfield, and J. Goldstein. 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological Economics 74:8-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.11.011

Clarke, V., and V. Braun. 2017. Thematic analysis. Journal of Positive Psychology 12(3):297-298. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613

Coelli, T., D. S. P. Rao, C. J. O’Donnell, and G. E. Battese. 2005. An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Second edition. Springer, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/b136381

Costanza, R., R. d'Arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R. V. O'Neill, J. Paruelo, R. G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260. https://doi.org/10.1038/387253a0

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, A. Larigauderie, J. R. Adhikari, S. Arico, A. Báldi, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework - connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002

Edwards, P. B. 2007. Introduced dung beetles in Australia 1967-2007: current status and future directions. Dung Beetles for Landcare Farming Committee, Sinnamon Park, Queensland, Australia.

Farrell, M. J. 1957. The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 120(3):253-290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2343100

Fonte, S. J., M. Hsieh, and N. D. Mueller. 2023. Earthworms contribute significantly to global food production. Nature Communications 14:5713. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41286-7

Fusch, P. I., and L. R. Ness. 2015. Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. Qualitative Report 20(9):1408-1416. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2281

Gallai, N., J.-M. Salles, J. Settele, and B. E. Vaissière. 2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecological Economics 68(3):810-821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014

Geissberger, S., and M. Chapman. 2023. The work that work does: how intrinsic and instrumental values are transformed into relational values through active work participation in Swiss community supported agriculture. People and Nature 5(5):1649-1663. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10531

Given, L. M. 2008. The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. SAGE, Los Angeles, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909

Haines-Young, R., and M. Potschin. 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES V5.1): guidance on the application of the revised structure. Fabis Consulting Ltd, Nottingham, UK.

Hanley, N., T. D. Breeze, C. Ellis, and D. Goulson. 2015. Measuring the economic value of pollination services: principles, evidence and knowledge gaps. Ecosystem Services 14:124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.013

Hernández-Blanco, M., R. Costanza, and M. Cifuentes-Jara. 2021. Economic valuation of the ecosystem services provided by the mangroves of the Gulf of Nicoya using a hybrid methodology. Ecosystem Services 49:101258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101258

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022a. Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. P. Balvanera, U. Pascual, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6522522

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2022b. Summary for policymakers of the methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. U. Pascual, P. Balvanera, M. Christie, B. Baptiste, D. González-Jiménez, C. B. Anderson, S. Athayde, R. Chaplin-Kramer, S. Jacobs, E. Kelemen, R. Kumar, E. Lazos, A. Martin, T. H. Mwampamba, B. Nakangu, P. O'Farrell, C. M. Raymond, S. M. Subramanian, M. Termansen, M. Van Noordwijk, and A. Vatn, editors. IPBES Secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Jericó-Daminello, C., B. Schröter, M. Mancilla Garcia, and C. Albert. 2021. Exploring perceptions of stakeholder roles in ecosystem services coproduction. Ecosystem Services 51:101291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101353

Karbo, R. T., L. J. Frewer, F. Areal, G. Jones, and S. Nurudeen. 2024. A systematic review of the efficacy of theories used to understand farmers’ technology adoption behavior in lower-to-middle-income countries. Development Studies Research 11(1):2294696. https://doi.org/10.1080/21665095.2023.2294696

Li, S., J. D. Ulrich-Schad, A. J. Leffler, E. Avemegah, and L. Perkins. 2023. Dewormers, dung beetles, and decision making: understanding rangeland livestock producers’ parasiticide use. Rangeland Ecology and Management 90:13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rama.2023.05.003

Liu, S., R. Costanza, S. Farber, and A. Troy. 2010. Valuing ecosystem services: theory, practice, and the need for a transdisciplinary synthesis. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1185(1):54-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05167.x

Lopez-Collado, J., M. Cruz-Rosales, J. Vilaboa-Arroniz, I. Martínez-Morales, and H. Gonzalez-Hernandez. 2017. Contribution of dung beetles to cattle productivity in the tropics: a stochastic-dynamic modeling approach. Agricultural Systems 155:78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.05.001

Luján Soto, R., M. Cuéllar Padilla, and J. de Vente. 2020. Participatory selection of soil quality indicators for monitoring the impacts of regenerative agriculture on ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services 45:101157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101157

Maldonado, M. B., J. N. Aranibar, A. M. Serrano, N. P. Chacoff, and D. P. Vázquez. 2019. Dung beetles and nutrient cycling in a dryland environment. Catena 179:66-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2019.03.035

Mikołajczak, K. M., N. Jones, C. J. Sandom, S. Wynne-Jones, A. Beardsall, S. Burgelman, L. Ellam, and H. C. Wheeler. 2022. Rewilding—the farmers’ perspective: perceptions and attitudinal support for rewilding among the English farming community. People and Nature 4(6):1435-1449. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10376

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island, Washington, D.C., USA.

Montes de Oca Munguia, O., D. J. Pannell, and R. Llewellyn. 2021. Understanding the adoption of innovations in agriculture: a review of selected conceptual models. Agronomy 11(1):139. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010139

Mullen, G. R., and L. A. Durden, editors. 2018. Medical and veterinary entomology. Elsevier Science & Technology, San Diego, California, USA.

Naderifar, M., H. Goli, and F. Ghaljaie. 2017. Snowball sampling: a purposeful method of sampling in qualitative research. Strides in Development of Medical Education 14(3):e67670. https://doi.org/10.5812/sdme.67670

Narjes, M. E., and C. Lippert. 2016. Longan fruit farmers’ demand for policies aimed at conserving native pollinating bees in Northern Thailand. Ecosystem Services 18:58-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.010

Nervo, B., C. Tocco, E. Caprio, C. Palestrini, and A. Rolando. 2014. The effects of body mass on dung removal efficiency in dung beetles. PLoS ONE 9(9):e107699. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107699

Ortiz, B., C. Fragoso, I. M’Boukou, B. Pashanasi, B. K. Senapati, and A. Contreras. 1999. Perception and use of earthworms in tropical farming systems. Pages 239-252 in P. Lavelle, L. Brussaard, P. Hendrix, editors. Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems. CABI, Wallingford, UK.

Pannell, D. J., and R. Claassen. 2020. The roles of adoption and behavior change in agricultural policy. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 42(1):31-41. https://doi.org/10.1002/aepp.13009

Pannell, D. J., G. R. Marshall, N. Barr, A. Curtis, F. Vanclay, and R. Wilkinson. 2006. Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 46(11):1407-1424.

Pascual, U., P. Balvanera, C. B. Anderson, R. Chaplin-Kramer, M. Christie, D. González-Jiménez, A. Martin, C. M. Raymond, M. Termansen, A. Vatn, et al. 2023. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 620(7975):813-823. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9

Pauli, N., L. K. Abbott, S. Negrete-Yankelevich, and P. Andrés. 2016. Farmers’ knowledge and use of soil fauna in agriculture: a worldwide review. Ecology and Society 21(3):19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08597-210319

Perri, D. V., O. Bruzzone, and M. H. Easdale. 2023. Ecological relationships between coprophagous insects and livestock production: a review. Bulletin of Entomological Research 113(6):735-747. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485323000494

Polasky, S., and K. Segerson. 2009. Integrating ecology and economics in the study of ecosystem services: some lessons learned. Annual Review of Resource Economics 1(1):409-434. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144110

Polyakov, M., F. Dempster, G. Park, and D. J. Pannell. 2023. Joining the dots versus growing the blobs: evaluating spatial targeting strategies for ecological restoration. Ecological Economics 204:107671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107671

Rapley, T. 2014. Sampling strategies in qualitative research. Pages 49-63 in U. Flick, editor. The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis. SAGE, London, UK.

Ray, S. C. 2004. Data envelopment analysis: theory and techniques for economics and operations research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511606731

Rogers, E. M. 1962. Diffusion of innovations. Free Press, New York, New York, USA .

Rubin, H. J., and I. S. Rubin. 2012. Qualitative Interviewing. Second edition. The art of hearing data. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, California, USA.

Sands, B., and R. Wall. 2017. Dung beetles reduce livestock gastrointestinal parasite availability on pasture. Journal of Applied Ecology 54(4):1180-1189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12821

Scobie, K., X. Lambin, S. Telfer, M. F. Rasahivelo, R. N. Raheliarison, M. Rajerison, and J. Young. 2023. Living with rodent pests: unifying stakeholder interests to prioritise pest management in rural Madagascar. People and Nature 5(2):713-725. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10438

Smith, H. F., and C. A. Sullivan. 2014. Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes: farmers’ perceptions. Ecological Economics 98:72-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008

Vieira, M. D. C., J. Manger, B. White, J. D. Berson, F. Dempster, and T. A. Evans. 2024. Estimating biocontrol agent spread: a case study using introduced dung beetles. Ecological Entomology 48:1-15. https://doi.org/10.1111/een.13279

Vossler, C. A., M. Doyon, and D. Rondeau. 2012. Truth in consequentiality: theory and field evidence on discrete choice experiments. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4(4):145-171. https://doi.org/10.1257/mic.4.4.145

Wallace, M. M. H., and M. Tyndale-Biscoe 1983. Attempts to measure the influence of dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) on the field mortality of the bush fly Musca vetustissima Walker (Diptera: Muscidae) in south-eastern Australia. Bulletin of Entomological Research 73(1):33-44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007485300013778

Wartenberg, A. C., W. J. Blaser, K. N. Janudianto, J. M. Roshetko, M. van Noordwijk, and J. Six. 2018. Farmer perceptions of plant-soil interactions can affect adoption of sustainable management practices in cocoa agroforests: a case study from Southeast Sulawesi. Ecology and Society 23(1):18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09921-230118

Wezel, A., S. Bellon, T. Doré, C. Francis, D. Vallod, and C. David . 2009. Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:503-515. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro/2009004

Winfree, R., B. J. Gross, and C. Kremen. 2011. Valuing pollination services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 71:80-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.001

Wyckhuys, K. A. G., K. L. Heong, F. Sanchez-Bayo, F. J. J. A. Bianchi, J. G. Lundgren, and J. W. Bentley. 2019. Ecological illiteracy can deepen farmers’ pesticide dependency. Environmental Research Letters 14(9):093004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34c9

Zúñiga, M. C., A. Feijoo M., H. Quintero, N. J. Aldana, and A. F. Carvajal. 2013. Farmers’ perceptions of earthworms and their role in soil. Applied Soil Ecology 69:61-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.03.001