Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change

Burton, Rob J.F.; Schwarz, Gérald

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.002

Cited by 301 publications

(219 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

204

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that output-based contracts are often riskier for the landowner than input-based contracts (Burton and Schwarz, 2013). Moreover, it may be more expensive for the regulator to monitor ES outputs or ecosystem assets compared to inputs.…”

Section: Figure 1 Conceptual Model Linking Ecosystem Outputs Inputs mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?

White

Hanley

2016

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Figure 1 Conceptual Model Linking Ecosystem Outputs Inputs mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?

White

Hanley

2016

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hence, although this motivation was less important than the others, it does appear to play a role for many farmers. Thus, as other studies have shown (e.g., Siebert et al 2006;Burton and Schwarz 2013), financial support is a necessary prerequisite, but is not the only (or even main) motivation for farmers to carry out biodiversity-friendly management such as wood-pasture maintenance and restoration.…”

Section: Motivations Of Farmersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…AES and associated financial incentives have often been hailed as potential solutions to stop the decline of semi-natural habitats (Ahnström et al 2008;de Snoo et al 2013). Although financial aspects are important (e.g., Siebert et al 2006;Burton and Schwarz 2013), they are not the only factors motivating land managers, and personal norms and values have also been found to play a role (Burton 2004;Siebert et al 2006;Ahnström et al 2009). It is therefore important to understand the interplay of different motivations of land managers to design effective conservation incentives (de Snoo et al 2013;Birge and Herzon 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reviving wood-pastures for biodiversity and people: A case study from western Estonia

Roellig

Sutcliffe

Sammul

et al. 2015

Ambio

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Wood-pastures are associated with high cultural and biodiversity values in Europe. However, due to their relatively low productivity, large areas of wood-pastures have been lost over the last century. In some areas, incentive schemes have been developed to revive wood-pastures. We investigated the effects of one such scheme in western Estonia. We compared the structure of grazed wood-pastures (old and restored) to those of abandoned wood-pastures and ungrazed forest stands to explore the effects of management, and conducted interviews with 24 farmers to investigate their motivations to carry out the management. We found a positive influence of active management on the semi-open structure of wood-pastures. Financial support was vital for management, but personal values related to tradition also played an important role. The interviewees differed widely in their range of motivations, suggesting that other strategies in addition to financial incentives would further improve the management of wood-pastures in the region.

show abstract

“…They are more quantitative in their objectives, have measurable attributes that can be used to determine eligibility and -in turnfacilitate monitoring to assess effectiveness, and they also allow payment rates to be set in a more objective, transparent manner (refer Klimek et al, 2008;McGurn and Moran, 2013). They allow greater flexibility for farmers to innovate and achieve the environmental targets, resulting in greater uptake and a better working relationship with farmers because the payment rates are more transparent, with a reduced need for penalties (Klimek et al, 2008;Burton and Schwarz, 2013). However, there are some potential limitations associated with the payment by results approaches, particularly where delivery of positive results may be beyond the control of farmers (but this is less likely to be the case with measures for the conservation of grassland habitats) or when there…”

Section: Payment By Actions or Payment By Results?mentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of grassland vegetation from three agri-environment conservation measures

hUallacháin¹,

Finn²,

Keogh³

et al. 2016

Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semi-natural grassland habitats have declined significantly throughout Europe. To halt the decline, grassland conservation measures have been included in most European agri-environment schemes. This is the first study to compare the botanical composition of grassland habitats managed under the Irish Agri-Environment Options Scheme (AEOS). Sixty fields on drystock pastoral farms in receipt of agri-environment payments for grassland conservation were surveyed, with 20 fields being enrolled in each of the following AEOS options: Traditional Hay Meadow (THM), Species-Rich Grassland (SRG) and Natura 2000 species-rich grassland (Natura). The vegetation quality of sites enrolled in the Natura measure was higher than the quality of those enrolled in the THM and SRG measures. Natura sites had the greatest species richness, with a mean >40 species per site, which included approximately 17 species indicative of high botanical quality. Traditional Hay Meadows sites had the lowest species richness (mean: 29 species per site) and were dominated by species associated with improved grassland. Some THM sites had good levels of botanical richness and were similar in composition to Natura sites, with some Natura sites having lower vegetation quality, more similar to that of THM sites. Species-Rich Grassland had botanical richness that was intermediate between THM and Natura sites. A thorough assessment of the effectiveness of these measures was confounded by a lack of quantitative objectives for the target community composition to be attained. We discuss limitations and potential opportunities regarding the design, targeting, implementation and cost-effectiveness of these agri-environment measures.

show abstract

Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change

Cited by 301 publications

References 79 publications

Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?

Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?

Reviving wood-pastures for biodiversity and people: A case study from western Estonia

A comparison of grassland vegetation from three agri-environment conservation measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About