Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 © 2025 Author(s). Open access article published, except where otherwise noted, by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License for content and CC0 1.0 Universal for metadata. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Bio-based and Applied Economics BAE Citation: Russo, S., Raggi, M., Bim- bati, B., Povellato, A. & Viaggi, D. (2025). Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy. Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73. doi: 10.36253/ bae-15548 Received: December 20, 2023 Accepted: May 9, 2024 Published: June 13, 2025 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Associated Editor: Luca Salvati- ci, Valentina Raimondi, Francesco Pagliacci Editor in Chief: Fabio Bartolini ORCID MR: 0000-0001-6960-1099 BB: 0000-0002-4826-5003 AP: 0000-0002-6980-4862 DV: 0000-0001-9503-2977 Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Silvia Russo1,*, Meri Raggi2, Barbara Bimbati3, Andrea Povellato3, Davide Viaggi1 1 Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, Università di Bologna, Viale Fanin 50, Bologna, 40127, Italy 2 Department of Statistical Sciences “P. Fortunati”, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Delle Belle Arti, 41, BO, Bologna, 40126, Italy 3 CREA – Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, Legnaro (PD), Italy *Corresponding author. E-mail: silvia.russo7@studio.unibo.it Abstract. Access to land is one of the key factors of farm growth. However, related research is characterised by important gaps, in particular, facing the change over time in the nature and role of drivers of the land market. The objective of this paper is to identify the endogenous and exogenous factors that affect the decision to purchase land in Italy between 2013 and 2020. Five probit regression models were implemented to understand the role of a set of different determinants in land investment decision. The results show that factors related to capital in machinery and plant, energy produc- tion and the presence of a successor or young farmer are endogenous factors that posi- tively influence the purchase decision. The ratio of rented land to utilised agricultural area and of family work units to total work units are endogenous factors that nega- tively affect the purchase decision. Exogenous factors related to the cost of capital and inflation rate affect the purchase of land in an opposite way, negatively and positively respectively. The role of Utilised Agricultural Area and Value Added per hectare varies depending on the specialisation considered. The research can support policymakers in designing policies to promote the survival and growth of farms, as well as to facilitate land investment by reducing barriers to land acquisition. Keywords: agricultural land market, land purchase, probit regression model, invest- ment decision, purchase decision. JEL Codes: Q15, Q12. 1. INTRODUCTION Land represents a durable, fixed, heterogeneous, and non-reproducible resource and is one of the key productive factors of a farm. The purchase of land is one of the ways through which a farmer can access this fixed pro- ductive factor and represents a form of investment in a capital good. Com- pared to other forms of farm size growth, on the one hand, the purchase of land may require a major financial commitment and thus limits the invest- ment in other productive assets (Jeong et al., 2022; Swinnen et al., 2016). https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15548 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode https://www.fupress.com/bae https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15548 https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-15548 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6960-1099 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4826-5003 https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6980-4862 https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9503-2977 mailto:silvia.russo7@studio.unibo.it 50 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. On the other hand, the full transfer of rights allows the new owner to use the land as a collateral asset in order to have greater access to credit (Binswanger et al., 1995; Bradfield et al., 2023; Swinnen et al., 2016). In compari- son to investments in other types of on-farm assets, the purchase of land rarely takes place at the same time as it is planned because it is not certain that the farmer will find the supply on the local market meeting his/ her needs/capacity (Elhorst, 1993). For the farmer, the availability of land can be one of the main obstacles to the development and growth of the farm (Yanore et al., 2024). The land market is characterised by rigid supply and the purchase of land far from the farm centre would lead to increased costs and downtime (Cotteleer et al., 2008; Schimmenti et al., 2013). For all these reasons, the land market is generally defined as thin and local. The lack of data availability and the absence of well- structured databases on land transactions, especially in Europe, has influenced and limited the research on the land market (De Noni et al., 2019). Over the years, research mainly focused on identifying the determinants of land value in specific local agricultural land markets or on how agricultural policy payments could influence land value (Baldoni et al., 2023; Czyzewski et al., 2017; Latruffe and Le Mouël, 2009; Michalek et al., 2014; Var- acca et al., 2022). However, when analysing the literature relating to the investment decision, there appears to be little ex-post empirical research that takes into consid- eration the investment in land. The objective of this paper is to identify determi- nants that have influenced the farmer’s decision to pur- chase land in Italy between 2013 and 2020. The work is carried out using FADN data and factors are selected based on a literature review and data availability. The main novelty of the paper is that we use an original ana- lytical framework and a conceptual model developed on the basis of the literature analysis using multiple streams of research, namely structural change in agriculture and the growth of farm size, the investment decision and the land market literature. The paper continues in Section 2 with the design of the framework. In Section 3 we proceed with the descriptive analysis of the available data and the presen- tation of the methodology. In Section 4, the results of the analysis are presented and will be discussed in Section 5. Section 6 is dedicated to the conclusions drawn from this study. In order to contextualize this research, a premise is needed. To the best of our knowledge, there are no stud- ies that have identified the factors that may influence the decision of Italian farmers to invest in land. Consequent- ly, this study and its results should be considered a pre- liminary exploratory attempt to identify and understand the effects of certain factors selected based on the origi- nal analytical framework. 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Land is a factor of production that is strongly con- nected to and not divisible from three other farm inputs such as machinery, (family) labour and buildings (Plog- mann et al., 2022). Over the years, mechanisation and technological innovation have played an important role in improving farmers’ labour management and replacing the labour force leaving rural areas for better paid non-agricultur- al work. The adoption of machinery and technological innovation, especially when it is expensive and com- plex, have stimulated farmers to allocate their manage- rial skills, capital, and farm assets for the production of a few types of output and, thus, farm specialisation. These three factors have contributed to the development of both economies of scale and size. Although techno- logical innovation is accessible to small and large farms, the latter seem to have more financial and managerial capacities, both internal and external, to invest in this factor. Thus, the growth in farm size induced by tech- nological innovation seems to be stronger in large farms than in small ones. According to the theoretical litera- ture, these dynamics generate pressures on small farms that might decide to exit the agricultural sector (Plog- mann et al., 2022). In this regard, researchers have iden- tified “off-farm income” as a factor that could play a dual role in the survival of small farms. On the one hand, the income generated by off-farm activities could represent the first step of the farm’s exit from the sector. On the other hand, this source of income could allow the farmer to remain within the agricultural sector because it could contribute to the stabilisation of the farmer’s income and facilitate access to credit, investment in farm assets, and stimulate the growth of farms managed by young farm- ers (Goddard et al., 1993; Hallam, 1991; Harrington and Reinsel, 1995; Key, 2020; Neuenfeldt et al., 2019; Weiss, 1999; Zimmermann et al., 2009). Human capital is one of the main factors that can influence a farmer’s investment decision. When talking about human capital, reference is made to demographic characteristics of the farmer and their family. In particu- lar, the age of the farmer and the presence of a potential successor, and the level of education are among the main characteristics that can affect farm size and investment in land. As the age of the farmer increases, the farm enters the so-called maturity and/or decline phase and the farmer 51Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 may be more reluctant to increase the farm size (Bremmer and Oude Lansink, 2002). The presence of a potential suc- cessor could prevent the farm from entering the decline phase and thus positively affect the investment in a fixed input (Huber et al., 2015). Furthermore, the purchase of land could entail a major financial commitment and the application for a bank loan. In this regard, the presence of a young farmer or a successor could positively influence the time horizon of the investment and favour the pur- chase decision (Elhorst, 1993; Huber et al., 2015; Oskam et al., 2009; Oude Lansink et al., 2001). In addition to these factors, human capital also includes managerial skills that if not possessed by the farmer can be found in the external environment e.g. by turning to advisory and consultancy services (Boehlje, 1992). According to the literature, larger farms may have greater economic and financial capacities to access such services. The decision to invest in land is not only influenced by structural and socio-demographic characteristics of the farm, but also by exogenous factors such as the mac- roeconomic environment, land market regulations, and agricultural policies. The purchase of land represents an investment in a capital good that may require a major financial commit- ment. In this sense, the cost of capital and the financial position of the farmer could influence the decision and the level of investment. As the interest rate increases, the probability that the farmer is willing to invest and the level of investment decreases. Land is not only an important production asset of a farm but also a “safe- heaven” asset (Schimmenti et al., 2013), attracting the interest of non-farmers who decide to invest in it to protect the capital value from inflation. An increase in the inflation rate leads to an increase in the price of land and vice versa (Elhorst, 1993; Law- ley, 2021; Szymańska et al., 2021; Thijssen, 1996). Poli- cymakers can use land regulation as an instrument to defend the farmers’ position and mitigate potential spec- ulative force in farmland market. Each European Mem- ber State has full decision-making power over its own land regulation. In general, Western European countries have a more liberal land regulation than Eastern Euro- pean countries. Among the Western countries, Italy is one of the European countries with the most liberal land regulation (Swinnen et al., 2016). With the aim of facili- tating access to land for medium-sized farms with finan- cial means, many European countries have provided for the right of pre-emption to be exercised either by local governments, as in France, Germany and the Nether- lands, or by farmers, as in Italy (Galletto, 2018). In par- ticular, the Italian government introduced this instru- ment to reduce the fragmentation of Italian farms, to improve the consolidation of the Italian agricultural sec- tor and to facilitate the development of family farms. In Italy, Art. 8 Law n. 590/1965 and art. 7 Law n. 817/1971 establish that the Italian farmer may exercise the right of pre-emption of land if at least one of three cases occurs: a) he/she is the co-owner of the farm, b) he/she is a pro- fessional farmer who directly borders land for sale, c) if he/she has been renting the land for at least two years (Legge 590/1965; Legge 817/1971).The right of pre-emp- tion has also been extended to agricultural partnerships (as a rule, simple partnerships, and general partnerships) if at least half of the partners are “owner-operator farm- er”. Subsequently, between 2009 and 2016, the Italian State implemented tax concessions to improve the farm- er’s position. The law states that: a) the Italian farmer with a family farm does not have to pay income tax or land use tax; b) the Italian farmer is exempt from pay- ing income tax on the use of the land; c) in case of land purchase, when the buyer is a “owner-operator farmer” or professional agricultural entrepreneur, she/he will pay only 1% of the purchase price as tax, while any other buyer will pay 15%. In 2017, the European Parliament called on all Member States to review their land regu- lation in order to ensure fair access to land and to pre- vent it from being concentrated within a few large farms (European Parliament, 2017). In addition to preserving the farmer’s position, land regulation influences the capitalization of subsidies pro- vided by agricultural policies within the value of land and rental rates. Stringent land regulation on the land market and land rental market would reduce the capi- talisation of subsidies within the land price and rent. The literature presents both theoretical and empirical studies on whether and how much of the subsidies pro- vided through policies are capitalised within the land price value. From a theoretical study, in a perfect mar- ket, decoupled direct payments, coupled direct pay- ments, rural development programmes and environmen- tal payments could be capitalised within the land price. However, empirical studies suggest that capitalisation in a real land market is lower than theorised and depends on many factors such as subsidy type, land supply elas- ticity and farm credit constraints. In addition to influ- encing land value, subsidies can also influence a farmer’s investment decision and level of investment. Subsidies were introduced with the main objective of supporting the farmer’s income and represent a form of income not affected by production risks. Consequently, subsidies could positively influence the investment decision and level especially in the presence of an imperfect market. The identified factors are not independent but inter- act and influence each other (Zimmermann et al., 2009). 52 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. In the literature, four empirical studies concern- ing the farm size growth were identified that adopted a regression model with the farm size as the depend- ent variable (Akimowicz et al., 2013; Bremmer and Oude Lansink, 2002; Brenes-Muñoz et al., 2016; Weiss, 1999). In the literature related to investment decision, two empirical researches were identified that also con- sidered land as a form of investment (Elhorst, 1993; Oskam et al., 2009). In addition, Jeong et al. (2022) identified farm economic characteristics that could affect the decision to buy or lease land in Korea by adopting the machine learning algorithm “random for- est”. Finally, Ziemer and White (1981) attempted to bet- ter estimate farmland demand in Georgia between 1970 and 1978 by accounting for the process underlying the decision to purchase. Based on the literature review, factors endogenous and exogenous to the farm that may have an inf lu- ence have been identified and summarised in a concep- tual model shown in Figure 1. Similar to the studies on farm size growth (Zimmermann et al., 2009), we do not assume that the identified exogenous and endogenous factors are independent of each other, but that they interact and condition each other. 3. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1. Data and descriptive analysis The analysis was conducted on Italian FADN data of Italian farms observed between 2013 and 2020. The data represent an unbalanced panel data consisting of 84610 observations representing 24212 farms. On average, the same farm remains in the sample for about 3 to 4 years. For each farm, there is information on the structural characteristics of the farm, data on the farm’s balance sheet, and data on the socio-demographic characteristics of the farms. Of the 24212 farms in the sample, 919 made at least one investment in land during the period in question, of these 176 farms made more than one investment (Table 1). Around 90% of the sample is characterised by spe- cialised farms in cereals, arable crops, horticulture, fruit Economic environment Land market Policy: European agricultural policies and land regulation Purchase of Land Farmer’s socio- demographics characteristics Farm structural characteristics En do ge no us fa ct or s Exogenousfactors Figure 1. Conceptual model developed based on the literature review. 53Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 crops, olive growing, viticulture, dairy cattle, herbivores and granivores. The remaining 9.45% by non-special- ised farms, of which 9.4% are mixed crop and livestock farms. Thirty-two percent of the sample is specialised in annual crops, 29.9% are permanent crops and 27.8% livestock farms (Table 2). Thirty-nine percent of the land purchases were conducted by farms specialising in per- manent crops, followed by farms specialising in annual crops and livestock. In particular, 18% of the recorded transactions were conducted by farms specialising in fruit crops, 16.5% by vineyards, and 12% by farms spe- cialising in arable crops (Table 2). In terms of average UAA, specialised livestock farms are the largest, followed by annual crops and permanent crops. Among all specialisations, farms specialised in viticulture have the smallest average farm size followed by those specialised in fruit crops and horticulture. There is an important difference in farm size between horticultural farms and those specialised in other annu- al crops. Farms specialised in permanent crops have low- er “RENT/UAA” ratios than farms specialised in annual crops and livestock (Appendix 1). 3.2. Empirical Model Since the investment decision represents a discrete problem (Elhorst, 1993), to estimate the probability of par- ticipation decision we adopted a probit regression model. The empirical model implemented to conduct the quantitative analysis was developed based on the con- ceptual model in figure 1 and peculiarities of FADN data. In particular, the characteristics of our database did not allow us to conduct a dynamic analysis, which would be appropriate since investments in capital stock are not annual investments (Lefebvre et al., 2015) and generally do not occur at the same time as they are planned (Elhorst, 1993). The empirical probit model used is described by the following equation: Where: y*i is the binary dependent variable that assumes a value equal to 1 in the year in which the purchase occurs, 0 otherwise. εi is the composite error term. i represents the single observation, xki is the observed value of explanatory variables that described factors linked to farm characteristics, farmer Table 1 Descriptive analysis: Dimension of the unbalanced panel data. Full Sample Buyer % Number of observations 84610 1095 1.3 Number of farms 24212 919 3.8 Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the sample based on farm specialization. Specialization Sample % Total observation Buyers % Total observation N. Observations N. Observations No specialisation: 7997 9.45 91 8.3 Unclassifiable farms 11 0.013 0 0 Mixed crops and livestock farming 7986 9.4 91 8.3 Annual Crops 27796 32.9 312 28.5 Cereals 8812 10.4 102 9.3 Arable Crops 10292 12.2 133 12.15 Horticulture 8692 10.3 77 7.03 Permanent Crops 25305 29.9 432 39.45 Fruit Crops 10721 12.7 202 18.45 Olive growing 4034 4.8 47 4.3 Viticulture 10550 12.5 183 16.7 Livestock farms 23512 27.8 260 23.75 Dairy cattle 7339 8.7 102 9.3 Herbivores 12108 14.3 102 9.3 Granivores 4065 4.8 56 5.1 TOT 84610 100 1095 100 54 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. socio-demographic characteristics and exogenous vari- ables. The effect of xi on is represented by . and are respec- tively the intercept and the errors for i. The equation is estimated using the ‘glm’ function in Rstudio of the ‘stats’ package. The explanatory variables (Table 3) introduced in the probit model are listed and defined below. 3.2.1. Description of the explanatory variables and expected relation Utilized agricultural area It is unclear what effect the initial size of the farm may have on the growth of farm size and on the invest- ment decision. Given the nature and characteristic of the data of this variable, it was decided to introduce as an explanatory variable the “UAA SQ” which represents the squared value of the total initial UAA of the farm regardless of whether it is owned, leased, or free use. The use of the square variable is able to catch the non-linear effect of it. Assuming that farm size can also be a meas- ure of the farm’s ability to generate income (Oude Lan- sink et al. 2001), we expect this variable to have a posi- tive effect on the investment decision. Value added per hectares This variable was introduced as an explanatory vari- able representing the productivity of land. Through this variable, the aim is to understand whether the produc- tivity per hectare derived from the farm’s activity affects the growth of the farm size through purchase. Accord- ing to the literature, the farmer is encouraged to buy land when productivity is high (Ciaian et al., 2010). Therefore, it is assumed that, as productivity per hectare increases, the likelihood of the farmer investing in land increases. Value added per total work unit This explanatory variable represents the productivity of farm labour. It is defined as the ratio of value added to total work units. It is assumed that as productivity per labour unit increases, the probability of the farmer pur- chasing land also increases. Production Specialisation When not focusing on a single specialization (e.g., the dairy sector), the researchers introduced a categori- cal variable related to farm specialisation (e.g Akimo- wicz et al., 2013) in order to understand whether the type of farm could influence the farm growth or invest- ment decision. This is probably related to the fact that the type of assets needed by a farm varies according to their specialisation (Lefebvre et al., 2015). The data at our disposal include specialised and non-specialised farms. Specialisation is defined according to the techni- cal-economic orientation of the FADN database (FADN, 2018). In contrast to this original classification, in this model farms classified as “mixed crop and livestock” are included in the “non-specialised farms”. Specialised farms fall into 9 categories: Cereal crops, arable crops, horticulture, fruit crops, olive crops, viticulture, dairy cattle, herbivores and granivores. Therefore, the explana- tory variable was introduced into the model to account for the nine specialisation categories. “No specialisation” is used as the reference category since specialisation is one of the main drivers of the search for economies of scale and farm growth. Introducing this variable allows us to understand not only whether specialised farms invest more than non-specialised ones, but also whether the probability of buying land in Italy changes as spe- cialisation changes. Utilised agricultural area *Specialisation The necessary assets of a farm and the “optimal size” vary depending on the type of farming (Lefebvre et al., 2015; Plogmann et al., 2022). In order to test wheth- er the effect of farm size can vary according to the type of farming, it was decided to combine the two previous variables “UAAsq” and “Specialisation”., (Bremmer and Oude Lansink, 2002). Rent/Utilised agricultural area On the one hand, renting allows the farm more flex- ibility and the possibility to invest its liquidity in other productive assets (Swinnen et al., 2016). On the other hand, land managed as property allows the farmer to use it as collateral capital and thus to have greater access to credit (Swinnen et al., 2016). It was decided to introduce the ratio of the land managed under rent to the total uti- lised agricultural area of the farm as an inverse meas- ure of the amount of collateral available (Benjamin and Phimister, 2002; Lefebvre et al., 2015). However, expecta- tions on the direction of the effects of this variable are ambiguous. Machinery Plant Value Machinery and plant represent another form of col- lateral capital for a farm. It is assumed that high values of this variable correspond to a farm’s recent investment in such productive assets that vary proportionally to the farm area (Plogmann et al., 2022). Furthermore, there is a correlation between the intention to purchase land and investment in other farm assets (Lefebvre et al., 2015). 55Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Therefore, it is hypothesised that the farm is inclined to purchase with the aim of maximising the productive capacity of the asset in which it has previously invested. Common Agricultural Policy The Common Agricultural Policy has been identi- fied as an exogenous factor that can influence the land price, but also the decision and level of investment. Sub- sidies received and capital financing are not the same for every farm and for this reason it can be considered as an endogenous variable linked to structural characteristics of the farm. It was decided to introduce two continuous variables. the first, the ratio of income subsidies per hec- tare related to the first pillar of the Common Agricultur- al Policy and COM. The second, the value of the invest- ment subsidies received by the farm between 2013 and 2020 and connected to the measures of the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Pre-purchase Investment in land is a planned, long-term invest- ment (Elhorst, 1993; Oskam et al., 2009; Oude Lansink et al., 2001). The land market is thin and local, and it could be difficult for a farmer to find the amount of land he wants at one time. (Cotteleer et al., 2008; Elhorst, 1993). Therefore, it may happen that the farmer must make more than one purchase to reach the desired lev- el of investment. The dummy variable “Pre_Purchase” assumes a value equal to one when the purchasing farm has already made a purchase previously between 2011 and 2020. Diversification activities In the literature reviewed, researchers have not con- sidered the role that farm-related activities can have on farm growth and the investment decision. The related activities that can be stimulated by RDP measures allow for a diversification of the farm activity and represent a different form of income for the agricultural firm. Three dummy variables were introduced for three agricultural related activities: agrotourism, energy production and contracting. It is expected that conducting agricultural related activities increases the probability that the pur- chase will occur. Family work units Family labour can be considered as a fixed input of production within the farm (Elhorst, 1993) and Elhorst’s research showed that as family labour input increases, investment increases. Weiss (1999) and Oude Lansink et al. (2001) showed that the number of family members affects farm growth and the investment decision. The variable FWU/TWU was introduced into the model as a measure of how much the business depends on family labour. It is hypothesised that family farms have a great- er interest in investing in the farm and farm growth and thus, as this ratio increases, the probability that the farm invests in land increases. Age of farmer and successor The age of the farmer and the presence of the suc- cessor can affect the growth of the farm and the invest- ment decision. Since there may be several farmers and potential successors with different ages on the same farm, it was decided to create four dummy variables related to the holder and his/her age, and one related to the pres- ence of the successor. In particular, four age ranges were identified to which dummy variables corresponded. Each dummy variable relating to the holder takes the value of one if there are no successors for that observation and if the holder or all the holders fall within the range defined by the dummy variable. If the observation corresponds to more than one holder falling in different age groups, all variables related to the holders will have value zero. The variable relating to the presence of a successor will take a value of 1 if there is at least one potential successor between the ages of 1 year and 40 years. A successor was the one who was classified within the dataset as the ‘son’ or ‘grandson’ of the farmer. Off-farm income In the literature, it is unclear whether the earning of an off-farm income can be a prelude to leaving the sec- tor or represents a form of income that allows the farm to survive better and not leave the sector (Lefebvre et al., 2015; Plogmann et al., 2022). Based on the avail- able data, a dummy variable was created which takes the value of 1 if the farmer or a member of his or her fam- ily who is employed part-time or full-time on the farm earns an off-farm income >2000 euros. 3.2.2. Exogenous factors As mentioned before, land is considered an asset that can be used as collateral and a safe investment option. The model introduces two external factors: inflation rate and interest rate. It is assumed that when inflation rates rise, the likelihood of purchasing land also increases. However, buying land may require a significant invest- ment that the farm may need to finance through a bank loan. As interest rates go up, the probability of making such an investment decrease. The inflation rate values, Consumer Price Index-CPI, are obtained from the ISTAT website every December of the reference year, while the 56 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. interest rate is determined by the average annual yield of Italian BTPs (Multi-year Treasury Bonds), which can be found on the website of the Italian Treasury Ministry. 3.2.3. Descriptive analysis of explanatory variables Table 4 shows the descriptive analysis of the vari- ables included in the model, in particular each variable has two values: one for all farms and one for “buyers” (farms investing in land during the reference period). The average initial area of the sample is 33.7 ha, which increases by about 5 ha if only buyers are taken into account. The value related to value added per hectare (VA/ha) exhibits significant variations among the farms. Nevertheless, these differences decrease considerably when only the buyers are considered. Furthermore, the average value of the variable “VA/ha” is lower for the buyers, whereas the median value for buyers is higher than the value within the entire sample. The average val- ue of machinery and plant of the farms that invested in land is more than twice as high as the sample average. Table 3 Definition of the explanatory variables and expected effects on the decision to buy land. Variables Specification Type of variable Expected effect Farm structural characteristics UAAsq Utilised Agricultural Area square Continuous + Production specialisation Agricultural specialisations considered are: cereals, arable crops, horticulture, fruit crops, olive growing, viticulture, dairy cattle, herbivores, granivores. Categorical; Non-specialised farms as reference + VA/ha Ratio between Value added (excluding Income subsidies and COM subsidies) and UAA Continuous + VA/ TWU Ratio between Value Added and total work units Continuous + UAASQ *Production Specialisation   Continuous*categorical; non- specialised farms as reference + VA/ha*Specialisation Continuous*categorical; Non-Specialised farms as reference + VA/TWU*Specialisation Continuous*categorical; Non-Specialised farms as reference + RENT/UAA The ratio of the rented UAA to the UAA Continuous +/- Machinery_ Plant value Value of Machinery+ equipment + plant; It represents a proxy variable for level of innovation on farms Continuous + Income subsidies/ha Aid per hectare provided by First Pillar and COM Continuous + Investment subsidy Investment aid (Second Pillar) Continuous + Energy Production Farm produces renewable energy Dummy + Subcontracting activities Farm carries subcontracting activities Dummy + Agrotourism Farm carries out agrotourism activities Dummy + Pre_purchase Purchases made between 2010-2020 Dummy + FWU/TWU Ratio of family work units to total work units Continuous + Farmer sociodemographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 The farm manager is between 18 and 39 years old Dummy + FARMER_40_49 The farm manager is between 40 and 49 years old Dummy + FARMER_50_59 The farm manager is between 50 and 59 years old Dummy - FARMER_OVER60 The farm manager is aged 60 old or older Dummy - SUCC_1_39 There is a potential successor aged between 1 and 39 on the farm Dummy + OFFFARM_INCOME Farmer with non-agricultural income >2,000 euro; Children/ grandchildren, father-in-law, parent, wife employed part-time or regularly with non-agricultural income >2000 euro Dummy + Exogenous variables INTEREST RATE Interest rate recorded for each year on the Ministry of the Treasury website Continuous + INFLATION_ RATE Inflation rate taken for each year from the ISTAT website Continuous - 57Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 There are also important differences in both the median value and the standard deviation. For the ratio of rented area to total farm area and of family labour units to total farm hours, there are no important differences between the farms that purchase and the entire sample. It should be noted that the purchasing farms have on average lower FWU/TWU than the sample farms. The sample farms received, on average, a higher subsidy/hectare and capital financing than the buying farms. Analysing the value of the median and standard deviation of the vari- Table 4. Description of the variables and expected effects. Variable Min Mean Median Standard Deviation Max Farm structural characteristics UAA 0.01 33.72 15.1 57.7 1754 UAA_BUYER 0.23 37.73 19.54 62.17 909.75 UAAsq 0 4467.1 227.9 32704.46 3076516.0 UAAsq_BUYER 0.1 5286 381.8 35908.68 827645 VA/ha -209342 7121 2108 32496.66 3792972 VA/ha_BUYER -2711 6345 3027 10541.81 117597 VA/TWU -838045 35197 25057 38215.14 1069950 VA/TWU_BUYER -18615 43418 32776 43381.17 468484 Machinery and Plant Value -1628809 34683 6310 114923.9 5450764 Machineryand Plant Value_BUYER 0 79280 30239 210057.8 4900435 Rent/UAA 0 0.38 0.19 0.41 1 Rent/UAA_BUYER 0 0.3446 0.1954 0.3785 1 Income Subsidies/ha 0 260.1 373.8 1071.23 121033.9 Income Subsidies/ha_Buyer 0 386.4 273.6 510.5 6408 Investment subsidy 0 583.9 0 6.866.118 639170 Capital Account_Buyer 0 2008 0 15679 435000 Energy production 0 0.3679 0 0.18816 1 Energy production_ Buyer 0 0.075 0 0.264 1 Subcontracting activities 0 0.03543 0 0.1848 1 Subcontracting activities_buyer 0 0.064 0 0.246 1 Agroturism 0 0.04306 0 0.20298 1 Agroturism_ buyer 0 0.05 0 0.218 1 Pre_Purchase 0 0.0026 0 0.051 1 Pre_Purchase_Buyer 0 0.2 0 0.4 1 FWU/TWU 0 0.837 1 0.25 1 FWU/TWU_Buyer 0.017 0.75 0.92 0.29 1 Farmer sociodemographic characteristics 18≤FARMER≤39 0 0.14 0 0.35 1 18≤FARMER≤39_ Buyer 0 0.17 0 0.38 1 40≤FARMER≤49 0 0.21 0 0.41 1 40≤FARMER≤49_ Buyer 0 0.25 0 0.43 1 50≤FARMER≤59 0 0.23 0 0.42 1 50≤FARMER≤59_ Buyer 0 0.22 0 0.41 1 FARMER>60 0 0.28 0 0.45 1 FARMER>60_Buyer 0 0.16 0 0.37 1 1≤SUCCESSOR≤39 0 0.09 0 0.29 1 1≤SUCCESSOR≤39_ Buyer 0 0.13 0 0.34 1 OFF_FARM INCOME 0 0.16 0 0.36 1 OFF_FARM INCOME_Buyer 0 0.24 0 0.43 1 Exogenous factors Inflation rate -0.20 0.45 0.5 0.42 1.1 Interest rate 1.14 1.86 1.81 0.77 3.6 58 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. able for subsidies/ha related to the first pillar, the farms received a higher subsidy and a greater dispersion of val- ues around the mean. For the period taken into account, there are no important differences in the variables relat- ed to the exogenous context. 3.4.2. Empirical models To the best of our knowledge, there is no research of this type in the literature. Therefore, it was decided to run five probit regression models to better understand how different factors might influence the land invest- ment decision: – Model 1: the model considers all the variables described above and summarised in Table 5 except for the variables “VA/ha” and “VA/TWU”. Thus, the mod- el only considers the “UAAsq” as the farm size variable. – Model 2: Same as previous model, but the variable “UAAsq” also interacts with specialisation (“UAAsq* Specialisation”). – Model 3: to model 1, the two variables farm produc- tivity per ha (VA/ha) and farm productivity per total work unit (VA/TWU) were included. – Model4: same as model 3 adding an interaction between the variable “Specialization” and the two variables “UAAsq” and “VA/ha” (“UUAsq* Speciali- sation”, and “VA/ha*Specialisation”). – Model 5: same as model 3 but the “UAAsq”, “VA/ha” and VA/TWU variables interact with the specialisa- tion variable. 4. RESULTS 4.1. Correlation analysis and VIF analysis To verify that there is no relationship among the independent variables, a Pearson correlation analysis and Variance Inflation factors (VIF) were conducted. The results (Appendix 2) show that the indices between the independent variables are far from the threshold val- ues. Thus, it can be ruled out that there is multicollin- earity between the variables considered in the empirical model developed. 4.2. Probit regression models The five implemented models (Tables 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) explain between 19 and 20% of the land investment decision of the observed farms between 2013 and 2020. Even adding the two variables “VA/ha” and “VA/TWU” and the interaction of the variable “Specialisation” with “UAAsq”, “VA/ ha”, and “VA/TWU” did not improve the model. As the intercept value also shows, there are other factors that were not considered that influenced the pur- chase decision. In addition to the value of Pseudo R2 not varying, the sign of the independent variables also never changes in the different models implemented. This indi- cates a good level of robustness of the model. From the analysis and comparison of the five imple- mented probit regression models, it is evident that the variables that influenced the land investment decision are: the ratio of the rented utilised agricultural area to the utilised agricultural area (RENT/UAA), the ratio of family work units to total work (FWU/TWU), value of machinery and plant (Mechanization_ plant value), pro- duction of renewable energy (Energy production) and “Subcontracting activities”, the age of the farmer, the presence of a successor, “Off farm income”, and the two exogenous variables respectively inflation rate and inter- est rate. These variables are statistically significant in all implemented models despite introducing a new variable and the interaction between variables that differentiate model 1 from the other four models. The results of the five models show that, contrary to what was hypothesized, firm size and land productivity negatively influence the probability of purchasing land, while confirming the positive effect of the variable related to labour productivity. Among these three variables, the variable UAAsq, although it appears to be less statistically significant, it is the one whose effect remains consistent and stable within the five models despite the introduction of the interaction with the specialisation variable (model 2, model 4 and model 5). In this regard, model 2, model 4 and model 5 show that when the farm specialises in per- manent crops such as fruit crops and viticulture, and in the production of horticulture, and herbivore livestock, the initial farm size positively influences the land pur- chase decision. Unlike farm size, the effects of land pro- ductivity (VA/ha) and labour productivity (VA/TWU) are lost when these two variables interact with the categorical variable relating to the type of farming (model 3, 4 and 5). Specifically, model 4 and 5 show that productivity per hectare increases the probability of buying land when the farm specialises in fruit crops (p<0.05). In contrast to land productivity, labour productivity not only loses its signifi- cance when interacting with the specialisation variable but also does not seem to influence the investment deci- sion in any of the specialisation considered. Regarding the specialization variable, the results are inconclusive. The impact of the few specialization categories that appear to influence the probability of purchase is neither stable nor consistent across the five 59Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 models. Specialization affects, not always positively, the dependent variable when considering farms specialized in fruit crops, viticulture, and horticulture. For the lat- ter category, specialization has a negative impact on land acquisition. Models 1 and 3 show that farms specializing in permanent crops are more likely to purchase land. The effect of these specialisations changes when the vari- ables land productivity (VA/ha) and labour productivity (VA/TWU) and the interaction between these two vari- ables and specialisation are introduced into the model. The farm is not inclined to purchase as the ratio of rented area to UAA (RENT/UAA) and the ratio of FWU to TWU (FWU/TWU) increases. In all models analysed, these variables are statistically significant (p<0.001) and negatively influence the probability of buying land. Consistent with the hypothesis, the variable relating to the value of machinery and plant positively affects the probability of purchase. Of the three agricultural-related activities considered, subcontracting activity (p<0.000) and energy production (p<0.5) are statistically signifi- Table 5. Probit regression results based on the Model 1 specification. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   (Intercept) -2.02925 0.104478 -19.4227 4.96E-84 *** Farm structural characteristics UAASq -1.2E-06 7.1E-07 -1.72448 0.084622 . No specialisation Cereals 0.050576 0.061861 0.817562 0.413607 Arable Crops 0.055266 0.05832 0.947622 0.343322 Horticulture -0.13114 0.065892 -1.99019 0.04657 * Fruit Crops 0.127162 0.055627 2.285978 0.022256 * Olive growing -0.01181 0.074624 -0.15824 0.87427 Viticulture 0.124953 0.055829 2.238162 0.025211 * Dairy cattle 0.039657 0.062406 0.635463 0.525127 Herbivores -0.04975 0.05958 -0.835 0.403718 Granivores 0.014759 0.074215 0.198868 0.842366 RENT/UAA -0.1214 0.033698 -3.60269 0.000315 *** FWU/TWU -0.33055 0.049356 -6.69724 2.12E-11 *** Machinary_ Plant Value 3.19E-07 7.02E-08 4.539024 5.65E-06 *** Subsidies UE/SAU` 1.9E-06 1.06E-05 0.179035 0.85791 Capital Account 1.74E-06 1.09E-06 1.585145 0.112933 Energy production 0.145373 0.05958 2.439938 0.01469 * Subcontracting activities 0.211659 0.058079 3.644351 0.000268 *** Agrotourism -0.03798 0.061303 -0.61953 0.53557 Pre_PURCHASE 7.473506 24.51225 0.304889 0.760451 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 0.223549 0.080916 2.762715 0.005732 ** FARMER_40_49 0.176139 0.078891 2.23268 0.02557 * FARMER_50_59 0.102417 0.079003 1.296358 0.194852 FARMER_OVER60 -0.04849 0.079899 -0.60692 0.543907 SUCC_1_39 0.210418 0.082712 2.543965 0.01096 * OFF_FARM INCOME 0.116554 0.032475 3.58899 0.000332 *** Exogenous factors Inflation rate 0.102711 0.031766 3.233331 0.001224 ** Interest rate -0.12116 0.020088 -6.03132 1.63E-09 *** N. observations 84610 N. farms 24212 Pseudo R2 0.1969 AIC       9449.1   Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. 60 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. Table 6. Probit regression results based on the Model 2 specification. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   (Intercept) -1.97278 0.106974 -18.4418 6.07E-76 *** Farm structural characteristics UAASq -1.8E-05 1.01E-05 -1.76454 0.077641 . No specialisation *ref. Cereals 0.014812 0.065264 0.226955 0.820458 Arable Crops 0.035546 0.061341 0.579489 0.562259 Horticulture -0.17526 0.068388 -2.56278 0.010384 * Fruit Crops 0.080197 0.058392 1.373422 0.169621 Olive growing -0.01889 0.079616 -0.2372 0.812499 Viticulture 0.081881 0.058412 1.401778 0.160982 Dairy cattle 0.016336 0.066267 0.246521 0.805279 Herbivores -0.09526 0.062141 -1.53296 0.125286 Granivores 0.009716 0.078393 0.123935 0.901367 UAAsq*No specialisation *ref. UAAsq*Cereals 1.63E-05 1.02E-05 1.591816 0.111426 UAA sq*Arable Crops 1.2E-05 1.05E-05 1.144364 0.252473 UAA sq*Horticulture 1.8E-05 1.02E-05 1.76043 0.078335 . UAA sq*Fruit Crops 2.21E-05 1.06E-05 2.090571 0.036567 * UAA sq*Olive growing -2.8E-05 4.34E-05 -0.64604 0.518253 UAA sq*Viticulture 2.01E-05 1.05E-05 1.913096 0.055736 . UAA sq*Dairy cattle 1.36E-05 1.05E-05 1.304731 0.191985 UAA sq*Herbivores 1.72E-05 1.01E-05 1.705913 0.088024 . UAA sq*Granivores -1.1E-06 1.61E-05 -0.06829 0.945555 RENT/UAA -0.11873 0.033778 -3.51498 0.00044 *** FWU/TWU -0.34668 0.050258 -6.8979 5.28E-12 *** Machinary_ Plant Value 3.59E-07 7.3E-08 4.916479 8.81E-07 *** Subsidies EU/SAU` 1.19E-06 1.1E-05 0.107778 0.914172 Capital Account 1.66E-06 1.1E-06 1.50566 0.132155 Energy production 0.154468 0.059736 2.58584 0.009714 ** Subcontracting activities 0.217539 0.058278 3.732783 0.000189 *** Agrotourism -0.04088 0.061488 -0.66492 0.506102 Pre_PURCHASE 12.8663 40.68004 0.316281 0.75179 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 0.21479 0.081078 2.64919 0.008068 ** FARMER_40_49 0.17053 0.079045 2.157388 0.030975 * FARMER_50_59 0.09462 0.079167 1.195197 0.23201 FARMER_OVER60 -0.05634 0.080087 -0.70349 0.481748 SUCC_1_39 0.20331 0.082879 2.453102 0.014163 * OFF_FARM INCOME 0.116426 0.032544 3.577474 0.000347 *** Exogenous factors Inflation rate 0.103918 0.031817 3.266172 0.00109 ** Interest rate -0.12202 0.020131 -6.06119 1.35E-09 *** N. observations 84610 N. farms 24212 Pseudo R2 9446.3 AIC       0.1986   Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. 61Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 cant in all models and positively influence the probabil- ity of the farmer investing in the farmland. All five mod- els show that carrying out agro-tourism activities does not influence the farmer’s decision to invest in land. Sub- contracting activity and value in machinery and plant are the two variables related to farm characteristics that are most statistically significant (p<0.001) and positively influence the decision to purchase land. From the analyses carried out, the two variables relat- ed to agricultural policy subsidies do not seem to influ- ence the decision to invest in land. In all other models the two variables have no effect on the dependent variable. Regarding the sociodemographic variables, the pres- ence of the successor aged between 1 and 39 years posi- tively influences the purchase decision in all the models implemented. The age of the farmer/holder also seems to Table 7. Probit regression results based on the Model 3 specification. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   (Intercept) -2.045 0.105 -19.397 8.18E-84 *** Farm structural characteristics UAASq -1.5E-06 7.7E-07 -2.00308 0.0451687 * AV/ha -1.6E-06 9.46E-07 -1.7294 0.08373801 . AV/TWU 8.63E-07 3.3E-07 2.616924 0.0088726 ** No specialisation *ref. Cereals 0.037215 0.062066 0.599605 0.54876961 Arable Crops 0.050264 0.058365 0.861204 0.38912569 Horticulture -0.10695 0.067537 -1.5835 0.11330853 Fruit Crops 0.128527 0.055697 2.307599 0.02102146 * Olive growing -0.01248 0.074735 -0.16703 0.86734686 Viticulture 0.122659 0.056015 2.189751 0.02854231 * Dairy cattle 0.025609 0.062677 0.408584 0.68284533 Herbivores -0.05549 0.05965 -0.93024 0.35224614 Granivores 0.001192 0.076438 0.015592 0.9875601 RENT/UAA -0.12716 0.033848 -3.75693 0.00017201 *** FWU/TWU -0.33126 0.049916 -6.63638 3.2148E-11 *** Machinary_ Plant Value 2.8E-07 7.26E-08 3.856252 0.00011514 *** Subsidies UE/SAU` 2.34E-06 1.18E-05 0.197617 0.84334507 Capital Account 1.77E-06 1.09E-06 1.620226 0.10518384 Energy production 0.135872 0.059832 2.270884 0.023154 * Subcontracting activities 0.207201 0.058176 3.561636 0.00036855 *** Agrotourism -0.03057 0.061388 -0.49806 0.6184439 Pre_PURCHASE 7.463387 24.52 0.30438 0.76083871 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 0.223439 0.080945 2.760367 0.00577364 * FARMER_40_49 0.173963 0.078917 2.204384 0.02749733 * FARMER_50_59 0.100882 0.079033 1.27645 0.20179632 FARMER_OVER60 -0.04797 0.079945 -0.60002 0.54849104 SUCC_1_39 0.212866 0.082742 2.572654 0.01009221 * OFF_FARM INCOME 0.120334 0.03258 3.693551 0.00022114 *** Exogenous factors Inflation rate 0.101524 0.031788 3.193758 0.00140434 ** Interest rate -0.11983 0.02009 -5.96484 2.4488E-09 *** N. observations N. farms Pseudo R2 0.197 AIC   9444.2       Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. 62 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. Table 8. Probit regression results based on the Model 4 specification. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   (Intercept) -1.99374 0.108933 -18.3024 7.92E-75 *** Farm structural characteristics UAASq -1.9E-05 1.04E-05 -1.85328 0.063842 . AV/ha -7.1E-07 2.63E-06 -0.2676 0.789008 AV/TWU 1E-06 3.51E-07 2.855578 0.004296 ** No specialisation *ref. Cereals 0.072043 0.083218 0.865717 0.386645 Arable Crops 0.055166 0.066467 0.829975 0.406553 Horticulture -0.10531 0.077387 -1.36083 0.173566 Fruit Crops 0.007115 0.065407 0.108785 0.913373 Olive growing 0.068962 0.10743 0.641925 0.520922 Viticulture 0.056009 0.063879 0.876809 0.380591 Dairy cattle 0.000847 0.077215 0.010964 0.991252 Herbivores -0.08485 0.065411 -1.29714 0.194583 Granivores 0.007139 0.086704 0.082343 0.934374 UAAsq*No specialisation *ref. UAAsq*Cereals 1.75E-05 1.06E-05 1.649353 0.099075 . UAA sq*Arable Crops 1.24E-05 1.1E-05 1.134469 0.256598 UAA sq*Horticulture 1.9E-05 1.07E-05 1.76849 0.076979 . UAA sq*Fruit Crops 2.42E-05 1.09E-05 2.223406 0.026188 * UAA sq*Olive growing -3.5E-05 4.61E-05 -0.75006 0.453221 UAA sq*Viticulture 2.14E-05 1.09E-05 1.967757 0.049096 * UAA sq*Dairy cattle 1.5E-05 1.08E-05 1.39341 0.163496 UAA sq*Herbivores 1.86E-05 1.04E-05 1.781584 0.074817 . UAA sq*Granivores -5.2E-06 1.74E-05 -0.29753 0.76606 VA/ha*No specialisation *ref. VA/ha*Cereals -7.3E-05 5.29E-05 -1.38756 0.165271 VA/ha*Arable Crops -1E-05 8.97E-06 -1.12181 0.261942 VA/ha*Horticulture -3.7E-06 3.45E-06 -1.08411 0.278315 VA/ha*Fruit Crops 8.52E-06 4.23E-06 2.01371 0.04404 * VA/ha*Olive growing -3.4E-05 2.67E-05 -1.26886 0.204491 VA/ha*Viticulture 2.22E-06 3.93E-06 0.564954 0.572105 VA/ha*Dairy cattle -1.6E-06 8.2E-06 -0.19265 0.847235 VA/ha*Herbivores -1.1E-05 9.75E-06 -1.13936 0.254554 VA/ha*Granivores -1.2E-06 3.17E-06 -0.36899 0.712137 RENT/UAA -0.12428 0.034028 -3.65222 0.00026 *** FWU/TWU -0.3474 0.051617 -6.73025 1.69E-11 *** Machinary_ Plant Value 3.04E-07 7.6E-08 4.001466 6.3E-05 *** Subsidies UE/SAU` 1.85E-05 1.72E-05 1.07629 0.281797 Capital Account 1.66E-06 1.11E-06 1.500508 0.133483 Energy production 0.147989 0.06 2.46649 0.013644 * Subcontracting activities 0.214248 0.058618 3.654989 0.000257 *** Agrotourism -0.04545 0.062279 -0.72979 0.465517 Pre_PURCHASE 13.97034 39.52004 0.3535 0.723714 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 0.211627 0.081357 2.601209 0.00929 ** FARMER_40_49 0.166384 0.079334 2.097254 0.035971 * FARMER_50_59 0.090013 0.079462 1.132779 0.257307 (Continued) 63Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 affect the investment decision. The results from the five models suggest that, in general, being between 18 and 50 years old has a positive effect on the decision to buy land. This probability is even higher if the farmer is aged 18-40. As was hypothesised, the variable on the percep- tion of off-farm income has a positive influence on the purchase decision and is one of the most statistically sig- nificant variables (p<0.001). Consistent with the hypothesis, the variables relat- ing to the external macroeconomic environment, i.e., the inf lation and interest rates, inf luence the invest- ment decision in opposite direction. As the inflation rate increases, the probability of investment decision increas- es. As the interest rate increases, the probability that the farmer will invest in land decreases. 5. DISCUSSION In comparison to the few empirical studies on the growth of farm size and investment decision includ- ing land, this research is conducted on the entire FADN dataset collected at the national level. The analyses are not based on a sample of farms specialising in one type of farming and/or located in a specific and limited geo- graphical area. Our data are characterised by 90% obser- vations of farms specialising in 9 different productions and differing in farm and socio-demographic character- istics. This heterogeneity of the analysed sample is due to intrinsic characteristics of the Italian agricultural sec- tor. The average surface area of the farms in the sam- ple is about 30 ha above the average UAA recorded in the last ISTAT 2010-2020 census (ISTAT, 2022). This is because the FADN sample is stratified and selects com- panies with a Standard Output above 8,000 Euro. In any case, the FADN data maintain a certain degree of rep- resentativeness of the agricultural sector and represent a useful resource in terms of the amount of data collected in Europe (Centre for European Policy Studies, 2008; Ciaian et al., 2010). Out of the total observations, only 1095 (1.29%) invested in land between 2013 and 2020. The high num- ber of zero-observations can be attributed to the specific characteristics of the land factor and of the land mar- ket, as it is unlikely that farms invest in capital goods every year (Elhorst, 1993; Nilsen and Schiantarelli, 2003; Oskam et al., 2009). The high number of zero-observa- tions and the complexity of ignoring the heterogeneity effect are some of the reasons why quantitative research using micro-data in the investment decision-making process is challenging (Elhorst, 1993). In the empirical studies on the farm size growth and the investment decision, the role of utilised agri- cultural area is unclear. The five models do not allow to clarify, but to better understand the role of this variable. The initial farm size influences the investment decision negatively but has a different effect depending on farm specialisation. This had already partly emerged in the study conducted by Bremmer and Oude Lansink (2002), which found that UAA had a positive influence on the size growth of arable crops farms and a negative influ- ence on the growth of farms specialized in protected hor- ticulture. In this research, the positive effect of the vari- able “UAA SQ” in the case of farms specialising in fruit crops, viticulture and horticulture can be linked to two different considerations. The first one is linked to charac- teristics of the FADN data. The mean and median value for permanent crops and horticulture farms is lower than for other crops. This could confirm the hypothesis that when a farm is very large it does not tend to invest in the land input (Lefebvre et al., 2015). The second one is relat- ed to the intrinsic characteristics of the type of farming. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   FARMER_OVER60 -0.05757 0.08041 -0.71592 0.474042 SUCC_1_39 0.197505 0.083187 2.374226 0.017586 * OFF_FARM INCOME 0.116606 0.03276 3.559429 0.000372 *** Exogenous factors Inflation rate 0.102362 0.031866 3.212269 0.001317 ** Interest rate -0.12011 0.020178 -5.95262 2.64E-09 *** N. observations 84610 N. farms 24121 Pseudo R2 0.2 AIC       9440   Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. Table 8. (Continued). 64 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. Table 9. Probit regression results based on the Model 5 specification. Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   (Intercept) -1.99498 0.115489 -17.2742 7.36E-67 *** Farm structural characteristics UAASq -2E-05 1.11E-05 -1.81586 0.069391 . VA/ha -7.9E-07 2.86E-06 -0.27699 0.781788 VA/TWU 1.32E-06 1.65E-06 0.799903 0.423767 No specialisation Cereals 0.07122 0.092882 0.766783 0.443211 Arable Crops 0.09771 0.082926 1.178278 0.238686 Horticulture -0.13821 0.097122 -1.42309 0.15471 Fruit Crops 0.023628 0.081487 0.28996 0.771847 Olive growing 0.051554 0.121524 0.424233 0.671396 Viticulture 0.057211 0.077299 0.740133 0.459219 Dairy cattle 0.082709 0.093701 0.88269 0.377404 Herbivores -0.07159 0.080316 -0.89129 0.372772 Granivores -0.03472 0.103522 -0.33543 0.737302 UAAsq*No specialisation UAAsq*Cereals 1.78E-05 1.13E-05 1.576344 0.114946 UAA sq*Arable Crops 1.49E-05 1.16E-05 1.281408 0.200051 UAA sq*Horticulture 1.92E-05 1.16E-05 1.644969 0.099976 . UAA sq*Fruit Crops 2.51E-05 1.15E-05 2.170636 0.029959 * UAA sq*Olive growing -4.5E-05 5.18E-05 -0.86149 0.388966 UAA sq*Viticulture 2.2E-05 1.15E-05 1.912193 0.055851 . UAA sq*Dairy cattle 1.7E-05 1.14E-05 1.488127 0.136717 UAA sq*Herbivores 1.94E-05 1.11E-05 1.747083 0.080623 . UAA sq*Granivores -1.1E-05 1.95E-05 -0.56654 0.571024 VA/ha*No specialisation VA/ha*Cereals -8.6E-05 5.8E-05 -1.48766 0.136839 VA/ha*Arable Crops -8E-06 8.82E-06 -0.9121 0.361714 VA/ha*Horticulture -3.7E-06 3.63E-06 -1.02881 0.303568 VA/ha*Fruit Crops 9.08E-06 4.61E-06 1.968187 0.049047 * VA/ha*Olive growing -4.3E-05 3.07E-05 -1.41899 0.155902 VA/ha*Viticulture 1.76E-06 4.38E-06 0.401473 0.688072 VA/ha*Dairy cattle 6.37E-06 8.45E-06 0.753606 0.451086 VA/ha*Herbivores -1.1E-05 1.02E-05 -1.0554 0.291243 VA/ha*Granivores -1.8E-06 3.54E-06 -0.50791 0.611519 AV/TWU*No specialisation AV/TWU*Cereals 2.36E-07 2.02E-06 0.116892 0.906946 AV/TWU*Arable Crops -1.7E-06 2.09E-06 -0.81922 0.412663 AV/TWU*Horticulture 7.66E-07 2.04E-06 0.375434 0.707337 AV/TWU*Fruit Crops -7.4E-07 2.09E-06 -0.35518 0.722453 AV/TWU*Olive growing 2.06E-06 3.96E-06 0.519424 0.603465 AV/TWU*Viticulture -5.5E-08 1.86E-06 -0.02988 0.976165 AV/TWU*Dairy cattle -2.7E-06 2.1E-06 -1.29293 0.196035 AV/TWU*Herbivores -5.1E-07 1.9E-06 -0.27174 0.785824 AV/TWU*Granivores 5.28E-07 1.79E-06 0.295245 0.767807 RENT/UAA -0.12308 0.034091 -3.6102 0.000306 *** FWU/TWU -0.35157 0.051736 -6.79551 1.08E-11 *** Machinary_ Plant Value 3.23E-07 7.85E-08 4.112943 3.91E-05 *** (Continued) 65Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Unlike annual crops, farms producing permanent crops may prefer to establish new orchards on their own land. Obviously, permanent crops require a higher investment cost and return on investment time than annual crops. This could explain why farmers specializing in peren- nial crops might have an incentive to buy land because it grants them a property right that cannot be guaranteed by the rental contract. This aspect could be particularly relevant in a country like Italy where the law allows leas- es of less than 15 years. This consideration could explain the positive effect exerted by land productivity in the case of companies specialized in fruit crops. With regard to the effect of specialisation, the results showed that specialisation per se does not affect the probability of land purchase of the farms in the sample, contrary to what was assumed on the basis on the theo- retical literature. The introduction of interactions of this categorical variable with the variables UAA, VA/ha, and VA/TWU has allowed for a better understanding of the behaviour of these factors. The results of the interactions suggest that the effect of firm size, initiation, and farm productivity may vary according to the specialization. Consequently, specialisation plays an important and cru- cial role in understanding and differentiating the effect of other factors on the probability of land investment. This would confirm what has emerged from the theo- retical literature, namely that the factors that can deter- mine farm growth are not independent but interact with each other. The effect of specialisation on farm growth and size had already emerged in the research conducted by Akimowicz et al. (2013) according to which speciali- sation influenced farm size, changes in farm size and growth intensity in the Midi-Pyrenees region between 2000 and 2007. Although theoretically it would be desirable for a farm to have a balance between owned and rented land, as the ratio of rented to total area (RENT/UAA) increases, the likelihood of farms increasing their share of owned land decreases. This result could be a confir- mation of the findings of the last census of the Italian agricultural sector according to which the amount of land managed under lease has increased and this form of management is also becoming established in Italy (ISTAT, 2022). The descriptive analysis of the data in Annex 1 shows that the farms in the sample specialised in permanent crops have far lower “RENT/UAA” ratios than those specialised in annual crops and livestock farming. Understanding whether isolating this variable would have a different effect depending on the speciali- sations would be interesting. The results for the value of capital of machinery and plant confirm what the Bremmer et al. (2002), Lefebvre Variable Estimate Std.error Statistic p. value   Subsidies UE/SAU` 1.88E-05 1.72E-05 1.093637 0.274114 Capital Account 1.7E-06 1.11E-06 1.532366 0.125432 Energy production 0.147376 0.060086 2.452755 0.014177 * Subcontracting activities 0.213639 0.058772 3.635061 0.000278 *** Agrotourism -0.04862 0.062315 -0.78028 0.435227 Pre_PURCHASE 15.53225 38.49138 0.403525 0.686562 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 0.209433 0.081497 2.569824 0.010175 * FARMER_40_49 0.163576 0.079486 2.057915 0.039598 ** FARMER_50_59 0.088748 0.079589 1.115078 0.264817 FARMER_OVER60 -0.05863 0.080534 -0.72797 0.46663 SUCC_1_39 0.194356 0.083337 2.332157 0.019692 * OFF_FARM INCOME 0.113544 0.032812 3.460433 0.000539 *** Exogenous factors Inflation rate 0.102934 0.031912 3.225551 0.001257 ** Interest rate -0.12062 0.020214 -5.96728 2.41E-09 *** N. observations 84610 N. farms 24612 Pseudo R2 0.2 AIC       9450   Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1. Table 9. (Continued). 66 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. et al.(2015), and Jeong et al. (2022) research had already found. The former had shown how the degree of mecha- nisation influenced farm growth for arable crops and horticulture in the Netherlands. Lefebvre et al. (2015)’s study of farmers’ investment intentions in six Europe- an countries had shown that farmers are most likely to invest in one asset class after they have already invested in another. The correlation between the intention to invest in two types of assets was also shown between land and the purchase of machinery and machinery replacement. Furthermore, research by Jeong et al. (2022) had shown that the value of inventory and fixed assets were positively related to land acquisition. To the best of our knowledge, no research in the literature has included variables related to agricultural policies and activities in models to explain farm growth or land investment. The results on subsidies and fund- ing related to European Agricultural Policies do not confirm the hypothesis that agricultural policies can directly influence the decision to invest in land. Rather, subsidies could be seen as a useful tool for the farmer to manage periods of market fluctuations rather than as a form of income to make a long-term investment. The RDP measures do not directly finance land purchases, but they encompass financing for investments in tan- gible farm assets, innovation, and farm diversification. The correlation analysis allows us to exclude the pres- ence of a relationship between “Capital account” and the value of machinery, and of these two variables with the dummy variable relating to subcontracting and energy production. The results for the latter two variables and the forms of income derived from off-farm income lead to the conclusion that the investment in a capital good is supported by forms of income derived from a diversifica- tion of the activities carried out by the farmer. The results confirm the conclusions of previous research on the positive effect of the presence of a succes- sor and a young farmer. Indeed, in line with the hypothesis, the presence of a young farmer or a farmer under 50 years of age positively influences the probability of purchase. This is probably due to the fact that the age of the holder has an impact on the time horizon of the investment. The results for the introduced exogenous variables confirm the hypothesis. The macroeconomic context influences the investment decision. The inflation rate was not included in the empirical literature analysed on farm size growth and investment decision, while the results regarding the cost of capital confirm what has already found by Elhorst (1993) and Oskam et al. (2009). It is worth noting that there were no significant changes in interest rates and inflation rates during the considered period. It would be necessary and useful to observe farms over a longer period to fully understand the impact of exogenous factors related to the macroeconomic context, such as those that have occurred in the last two years. The models explain 19% of the land investment decision, suggesting that there are other factors not con- sidered that influence the decision to purchase land. The relative Pseudo R2 value is lower than that of other stud- ies on structural change but more in line with studies on investment decision. As in other research (i.e. (Aki- mowicz et al., 2013), the available data and their quality have influenced the choice of explanatory variables and the type of analysis. It was not possible to conduct the analysis on balanced panel data and include explanatory variables related to the financial position of the farm, its local area, and national and municipal land regula- tion. Investments in capital goods could represent a sig- nificant investment that may even require a bank loan. These are rational decisions that the farmer makes after analysis of the internal and external business contest. Therefore, in order to study and understand this type of investment it would be appropriate to carry out the anal- ysis on farms observed over a long period of time. When testing and implementing the model, we attempted to include the regional variable as a categorical variable. However, this variable reduced the statistical significance of other explanatory variables related to farm struc- ture. The regional variable already contains information related to other variables such as specialisation, UAA, and RENT/UAA. This is because the Italian territory is highly heterogeneous regarding territorial structure, pro- duction, and farm management. For this reason, it was preferred not to include it. Furthermore, the land mar- ket is thin and local, and the absence of precise geoloca- tion data for farms prevented the consideration of other external factors. Farmers tend to buy land near their activity to reduce and avoid downtime (Cotteleer et al., 2008). In this regard, the introduction of variables relat- ed to the right of pre-emption could be useful in under- standing the Italian land market, given that such right is provided for within Italian legislation. Finally, in addition to data availability, the lack of literature has influenced the design of the theoretical framework for developing the conceptual model and the interpretation and discussion of the results. 6. CONCLUSIONS This research represents a first attempt at an ex-post study using microdata to identify the factors that have influenced the land investment decision in Italy by intro- ducing variables related to structural and socio-demo- 67Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 graphic characteristics, economic performances, agri- culture policies and the macroeconomic environment. The results showed that more than subsidies provided by agricultural policies, income-generating activities from other on-farm and off-farm activities positively influence land investment. In addition, specialisation appears to be an important factor not so much in the purchase deci- sion, but in understanding and differentiating the effect of other farm structural factors on the likelihood of land investment. The variables RENT/UAA and Family Work units/Total Work Units are the main farm characteris- tics that negatively influence the probability of purchas- ing land in Italy. As expected, the presence and age of the successor have been confirmed as important socio- demographic characteristics for growth through acquisi- tion. The research shows that the interest rate and infla- tion rate influence the probability of buying land. The five implemented models explain approximately 20% of the land investment decisions of the analysed farms. Therefore, other factors and the interaction between fac- tors can influence farmers’ decisions. The lack of a well-structured database condi- tioned and limited this research as well as the empirical research analysed in the literature on farm size growth and land investment decisions. In particular, probit analysis on a balanced panel of farms observed over a long period of time was not possible with the avail- able database. Investment in land is much less frequent than other types of investment. It is made following a farmer’s consideration of available farm assets, his/her own financial resources, the supply of land on the local land market, and macro-economic factors (i.e. interest rate and inflation rate). For this reason, the analysis of a balanced panel of farms observed for a long time could allow a more accurate analysis of the effect of determi- nants on the decision to purchase land. In addition, the database influenced the identification and selection of variables that could best capture the determinants that may influence the farmer’s decision and prevented the introduction of variables related to e.g. the financial situ- ation of the farm and land regulation. In the future, the problem of the structured data- base could be solved by linking the databases available to different Italian institutions. The availability of a well- structured database could be useful to capture and con- tinuously monitor the dynamics and changes within the land market and in farm management. The growth and spread of rented land and the entry into the agricultural sector of young farmers willing to purchase land could require the updating and adaptation of current land pol- icies and regulations that directly and indirectly influ- ence farm management choices and could provide tools, including financial ones, to effectively support genera- tional turnover within the sector by facilitating access to land and avoiding the loss of agricultural land. REFERENCES Akimowicz, M., M. B. Magrini, A. Ridier, J. E. Bergez, and D. Requier-Desjardins. 2013. ‘What Influences Farm Size Growth? An Illustration in Southwestern France’. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 35(2): 242–269. Baldoni, Edoardo, and Pavel Ciaian. 2023. ‘The Capi- talization of CAP Subsidies into Land Prices in the EU’. Land Use Policy 134: 106900. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106900. Benjamin, Catherine, and Euan Phimister. 2002. ‘Does Capital Market Structure Affect Farm Invest- ment? A Comparison Using French and British Farm‐Level Panel Data’. American Journal of Agri- cultural Economics 84(4): 1115–1129. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8276.00372. Binswanger, H., K. Deininger, and G. Feder. 1995. ‘Agri- cultural Land Relations in the Developing World’. 75(5): 1242–1248. Boehlje, Michael. 1992. ‘Alternative Models of Struc- tural Change in Agriculture and Related Indus- tries’. Agribusiness 8(3): 219–231. https://doi. org /10.1002/1520-6297(199205)8:3<219:: AID- AGR2720080303>3.0.CO;2-T. Bradfield, Tracy, Robert Butler, Emma J. Dillon, Thia Hennessy, and Jason Loughrey. 2023. ‘Attachment to Land and Its Downfalls: Can Policy Encourage Land Mobility?’ Journal of Rural Studies 97: 192–201. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.014. Bremmer, J., and Alfons Oude Lansink. 2002. ‘Analysis of Farm Development in Dutch Agriculture and Horti- culture’. Wageningen. Brenes-Muñoz, T., S. Lakner, and B. Brümmer. 2016. ‘What Influences the Growth of Organic Farms? Evidence from a Panel of Organic Farms in Germany’. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 65(1): 1–15. Centre for European Policy Studies, Johan. 2008. Study on the Functioning of Land Markets in the EU Mem- ber States under the Influence of Measures Applied under the Common Agri. Ciaian, Pavel, D’Artis Kancs, and Johan F. M. Swinnen. 2010. EU Land Markets and the Common Agricultur- al Policy. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Stud- ies. Cotteleer, G., C. Gardebroek, and J. Luijt. 2008. ‘Market Power in a GIS-Based Hedonic Price Model of Local https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106900 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106900 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00372 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8276.00372 https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199205)8:3<219::AID-AGR2720080303>3.0.CO;2-T https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199205)8:3<219::AID-AGR2720080303>3.0.CO;2-T https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6297(199205)8:3<219::AID-AGR2720080303>3.0.CO;2-T https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2022.12.014 68 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. Farmland Markets’. Land Economics 84(4): 573–592. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.4.573. Czyzewski, B., G. Przekota, and A. Poczta-Wajda. 2017. ‘The Incidence of Agricultural Policy on the Land Market in Poland: Two-Dimensional and Multilevel Analysis’. Land Use Policy 63: 174–185. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.016. De Noni, Ivan, Alessandro Ghidoni, Friederike Menzel, Enno Bahrs, and Stefano Corsi. 2019. ‘Exploring Drivers of Farmland Value and Growth in Italy and Germany at Regional Level’. Aestimum 74: 77-99. htt- ps://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-7381. Elhorst, J. Paul. 1993. ‘The Estimation of Investment Equations at the Farm Level’. European Review of Agricultural Economics 20(2): 167–182. https://doi. org/10.1093/erae/20.2.167. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. 2021. Agricultural Land Market Regulations in the EU Member States. LU: Publications Office. European Parliament. 2017. State of Play of Farmland Concentration in the EU: How to Facilitate the Access to Land for Farmers. FADN (2018). Farm Accounting Data Network. An A to Z of methodology. Version 02/07/2018 14:46:12. Available on https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/ pdf/site_en.pdf Galletto, L. 2018. ‘The Pre-Emption Right in Italian Agri- culture: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Direct Farm- er-Neighbouring Owner’s Case’. Land Use Policy 72: 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.026. Goddard, Ellen, Alfons Weersink, Kevin Chen, and Calum G. Turvey. 1993. ‘Economics of Struc- tural Change in Agriculture’. Canadian Jour- nal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie 41(4): 475–489. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1993.tb03772.x. Hallam, Arne. 1991. ‘Economies of Size and Scale in Agriculture: An Interpretive Review of Empirical Measurement’. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 13(1): 155–172. https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.2307/1349565. Harrington, D. H., and R. D. Reinsel. 1995. ‘A Synthesis of Forces Driving Structural Change’. Canadian Jour- nal of Agricultural Economics 43(Special Issue): 3–14. Huber, R., C. Flury, and R. Finger. 2015. ‘Factors Affect- ing Farm Growth Intentions of Family Farms in Mountain Regions: Empirical Evidence for Central Switzerland’. Land Use Policy 47: 188–197. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.006. ISTAT. 2022. 7° Censimento generale dell’agricoltura: pri- mi risultati- meno aziende agricole (ma più grandi) e nuove forme di gestione dei terreni. Jeong, Hoyeon, Youngjune Kim, and So Yeong Lim. 2022. ‘A Predictive Model for Farmland Purchase/Rent Using Random Forests’. 63(3): 153–168. https://doi. org/doi.org/10.24997/KJAE.2022.63.3.153. Key, Nigel. 2020. ‘Off-Farm Income, Credit Constraints, and Farm Investment’. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 52(4): 642–663. https://doi. org/10.1017/aae.2020.25. Latruffe, L., and C. Le Mouël. 2009. ‘Capitalization of Government Support in Agricultural Land Prices: What Do We Know?’ Journal of Economic Surveys 23(4): 659–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- 6419.2009.00575.x. Lawley, C. 2021. ‘COVID-19 and Canadian Farmland Markets in 2020’. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics 69(2): 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/ cjag.12283. Lefebvre, M., S. Gomez y Paloma, and Davide Viaggi. 2015. ‘EU Farmers’ Intentions to Invest in 2014-2020: Complementarity between Asset Classes’. Legge 590/1965- Disposizioni per lo sviluppo della propri- età coltivatrice. Legge 817/1971- Disposizioni per il rifinanziamento delle provvidenze per lo sviluppo della proprietà coltivatrice. Michalek, J., P. Ciaian, and D. Kancs. 2014. ‘Capitaliza- tion of the Single Payment Scheme into Land Value: Generalized Propensity Score Evidence from the European Union’. Land Economics 90(2): 260–289. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.2.260. Neuenfeldt, Sebastian, Alexander Gocht, Thomas Heck- elei, and Pavel Ciaian. 2019. ‘Explaining Farm Structural Change in the European Agriculture: A Novel Analytical Framework’. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46(5): 713–768. https://doi. org/10.1093/erae/jby037. Nilsen, Øivind Anti, and Fabio Schiantarelli. 2003. ‘Zeros and Lumps in Investment: Empirical Evidence on Irreversibilities and Nonconvexities’. Review of Eco- nomics and Statistics 85(4): 1021–1037. https://doi. org/10.1162/003465303772815907. Oskam, Arie J., Natalia V. Goncharova, and Jos A. A. M. Verstegen. 2009. ‘The Decision to Invest and the Investment Level: An Application to Dutch Glass- house Horticulture Firms’. 2009 Conference, Beijing, China, August 16-22, 2009. Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M., J. A. A. M. Verstegen, and J. J. Van Den Hengel. 2001. ‘Investment Decision Making in Dutch Greenhouse Horticulture’. NJAS: Wagenin- gen Journal of Life Sciences 49(4): 357–368. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(01)80023-3. Plogmann, Jana, Oliver Mußhoff, Martin Odening, and Matthias Ritter. 2022. ‘Farm Growth and Land Con- https://doi.org/10.3368/le.84.4.573 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.01.016 https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-7381 https://doi.org/10.13128/aestim-7381 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/20.2.167 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/20.2.167 https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/site_en.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rica/pdf/site_en.pdf https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.026 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1993.tb03772.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1993.tb03772.x https://doi.org/https http://doi.org/10.2307/1349565 http://doi.org/10.2307/1349565 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.006 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.24997/KJAE.2022.63.3.153 https://doi.org/doi.org/10.24997/KJAE.2022.63.3.153 https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2020.25 https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2020.25 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00575.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2009.00575.x https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12283 https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12283 https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.2.260 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby037 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jby037 https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815907 https://doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815907 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(01)80023-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1573-5214(01)80023-3 69Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 centration’. Land Use Policy 115: 106036. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106036. Schimmenti, Emanuele, Antonio Asciuto, and Santo Mandanici. 2013. ‘Andamento dei valori fondiari in Italia ed in Sicilia’. Andamento dei valori fondiari in Italia ed in Sicilia, June, 63. Swinnen, Johan, Kristine Van Herck, and Liesbet Vrank- en. 2016. ‘The Diversity of Land Markets and Regu- lations in Europe, and (Some of ) Its Causes’. The Journal of Development Studies 52(2): 186–205. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1060318. Szymańska, Elżbieta Jadwiga, Mariusz Dziwulski, and Michał Kruszyński. 2021. ‘Determinants of Fixed Asset Investment in the Polish Farms’. Sustainability 13(24): 13741. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413741. Thijssen, Geert. 1996. ‘Farmers’ Investment Behav- ior: An Empirical Assessment of Two Specifica- tions of Expectations’. American Journal of Agri- cultural Economics 78(1): 166–174. https://doi. org/10.2307/1243788. Varacca, Alessandro, Giovanni Guastella, Stefano Pareg- lio, and Paolo Sckokai. 2022. ‘A Meta-Analysis of the Capitalisation of CAP Direct Payments into Land Prices’. European Review of Agricultural Econom- ics 49(2): 359–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/ jbab014. Weiss, C. R. 1999. ‘Farm Growth and Survival: Econo- metric Evidence for Individual Farms in Upper Aus- tria’. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 81(1): 103–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/1244454. Yanore, Lotte, Jaap Sok, and Alfons Oude Lansink. 2024. ‘Farmers’ Perceptions of Obstacles to Business Development’. EuroChoices 23(1): 56–62. https://doi. org/10.1111/1746-692X.12420. Ziemer, Rod F., and Fred C. White. 1981. ‘A Tobit Model of the Demand for Farmland’. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 13(2): 105–109. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0081305200027345. Zimmermann, A., T. Heckelei, and I. P. Domínguez. 2009. ‘Modelling Farm Structural Change for Inte- grated Ex-Ante Assessment: Review of Methods and Determinants’. Environmental Science and Pol- icy 12(5): 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envs- ci.2009.01.014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106036 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106036 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1060318 https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2015.1060318 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413741 https://doi.org/10.2307/1243788 https://doi.org/10.2307/1243788 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab014 https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab014 https://doi.org/10.2307/1244454 https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12420 https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12420 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0081305200027345 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0081305200027345 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.014 70 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. AP PE N D IX Ap pe nd ix 1 . D es cr ip tiv e an al ys is of sa m pl e fa rm si ze b as ed o n fa rm sp ec ia liz at io n Sp ec ia lis at io n M in VA /U L M ea n VA / T W U M ed ia n VA / T W U sd VA / T W U M ax VA / T W U U A A RE N T/ VA /h a U A A RE N T/ VA /h a U A A RE N T/ VA /h a U A A RE N T/ VA /h a U A A RE N T/ VA /h a U A A U A A U A A U A A U A A N o Sp ec ia lis ed 0. 01 0 -9 96 4. 8 -2 32 58 9 32 .3 3 0. 38 40 14 .3 26 43 7 15 .7 7 0. 21 13 40 .7 19 54 7 51 .3 9 0. 41 29 37 6. 48 26 15 5. 84 92 0. 1 1 14 86 98 0 57 49 22 An nu al c ro ps 0. 06 0 -7 17 23 -1 53 30 6 36 .1 7 0. 41 93 80 34 72 4 18 0. 28 13 70 24 76 7 60 .2 3 0. 42 35 04 2. 68 36 54 2. 29 17 54 1 13 95 76 4 10 69 95 0 C er ea ls 0. 06 0 -1 32 50 -1 53 30 6 51 .5 1 0. 4 10 39 .6 38 69 4 30 0. 26 86 7. 9 26 34 8 67 .6 0. 41 15 42 39 84 8 12 79 1 10 39 21 .6 50 99 52 Ar ab le c ro ps 0. 29 0 -2 03 31 -1 11 45 3 39 .3 0. 44 27 19 .2 32 45 3 21 .3 5 0. 41 10 83 .4 23 38 3 64 .7 0. 42 58 77 .1 38 00 0 17 54 1 12 08 28 .1 10 69 95 0 H or tic ul tu re 0. 07 0 -7 17 23 -1 07 22 7 16 .9 0. 38 25 72 1 33 38 8 4. 5 0. 15 92 82 25 16 2 37 .2 9 0. 42 59 10 8 30 44 7 11 01 .7 5 1 13 95 76 4 61 75 58 Pe rm an en t c ro ps 0. 2 0 -3 50 24 -9 61 16 14 .7 3 0. 27 60 33 29 86 4 7. 81 0 39 28 23 01 1 25 .1 3 0. 39 78 20 .8 1 27 84 5 52 6. 87 1 24 89 60 72 87 67 Fr ui t c ro ps 0. 2 0 -5 49 7 -2 92 42 14 .0 3 0. 26 65 14 29 66 6 7. 53 0 44 72 23 41 1 24 .5 0. 38 71 82 .5 24 81 0 41 3 1 71 82 .5 41 69 12 O liv e cr op s 0. 85 0 -3 14 8 -2 34 01 18 .8 6 0. 26 29 03 23 26 5 10 .5 5 0 21 99 19 40 9 28 .4 3 0. 39 29 53 .2 18 16 7 39 4 1 67 75 8 20 57 70 Vi tic ul tu re 0. 3 0 -3 50 24 -9 61 16 13 .8 5 0. 28 67 41 32 58 9 7. 14 0 41 85 24 34 8 24 .2 5 0. 39 92 99 32 92 4 52 6. 87 1 24 89 60 72 87 67 Li ve sto ck se ct or 0. 05 0 -2 09 34 2 -8 38 04 5 51 .7 4 0. 46 66 80 44 47 5 28 0. 44 17 27 31 11 3 73 .4 5 0. 41 44 48 0 49 66 6 16 87 .5 4 1 37 92 97 2 86 30 36 D ai ry c at tle 0. 2 0 -9 22 2 -1 64 89 1 49 .1 3 0. 48 42 92 48 73 6 27 0. 49 29 17 37 91 4 65 .6 6 0. 4 51 19 42 16 3 77 0 1 90 03 9 79 66 55 H er bi vo re s 0. 1 0 -5 28 96 -2 34 75 1 61 .1 5 0. 47 23 47 .2 33 06 6 36 .2 6 0. 44 85 3. 1 24 23 7 83 .4 3 0. 41 12 45 0 36 86 7 16 87 1 40 30 98 58 79 29 G ra ni vo re s 0. 05 0 -2 09 34 2 -8 38 04 5 28 .4 3 0. 44 23 89 8 70 76 8 13 .1 9 0. 37 74 39 52 38 8 43 .2 7 0. 42 10 28 30 76 80 4 51 4. 55 1 37 92 97 2 86 30 36 71Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Ap pe nd ix 2 A na ly sis o f r ela tio ns hi ps a m on g in de pe nd en t v ar ia bl es Ta bl e A1 . R es ul ts o f P ea rs on c or re la tio n an al ys is (P ar t 1 ). Va ria bl e U A AS q VA /h a VA /T W U Sp ec ia liz at io n RE N T/ U A A FW U /T W U M ac hi ne ry _ Pl an t V al ue Su bs id ie s U E/ SA U ` C ap ita l Ac co un t En er gy pr od uc tio n Su bc on tr ac tin g ac tiv iti es Ag ro to ur ism Pr e_ PU RC H AS E Fa rm st ru ct ur al ch ar ac te ri sti cs U A AS q 1 -0 .0 23 0. 16 7 0. 02 3 0. 04 8 -0 .1 40 0. 20 6 0. 00 0 0. 02 0 0. 04 3 0. 02 7 0. 02 7 0. 00 7 VA /h a -0 .0 23 1 0. 12 3 0. 02 8 -0 .0 16 -0 .1 20 0. 01 5 0. 06 8 0. 00 8 0. 01 9 -0 .0 10 0. 01 4 -0 .0 01 VA /T W U 0. 16 7 0. 12 3 1 0. 11 9 0. 10 8 -0 .1 52 0. 27 2 0. 10 5 0. 03 8 0. 15 1 0. 04 5 0. 00 4 0. 02 3 Sp ec ia liz at io n 0. 02 3 0. 02 8 0. 11 9 1 0. 02 9 -0 .0 28 0. 03 7 -0 .0 04 0. 02 7 0. 05 5 -0 .0 69 0. 00 3 -0 .0 03 RE N T/ U A A 0. 04 8 -0 .0 16 0. 10 8 0. 02 9 1 0. 02 3 0. 04 5 0. 01 7 0. 02 5 0. 04 7 0. 06 5 -0 .0 07 -0 .0 05 FW U /T W U -0 .1 40 -0 .1 20 -0 .1 52 -0 .0 28 0. 02 3 1 -0 .1 84 -0 .0 55 -0 .0 64 -0 .0 76 -0 .0 01 -0 .0 60 -0 .0 24 M ac hi na ry _ Pl an t V al ue 0. 20 6 0. 01 5 0. 27 2 0. 03 7 0. 04 5 -0 .1 84 1 0. 04 4 0. 12 1 0. 28 1 0. 08 3 0. 03 7 0. 04 1 Su bs id ie s U E/ SA U ` 0. 00 0 0. 06 8 0. 10 5 -0 .0 04 0. 01 7 -0 .0 55 0. 04 4 1 0. 02 9 0. 01 5 -0 .0 04 -0 .0 15 0. 00 0 C ap ita l A cc ou nt 0. 02 0 0. 00 8 0. 03 8 0. 02 7 0. 02 5 -0 .0 64 0. 12 1 0. 02 9 1 0. 05 8 0. 00 8 0. 01 7 0. 03 0 En er gy p ro du ct io n 0. 04 3 0. 01 9 0. 15 1 0. 05 5 0. 04 7 -0 .0 76 0. 28 1 0. 01 5 0. 05 8 1 0. 06 0 0. 07 1 0. 01 8 Su bc on tr ac tin g ac tiv iti es 0. 02 7 -0 .0 10 0. 04 5 -0 .0 69 0. 06 5 -0 .0 01 0. 08 3 -0 .0 04 0. 00 8 0. 06 0 1 0. 00 0. 01 Ag ro to ur ism 0. 02 7 0. 01 4 0. 00 4 0. 00 3 -0 .0 07 -0 .0 60 0. 03 7 -0 .0 15 0. 01 7 0. 07 1 -0 .0 04 1 0. 00 3 Pr e_ PU RC H AS E 0. 00 7 -0 .0 01 0. 02 3 -0 .0 03 -0 .0 05 -0 .0 24 0. 04 1 0. 00 0 0. 03 0 0. 01 8 0. 01 0 0. 00 3 1 Fa rm so ci o- de m og ra ph ic ch ar ac te ri sti cs FA RM ER _1 8_ 39 2E -0 5 -0 .0 10 0. 00 4 0. 04 2 0. 16 8 0. 00 0 0. 03 3 -0 .0 01 0. 03 8 0. 00 1 0. 00 8 0. 02 1 0. 00 5 FA RM ER _4 04 9 4E -0 3 0. 01 4 0. 04 6 0. 04 0 0. 09 9 -0 .0 42 0. 02 0 -0 .0 03 0. 01 3 0. 01 1 0. 01 9 0. 01 3 0. 00 9 FA RM ER _5 05 9 -6 E- 03 0. 00 4 0. 01 5 -0 .0 06 -0 .0 08 -0 .0 17 -0 .0 14 -0 .0 04 -0 .0 17 0. 00 2 0. 00 7 -0 .0 13 -0 .0 02 FA RM ER _O VE R6 0 -2 E- 02 -0 .0 19 -0 .0 83 -0 .1 13 -0 .1 83 0. 02 6 -0 .0 85 -0 .0 08 -0 .0 37 -0 .0 49 -0 .0 53 -0 .0 49 -0 .0 20 SU C C _1 _3 9 2E -0 2 0. 01 2 0. 02 3 0. 07 0 -0 .0 25 0. 03 3 0. 06 4 0. 00 2 0. 01 7 0. 04 6 0. 02 3 0. 04 7 0. 01 2 O FF _F AR M IN C O M E -3 E- 03 -0 .0 18 -0 .0 64 -0 .0 15 -0 .0 73 -0 .0 16 0. 00 5 -0 .0 18 -0 .0 03 0. 00 1 0. 00 2 0. 03 7 0. 01 9 Ex og en ou s f ac to rs In fla tio n ra te 5E -0 3 0. 00 11 51 0. 00 8 0. 00 1 -0 .0 03 0. 00 6 -0 .0 01 -0 .0 27 -0 .0 08 -0 .0 01 -0 .0 01 -0 .0 03 -0 .0 03 In te re st ra te 6E -0 3 0. 00 87 41 -0 .0 15 0. 00 1 -0 .0 32 -0 .0 04 -0 .0 01 -0 .0 11 0. 01 7 -0 .0 20 -0 .0 13 -0 .0 16 -0 .0 16 72 Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Silvia Russo et al. Table A1. Results of Pearson correlation analysis (Part 2). Variable FARMER_ 18_39 FARMER_ 4049 FARMER_ 5059 FARMER_ OVER60 SUCC_1_39 OFF_FARM INCOME Inflation rate Interest rate Farm structural characteristics UAASq 0.000 0.004 -0.006 -0.015 0.022 -0.003 0.005 0.006 VA/ha -0.010 0.014 0.004 -0.019 0.012 -0.018 0.001 0.009 VA/TWU 0.004 0.046 0.015 -0.083 0.023 -0.064 0.008 -0.015 Specialization 0.042 0.040 -0.006 -0.113 0.070 -0.015 0.001 0.001 RENT/UAA 0.168 0.099 -0.008 -0.183 -0.025 -0.073 -0.003 -0.032 FWU/TWU 0.000 -0.042 -0.017 0.026 0.033 -0.016 0.006 -0.004 Machinery_ Plant Value 0.033 0.020 -0.014 -0.085 0.064 0.005 -0.001 -0.001 Subsidies UE/SAU` -0.001 -0.003 -0.004 -0.008 0.002 -0.018 -0.027 -0.011 Capital Account 0.038 0.013 -0.017 -0.037 0.017 -0.003 -0.008 0.017 Energy production 0.001 0.011 0.002 -0.049 0.046 0.001 -0.001 -0.020 Subcontracting activities 0.01 0.02 0.01 -0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.01 Agrotourism 0.021 0.013 -0.013 -0.049 0.047 0.037 -0.003 -0.016 Pre_PURCHASE 0.005 0.009 -0.002 -0.020 0.012 0.019 -0.003 -0.016 Farm socio-demographic characteristics FARMER_18_39 1 -0.211 -0.222 -0.256 -0.134 -0.003 -0.010 0.005 FARMER_4049 -0.211 1 -0.283 -0.325 -0.170 0.021 0.002 0.014 FARMER_5059 -0.222 -0.283 1 -0.342 -0.179 0.019 0.002 -0.014 FARMER_OVER60 -0.256 -0.325 -0.342 1 -0.206 -0.119 0.001 -0.004 SUCC_1_39 -0.134 -0.170 -0.179 -0.206 1 0.103 0.006 -0.006 OFF_FARM INCOME -0.003 0.021 0.019 -0.119 0.103 1 -0.005 -0.014 Exogenous factors Inflation rate -0.010 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.006 -0.005 1 0.326 Interest rate 0.005 0.014 -0.014 -0.004 -0.006 -0.014 0.326 1 73Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Bio-based and Applied Economics 14(1): 49-73, 2025 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-15548 Table A2. Results of Variance Inflation factors (VIF). Variable GVIF Df GVIF^(1/ (2*Df )) UAASq 1.307725 1 1.143558 VA/ha 1.225749 1 1.107136 VA/TWU 1.327513 1 1.152178 Specialization 1.593554 9 1.026225 RENT/UAA 1.120124 1 1.058359 FWU/TWU 1.224457 1 1.106552 Machinary_ Plant Value 1.420266 1 1.191749 Subsidies EU/SAU` 1.053369 1 1.026337 Capital Account 1.027879 1 1.013844 Energy production 1.172852 1 1.082983 Subcontracting activities 1.038119 1 1.018881 Agrotourism 1.02539 1 1.012615 Pre_PURCHASE 1 1 1 FARMER_18_39 5.514689 1 2.348338 FARMER_4049 6.76246 1 2.600473 FARMER_5059 6.554576 1 2.560191 FARMER_OVER60 6.17286 1 2.484524 SUCC_1_39 4.445275 1 2.108382 OFF_FARM INCOME 1.056985 1 1.028098 Inflation rate 1.11444 1 1.05567 Interest rate 1.117942 1 1.057328 Building sustainable futures: the bio-based fertilizer case-study Carla Abitabile, Andrea Arzeni*, Federica Cisilino, Matteo Orlando Is there an Animal Food Kuznets Curve, and does it matter? Vito Frontuto1,*, Tommaso Felici2, Vania Andreoli3, Marco Maria Bagliani1,#, Alessandro Corsi1 Do agroholdings cope better with the agency problem? Empirical evidence from corporate farms in Russia Alisher Tleubayev1,*, Yerzhan Syzdykov2 Farm characteristics and exogenous factors influencing the choice to buy land in Italy Silvia Russo1,*, Meri Raggi2, Barbara Bimbati3, Andrea Povellato3, Davide Viaggi1 Soils and ecosystem services: policy narratives and instruments for soil health in the EU Greta Winkler1,*, Luciano Pagano2, Daniele Vergamini2, Fabio Bartolini1