Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: A transdisciplinary case-study approach

Klimek, Sebastian; Kemmermann, Anne Richter gen.; Steinmann, Horst-Henning; Freese, Jan; Isselstein, J.

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.08.025

Cited by 81 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Payment-by-results approaches are based directly on the delivery of an ecosystem service; the more of the service that is provided, the higher the payment. 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).…”

Section: Payment By Actions or Payment By Results?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Payment By Actions or Payment By Results?mentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…The advantage of the programme in terms of cost-effectiveness is that in contrast to payments for measures it is certain that the money spent actually generates conservation results (cp. Kleijn et al 2001;Klimek et al 2008). Furthermore, payments for results ensure that those land users provide conservation that can do so at low cost as the payments will not be sufficient to cover the costs of land users with high conservation costs (Zabel and Roe 2009).…”

Section: Production Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Natura 2000 sites are expected to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It follows that successful management of the sites is of great importance. Next to goal attainment, cost-effectiveness is increasingly recognised as a key requirement for gaining social and political acceptance for costly conservation measures. We identify and qualitatively examine issues of cost-effectiveness related to the design and implementation of management measures in Natura 2000 sites in Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland. Given the wide variety of management design and implementation options within the four countries, our study is purely of an 123Biodivers Conserv (2010) 19:2053-2069 DOI 10.1007 exploratory nature. We derive recommendations for improving the cost-effectiveness of management in Natura 2000 sites and for future research. Examples of policy recommendations include guaranteeing the availability of funds for longer periods, and ensuring the appropriate allocation of funds between the different tasks of designing and implementing management plans. Further research should examine the cost-effectiveness of controversial suggestions such as, for example, more tailored payment schemes for conservation measures that result in higher ecological outputs but are costly to administer. Moreover, more research is needed to better understand how rules for administrations, as well as rules and governance structures for tasks within administrations, should be designed.

show abstract

“…Dessa forma, é necessário impor um determinado número de filtros de modo a aumentar o rigor das buscas (CEE, 2013 Trabalhos selecionados (ID)* Barton et al (2003) (1) Barton et al (2009) (1) Bateman et al (2015) (2) Bryan et al (2011) (2) Chen et al (2010) (1) Cimon-Morin, Darveau e Poulin (2013) (2) Claassen, Cattaneo e Johansson (2008) (3) Clements et al (2013) (3) De Leeuw et al (2014) (3) Dickman, Macdonald e Macdonald (2011) (3) Duarte, Ribeiro e Paglia (2016) (2) Egoh et al (2010) (2) Egoh et al (2011) (2) Hajkowicz et al (2008) (1) Hily et al (2015) (1) Klimek et al (2008) (3) La Notte et al (2014) (1) Larsen, Londoño-Murcia e Turner (2011) (2) Narloch, Pascual e Drucker (2011) (3) Nelson et al (2008) (2) Pagiola et al (2007) (3) Sierra e Russman (2006) (3) Ulber et al (2011) (3) von Haaren et al (2012) (1) Wätzold e Drechsler (2014) (1) Wendland et al (2010) (1) Wünscher e Engel (2012) (1) Wünscher, Engel e Wunder (2006) (1) Wünscher, Engel e Wunder (2008) (1) Zabel e Engel (2010) (3) Zhang e Pagiola (2011) (1) A seguir são apresentados e discutidos cada um dos elementos de priorização identificados. HILY et al, 2015).…”

Section: Etapa I: Seleção Dos Elementos Indicadosunclassified

“…Esse tipo de esquema de pagamento é comumente usado na Europa, onde hábitats semi-naturais, incluindo pastagens, são considerados elementos significativamente importantes para a manutenção da biodiversidade, produção de alimentos, fibras e ciclagem de nutrientes. No caso, os proprietários rurais são compensados pelo aumento da qualidade ambiental dos pastos, a qual é associada ao aumento da diversidade de espécies de plantas (KLIMEK et al, 2008;LA NOTTE et al, 2011;ULBER et al, 2010).…”

Section: Grupo I -Elementos Biológicos E Físicosunclassified

Identificação de áreas prioritárias para a implantação de esquemas de pagamento por serviços ambientais com vistas à conservação da biodiversidade

Picharillo¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: A transdisciplinary case-study approach

Cited by 81 publications

References 38 publications

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

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

Cost-effectiveness of managing Natura 2000 sites: an exploratory study for Finland, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland

Identificação de áreas prioritárias para a implantação de esquemas de pagamento por serviços ambientais com vistas à conservação da biodiversidade

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About