3.1.1. Perceived threats.

Respondents perceived negative climate (50 mentions), soil (32), and economic impacts (11) of drainage-based agriculture as key threats, influencing their decisions to adopt paludiculture. Most respondents associated drainage practices with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the consequences of which farmers felt in their daily work: “I’ve noticed throughout my entire production time […] how summers have become drier and drier, and winters have become wetter and wetter. And when it rained, it rained so much that the water hardly went away, that I actually drowned on my land in general”, said one farmer (F11, 50 y.).

Other respondents emphasized a need for change and the importance of peatland farming in climate protection: “In order to be able to cultivate these plants here at all, the peatlands had to be drained. But this has now turned out to have the negative side effect that we have massive carbon dioxide emissions from the peatlands. And so, we have to make sure that we get the peatlands wet” (F12, 60 y.).

Soil subsidence was perceived as another major problem linked to artificial drainage. Our respondents observed that their arable land shrank over time, resulting in a loss of value. They also noted that current management practices were incompatible with such changing site conditions in the long term. As one respondent put it: “Some areas only have 50 to 60 centimeters of peat [...] and we have peatland degradation of up to 2 centimeters per year. [...] That means, in 25 years it will be gone. And it starts even before, when the vegetation disappears. So that means that in 20 years we’ll have nothing left here” (F1, 38 y.).

Soil degradation was also considered a major driver of a declining economic viability of farm operations. Respondents reported that yield losses and a decrease in product quality put their livelihoods at risk. One interviewee explained: “[...] if I continue to cultivate, I will have economic viability, but the loss of [soil] height that I will suffer and the difficulties that I will face in the deeper soil layers for cultivation and for myself or the next generations, that is not foreseeable at all” (F11, 50 y.).

3.1.2. Cues to action.

External cues to action, perceived as leading to change in respondents’ management practices, were actor networks (28 mentions), historical legacies, and background (19), as well as sectoral subsidies and extension programs (9). One of the main network-related cues to actions farmers reported was their exchange with research institutions, and the scientific monitoring they offered, which promoted the implementation of paludiculture: “We managed to do paludiculture, but only because the University of Greifswald took it on as a research project” (F11, 50 y.). Nature conservation stakeholders also supported and promoted the implementation of paludiculture, as did private exchanges between colleagues and acquaintances.

Among the historical legacies, shaping the current development of peatland agriculture, interviewees’ family and personal connections to their farms and to the peatland and its cultivation stood out: “If you ask the people here in the village, they’ll tell you that you’re a bit crazy. But actually, you are closely connected to the work of your ancestors” (F13, 42 y.).

In other farms, the fundamental conditions for paludiculture were already in place as a legacy of the regions’ political and economic past, favoring the adoption of paludiculture: For example, one interviewee said: “We have some areas that were old GDR (German Democratic Republic, 1949-1990) seed cultivation areas, and reed canary grass was actually cultivated on some of our areas in the GDR era. And that is why we are of course predestined and favored and privileged in some areas, that we have already had a paludiculture there” (F1, 38 y.).

Lastly, the agricultural sector and regional development policies along with support programs were mentioned to have aided and incentives the adoption of paludiculture. For example, ‘Ökokonto’ is a planning and management instrument used in environmental conservation in Germany to preemptively offset future environmental impacts caused by land development or construction projects.

3.2.1. Perceived benefits.

Perceived benefits from implementing paludiculture surfaced mainly related to environmental (48 mentions), economic (38), and resource efficiency (optimizing the use of natural resources) (28), as well as to future generation (11) and sociocultural benefits (11). In particular, the positive effects for flora and fauna were described. One interviewee stated: “But when you see what happens when you wet peatlands, how quickly animals are back, how quickly sundew grows, that’s amazing.” (F12, 60 y.). The ability of peatlands to store carbon and thus the importance of intact peatlands for climate protection, microclimate, and water balance were also often associated with paludiculture.

Moreover, the diverse possibilities for utilizing paludiculture products were viewed positively. Some of the respondents saw a market potential, as one interviewee expressed: “I think it’s a huge economic opportunity. It’s a chance to produce climate-neutral substrates and garden soils. [...]. And it’s an opportunity to produce climate-neutral and even climate-positive building and insulation materials on the fens.” (F15, 31 y.).

At the same time, many farmers felt they were reaching the limits of their ability to cultivate peatlands due to soil degradation. Rewetting and paludiculture offered them opportunities to restore their soils and optimize resource management. Moreover, product quality was considered a special feature of paludiculture: „I realized that the roofs that were covered here on site with the reed that grew here also lasted much longer“ (F3, 59 y.).

Sustainable land use was important to the respondents to ensure healthy and fertile land for future generations. Some wanted to positively shape the future of their children. For instance, one farmer commented: “That’s really the point, that we want to keep the water here so that my children can still live here in 20 or 30 years and say: Dad, you did everything right” (F13, 42 y.).

Sociocultural benefits were also described. For instance, the importance of wet peatlands for recreation and as cherished aesthetic landscapes: „This wet moor [...] is of course a highlight just to look at. It’s almost like being on holiday when you walk through it in spring and everything slowly turns green again, when there’s chirping everywhere, and something scurries through the bushes or across the meadow. That’s something completely different for your peace of mind than when you look at the dry ground and think, oh my goodness, what’s being released [greenhouse gases]“ (F44 y.). Paludiculture, particularly for the cultivation of reed, was also described as a cultural heritage that should be preserved.

3.2.2. Perceived barriers.

The conversion of drained peatlands to paludiculture, along with daily practices on rewetted peatlands, was associated with various disadvantages, including economic challenges (93 mentions), legal issues (46), lack of knowledge (26), physical barriers (24), skepticism-driven obstacles (16), and other mental barriers (15). For instance, the severe impacts of agriculture on drained soils were consciously downplayed, and the need and opportunities to adopt alternative practices relativized.

Among the economic barriers interviewees emphasized that paludiculture was not yet a widespread form of agriculture. Hence, market demand for paludiculture products was perceived as scant. A lack of purchasers and suppliers (e.g., for planting material or butchers) was mentioned and paludiculture products were considered uncompetitive, as one interviewee expressed: ”So, nobody is interested, it’s still cheaper to have wood chips from Poland instead of burning the biomass 10 kilometers away from the nature reserve somehow for heating. Especially now, in difficult economic times, people’s wallets are getting tighter and the number of idealists who support such projects is halved“ (F10, 36 y.).

The economic return from paludiculture was described as low, and the financial risk and costs for establishing paludiculture was considered challenging. In particular, purchasing soil-protective technology was seen as expensive: “You then have to buy specialized technology to mow the wet meadows. These are usually one-off machines that are relatively expensive to buy, are more vulnerable, and don’t deliver the same performance” (F9, 69 y.). Subsidies were considered helpful mitigating such financial risks, but were currently insufficient for thoroughly incentivizing paludiculture.

Legislation and approval requirements seemed contradictory to the interviewees, creating additional challenges. Subsidy-related challenges arise because paludiculture is not yet eligible for subsidies in all federal states, forcing farmers to forgo existing premiums and face uncertainty compared to subsidized land uses like grassland. Furthermore, respondents highlighted that the type of land ownership (e.g., leased or privately owned), and the need for consensus among numerous owners or farmers needed, complicates rewetting and the implementation of paludiculture.

Neighbouring landowners were influenced by rewetting. One farmer mentioned: “... the neighbour has to agree if the neighbouring areas are affected, which is why we couldn’t include all [areas] of our farm in this peatland conservation damming, which is a shame” (F1, 38 y.). The situation on leased land was likewise perceived as complicated. Landowners feared a loss in real estate value and noted that existing legislation, particularly the European Union’s Water Framework Directive (WFD), hindered efforts to rewet drained lands. Rewetting requires closing drainage ditches, which the WFD prohibits as it interferes with existing water bodies.

Some interviewees described difficulties in obtaining practical information. They reported that wetland management was hardly or never addressed in agricultural extension. One informant reported that professional training was still more focused on drainage than on rewetting: “But in Göttingen [University] they actually still taught how to drain peatlands, to be honest” (F15, 31 y.). Some respondents believed that they lacked practical experience regarding the practicability of paludiculture, and missed hands-on advice and role models.

Furthermore, physical barriers were mentioned. The wet paludiculture terrain posed challenges to the interviewees’ daily work. For instance, dry resting areas for cattle on wet grassland were hard to come by. Some interviewees also had reservations about the practical feasibility of paludiculture and expressed this in terms of uncertainty, criticism or specific concerns about the concept of paludiculture. For example, one farmer mentioned:” And I also don’t believe that if we dam up the water on our grassland now, we are helping to build up peat again” (F6, 52 years).

3.2.3. Perceived ability to practice paludiculture (self-perception).

Farmers mainly perceived their ability to practice paludiculture as positive and described themselves as cooperative (40 mentions), confident (40), fulfilled (36), and innovative (33), but also exhausted (18). Being cooperative was primarily associated with exchanging knowledge and farmers’ willingness to act as role models. One respondent stated: „Send the students here, let them walk across the meadows, let them do research, make sure that we have added value from it, that it gets out to the general public and that there are people who are interested in it, and we are always ready for that.” (F1, 38 y.). Furthermore, farmers sought to cooperate with other farmers and customers to shape and improve paludiculture value chains.

Respondents’ confidence and positive attitude towards implementing paludiculture was expressed through initiative, activism, and conviction. In one case the participant described: “They also said to me: ‘You can’t earn any more money.’ And then I said: ‘You can’t care about that. I want to do it for myself, whether it works or not. It’s still my business.’, I proved to them that it works” (F3, 59 y.). Other respondents only practiced paludiculture as a sideline. Due to their main occupation, they were financially secure and free to try their hand at paludiculture, which gave them confidence.

Additionally, experiencing fulfillment was considered important, with work in paludiculture described as joyful and enriching. Some farmers were fascinated by nature and showed enthusiasm about their job. They felt satisfied, despite their high workload, as one interviewee expressed: “And then, of course, it’s also great fun when you’re out in nature. So, it’s a hobby and a job all in one. It has to be that. You have to put your heart and soul into it, especially as a pioneer like we are now, otherwise you won’t do it” (F17, 44 y.).

Finally, the interviewees emphasized the importance of being innovative. They actively sought solutions and approached challenges through trial and error. They were open to new ideas and demonstrated stamina by trying things out until they found a form of cultivation that suited them. Some even saw themselves as pioneers. However, several respondents also described how difficult it was to work on peatlands and the challenges that paludiculture entails, which pushed some to their mental or physical limits: ”Sometimes it feels as if we have to get a normal job on top of these 50 hours a week in order to make a living“, exclaimed one farmer (F10, 36 y.).

4.1.1. Recognizing the consequences of drainage.

The farmers interviewed in this study can be regarded as pioneers or agents of change [46]. Despite facing significant constraints and risks, they view paludiculture as a promising opportunity for sustainable land management in the future. Such pioneering farmers, who adopt environmentally friendly land-use practices on peatlands, are often characterized by a strong pro-environmental mindset and a sense of social responsibility that drives their innovative decision-making [47]. The climate mitigation potential of paludiculture is perceived as an important benefit by these farmers, which is closely linked to their care for future generations and the long-term resilience of their land-use practices. Although policymakers often emphasize the role of peatland rewetting in mitigating climate change [1,6], farmers tend to prioritize the adaptation and resilience benefits, particularly in response to increasing extreme weather events. Indeed, in our study, benefits related to paludiculture were mainly associated with immediate on-farm benefits, such as soil conversation. Farmers’ willingness to adopt climate-sensitive practices may thus increase as peat soils lose agricultural usability [48].

Farmers recognized particularly the dilemma of maintaining business-as-usual practices leading to shrinking soil layers, and therefore embraced paludiculture as an opportunity. Herein lies a key opportunity to encourage more widespread adoption among farmers and underscores that peatlands with a high risk of soil loss should be prioritized for paludiculture conversion. Paludiculture is considered more viable for less productive sites [49]. Such areas are therefore particularly well-suited for regional restoration efforts, and for fostering collaboration between private and governmental stakeholders to facilitate land exchange or land purchases for restoration.

A notable example is the Diepholz Mire basin, where large areas of peatland have been successfully restored and rewetted. Initial paludiculture projects are underway in this region, showcasing the viability of this approach for integrated climate mitigation and ecosystem restoration. Land managers, including farmers, also recognize the benefits for people, nature and climate when adopting more climate sensitive agricultural practices on organic soils in this region [50]. However, awareness of environmental threats alone may not be sufficient to lead to a broader adoption of paludiculture, particularly among farmers who are more skeptical about the practicality of rewetting and the climate mitigation benefits of such practices. This group primarily includes farmers managing mixed soils or those less affected by the biophysical limitations of their land [47]. We expect that for these farmers, perceived threats may be weaker or less directly linked to economic and environmental risks, which suggests that additional enabling factors, such as incentives, support programs, or social networks are necessary to encourage broader adoption.

4.1.2. Historic legacies, positive examples, and inspiring networks.

Our findings highlight that decisions to adopt paludiculture can be influenced by various cues to action. For instance, networks play a pivotal role in driving sustainable transformation by connecting like-minded individuals and facilitating the exchange of information and resources across communities and spatial scales (e.g., [51,52]). Accordingly, the interviewees emphasized that networks and programs can drive self-awareness and perceived benefits of paludiculture, particularly through interactions with scientific actors and events, highlighting the need to link science, conservation, and agriculture more thoroughly. Networks, along with exposure to climate impacts, positively influence adoption of paludiculture. This finding points to a need consistent with findings that farmers feel empowered to adapt practices when supported with information and assistance [53]. Positive examples of paludiculture can further inspire others [54], which calls for strengthened stakeholder collaboration for a climate-sensitive peatland future.

Historical legacies and farmers’ attachment to peatlands also influence their actions. Peatland management has a long history in Germany, where rewetting practices are often viewed as a threat to established land uses. Effective restoration efforts and the promotion of paludiculture should consider the human-peatland relationship and its historical context [20,55]. Revitalizing certain socio-cultural practices tied to peat landscapes could help promote peatland values aligned with restoration goals while leveraging existing local conditions. As highlighted in interviews, some forms of paludiculture, such as reed production, have historically been part of the local economy and culture. For example, reed cultivation held significant economic importance in the GDR, producing up to 3,000 tons (dry mass) annually, and could potentially be revitalized by building on local expertise. While similar production levels might be achievable today [56], newer paludiculture-derived products will require innovative approaches and targeted market development [57,58].

4.1.3. Trust in paludiculture benefits and supporting programs.

Previous research has identified perceived benefits as a strong predictor of behavior change [59]. In this line, our study suggests that multiple and context-specific benefits, including economic, environmental, and cultural aspects, are critical to encouraging widespread adoption of paludiculture. In this study, economic incentives were found to be an important perceived benefit. The interviewees saw a lot of potential on the market and expressed confidence in the future economic viability of paludiculture. Reed farmers in particular highlighted unique benefits specific to their practices, such as superior product quality and cultural significance, adding a regional-historical dimension to the adoption of paludiculture. However, marketing structures for paludiculture remain underdeveloped and are not yet economically sustainable for farmers [17].

Financial incentives through subsidies, particularly those provided under the Common Agricultural Policy for agri-environmental and climate measures, were perceived positively. However, agricultural support varies across federal states in Germany [7], indicating that findings may differ depending on interviewees’ place of residence. Only two federal states (Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania), where most of the interviewees are located, offer subsidies for paludiculture [60].

4.2.1. Legal concerns and low demand for paludiculture products.

Aside from the optimism regarding the potential of reed production in some regions, respondents identified the primary barriers to the adoption of paludiculture as extrinsic factors, including a lack of demand for paludiculture products and stringent land-use conversion regulations. Economic issues like the absence of purchasers, low competitiveness, and high establishment costs align with findings from previous studies [10,17,48]. This situation is often described as a “chicken and egg dilemma,” indicating uncertainty about whether the industrial or agricultural sector should initiate transformation efforts first. Yet, this focus on external obstacles likely reflects their pioneering mindset, which is often associated with a stronger pro-environmental orientation and may differ from that of other farmers [47].

Some farmers in our study noted that their peers tend to downplay the threats of drainage-based agriculture, because they view it as essential for their livelihoods. Studies suggest that such positive perception of drainage systems can act as a cognitive barrier to peatland transformation [10,17]. The tendency to relativize these threats may reflect underlying emotional and cognitive barriers among more skeptical farmers, posing an additional obstacle to advancing peatland restoration and the adoption of paludiculture.

Public support schemes are crucial motivators for farmers, and their absence was seen as a significant barrier among our respondents. Literature supports the need for financial incentives [7,19] and interviewees expressed a desire for new remuneration options, such as carbon credits. While schemes like the Ökokonto offsetting program were mentioned by respondents as a positive step, its impact on the adoption of paludiculture may be limited, as it primarily supports peatland restoration rather than productive use through paludiculture. Other model initiatives, such as the regional carbon crediting scheme “MoorFutures” [15], offer more direct incentives for farmers engaged in paludiculture. Further, payments for ecosystem services or labeling could provide additional financial motivation. Currently, there are opportunities to expand existing labeling schemes for wood products, energy from biomass, and building materials to paludiculture [61].

Legal and regulatory challenges also posed significant barriers in farmers’ perception. Current prohibitions to modify drainage channels contradict national peatland rewetting goals of; and regulations against ploughing grasslands similarly hinder the establishment of permanent paludiculture crops [17]. To facilitate paludiculture, such outdated legal frameworks require adaptation. Further, farmers must often navigate changing regulations and policy goals without clear assurances, which fosters hesitation and reservations about transitioning to paludiculture. This sense of uncertainty is further amplified by a lack of political support, leaving farmers unsure about the future direction of relevant policies. Moreover, farmers typically focus on short-term profitability and risk management [10], whereas adopting paludiculture requires long-term planning—an effort complicated by the unpredictability of future regulations. Knowledge gaps also hinder implementation. Despite existing demonstration projects aimed at educating farmers about paludiculture [4,6], many still lack access to adequate information and extension support.

4.3.1. Confidence, cooperation, innovation, and fulfilment.

Paludi-farmers viewed themselves as confident, cooperative, innovative, and fulfilled in their work—attributes that positively influence their decision-making regarding paludiculture adoption. Higher self-efficacy is essential for addressing complex problems and facilitating behavioral change. However, it can be assumed that these characteristics may not apply universally to all farmers in Germany, as only pioneers were interviewed. Role models, including scientific institutions, can effectively enhance self-efficacy [45] and should specifically target skeptical farmers resistant to change, as well as pragmatists who hesitate and avoid risks through action [47]. Respondents also expressed a desire to serve as role models for others, highlighting an opportunity for strategically engaging these farmers in collaboration to promote paludiculture through targeted knowledge sharing.

A comparison of our findings with the literature confirms that farmers who are more willing to experiment with new practices are more likely to adopt new agricultural innovations [30,54]. Future research should examine how individual farmer characteristics affect their likelihood of adopting innovations like paludiculture and the influence of pioneering farmers on their peers. Additionally, we found that respondents viewed their work as enjoyable and fulfilling; similar to organic farmers compared to conventional farmers [62,63]. However, scientific evidence on self-efficacy and shifting from more conventional to sustainable practices remains scarce and deserve future investigation.