Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”

Tyllianakis, Emmanouil; Martín-Ortega, Julia

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105620

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 78 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many researchers have employed stated preference approaches to investigate farmers’ responses to PES‐type contracts regarding uptake determinants in payment for action‐based schemes (Broch and Vedel, 2012; Broch et al, 2013; Christensen et al, 2011; Espinosa‐Goded, et al, 2010; Kuhfuss et al, 2015; Ruto & Garrod, 2009; Villamayor‐Tomas et al, 2019; Villaneuva et al, 2017; Villanueva et al, 2015). According to a survey paper by Tyllianakis & Martin‐Ortega (2021), 26 studies have attempted to measure farmers’ willingness to accept (WTA) in agri‐environment schemes, even if limited to the EU region only. Of these, 25 studies use a choice experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Tanaka

Hanley

Kühfuss

2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate farmers’ preferences for outcome‐based (or results‐based) payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan. To this end, we use a two‐stage stated preference approach—the first stage models farmers’ decisions to adopt outcome‐based contracts using a discrete choice experiment. The second stage estimates the areas of land which farmers who choose to participate will enrol in the scheme. Based on a sample of 333 respondents, our results show that most farmers are willing to participate in outcome‐based contacts. A variety of contract attributes are found to influence farmers’ decisions on participation. However, once a farmer decides to participate, their decision on how much farmland to enrol in is likely to be influenced solely by the per‐hectare payment. Therefore, to encourage more farmers to participate and enrol more farmland, policy‐makers’ decisions on the level of payments offered are critically important.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Tanaka

Hanley

Kühfuss

2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The introduction of "green" payments in the EU was to compensate farmers for income losses incurred because of the use of instruments favoring the improvement of the natural environment, and as an economic incentive to change agricultural practices. Some research results suggest that the support provided through various "green" payments is not fully effective (e.g., [38,39]). However, the impact of "green" payments on agricultural income seems to be different due to the scheme features and individual farm factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Green” Transformation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Its Impact on Farm Income Disparities

Pawłowska

Grochowska

2021

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Taking into account the evolution of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), it is wondered to what extent the “green” transformation of this policy and the accompanying change in the distribution of direct payments between farms contributed to the elimination of disproportions in agricultural income. The aim of the study was to investigate the changes in the proclaimed concepts related to the development of the EU agricultural sector in terms of their “green” transformation, and to assess the impact of “green” CAP payments on income inequalities between farms. The research was conducted based on the data representative for Polish commercial farms for the years 2004–2019, covering three financial perspectives of the agricultural policy. The methods of counterfactual modelling and assessment of income inequality were used in the study. The analyses showed that the evolution of the CAP priorities, and hence instruments, towards the pro-environmental (or, more broadly, towards sustainability) have so far had a rather negative impact on the income of Polish farms. In its current form, the support dedicated to environmental and climate protection did not fully compensate farmers for income losses resulting from the use of pro-environmental agricultural practices. Moreover, “green” CAP payments did not play a significant role in shaping income inequalities. Therefore, we can conclude that the CAP instruments do not contribute sufficiently to sustainable development (economic, social, and environmental), because they do not support/motivate farmers to change their production standards.

show abstract

“…Discrete choice experiments can be used to conduct ex‐ante evaluations of different policy measures, for example, the Common Agricultural Policy in the European Union (Lefebvre et al, 2021; Thoyer & Préget, 2019). They have also been widely used to investigate the preferences of farmers for agri‐environmental schemes (e.g., Espinosa‐Goded et al, 2010; Lienhoop & Brouwer, 2015; Tyllianakis & Martin‐Ortega, 2021; Villanueva et al, 2015). The method has already been applied to explore farmers' willingness to adopt VRT in Italy (Blasch et al, 2020) or precision agriculture technology in general (Thompson et al, 2019).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentivizing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies in small‐scaled farming systems: A choice experiment approach

Späti¹,

Huber²,

Logar

et al. 2022

J of Agr & App Econ Assoc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Precision farming technologies are expected to reduce nutrient surplus in agriculture. Uptake of these technologies in European farming systems, however, is low and policy incentives are needed to promote environmental benefits. We conducted a choice experiment with 418 Swiss farmers to elicit their preferences for site-specific nitrogen fertilization technologies. Using a split-sample approach, we elicit both willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay welfare measures. Results show that welfare measures for the nitrogen reduction potential vary significantly between the two samples. This indicates that the policy design affects farmers' preferences and willingness to adopt precision farming technologies that reduce nitrogen losses from agricultural production.

show abstract

Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”

Cited by 42 publications

References 78 publications

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

“Green” Transformation of the Common Agricultural Policy and Its Impact on Farm Income Disparities

Incentivizing the adoption of precision agricultural technologies in small‐scaled farming systems: A choice experiment approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About