What's in it for Me? Motivational Differences between Farmers' Subsidised and Non-Subsidised Conservation Practices

Lokhorst, Anne Marike; Staats, Henk; Dijk, J. van; Dijk, Eric van; Snoo, G. de

doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00438.x

Cited by 124 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Motivation to change behaviour (in our case, this means participating in a nature conservation governance arrangement) is closely related to a sense of ownership of nature conservation (Buizer et al, 2015;Lokhorst, Staats, van Dijk, & de Snoo, 2011). A demand for sustainable products may form an external incentive that creates a motivation to change (Mitrokostas & Apostolakis, 2013).…”

Section: Evaluating Governance Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Runhaar

Melman

Boonstra

et al. 2016

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconciling productive agricultural practices with nature conservation is not only an ecological challenge, but also a demanding matter of governance. This paper analyses the potential as well as the limitations of various governance arrangements, and explores ways to enhance the governance of nature conservation in agricultural landscapes. We assume four conditions to contribute to the performance of these arrangements: farmers should be motivated, demanded, enabled, and legitimized to participate in arrangements that promote nature conservation by farmers. We analyse 10 distinct Dutch governance arrangements in the period 2000-2016, including agri-environment schemes but also privately initiated arrangements. The arrangements target a large but unknown share of farmers and farmlands, but nature conservation ambition levels are generally low to moderate. The expected low-to-moderate performance is associated with a low-tomoderate motivation, demand, and ability. Underlying are stronger forces driving towards intensification and problems farmers face in recuperating the cost of nature conservation. New greening requirements in the EU Common Agricultural Policy and in agri-food supply chains are first, cautious steps addressing these fundamental drivers of ecological degradation. More ambitious greening requirements may contribute to a higher motivation and ability of larger groups of farmers to implement nature conservation measures.

show abstract

Section: Evaluating Governance Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Runhaar

Melman

Boonstra

et al. 2016

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We expect, however, that categorical land-use change, such as the conversion from arable farming to livestock farming or from farming to nature conservation, will arise also from land exchange from one agent type to another. This is because a categorical change often requires considerable investment in knowledge and equipment for most land owners (Rounsevell et al 2003), while it may also lead to undesired social effects such as an alienation from one's network of peers (Karali et al 2013a, b), which have been shown to strongly influence the willingness to change (Lokhorst et al 2010(Lokhorst et al , 2011. This is supported by data from the Dutch Agricultural Economics Institute, which demonstrate that-over a time span of 10 years-farms that undergo a categorical land-use change (e.g., from dairy farming to arable farming) cover about 4 % of the total agricultural area, while parcels that undergo such a change (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land-use change arising from rural land exchange: an agent-based simulation model

et al. 2014

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Land exchange can be a major factor driving land-use change in regions with high pressure on land, but is generally not incorporated in land-use change models. Here we present an agent-based model to simulate land-use change arising from land exchange between multiple agent types representing farmers, nature organizations, and estate owners. Methods The RULEX model (Rural Land EXchange) was calibrated and applied to a 300 km 2 case study area in the east of the Netherlands. Decision rules about which actor will sell and buy land, as well as which specific land to buy or sell are based on historical observations, interviews, and choice experiments.Results A reconstruction of land-use change for the period 2001-2009 demonstrates that RULEX reproduces most observed land-use trends and patterns. Given that RULEX simulates only one mechanism of land-use change, i.e. land exchange, it is conservative in simulating change. Conclusions With this model, we demonstrate the potential of incorporating land market processes in an agent-based, land-use change model. This supports understanding of land-use change that is brought about by ownership change, which is an important process in areas where pressure on land is high. The soundness of the process representation was corroborated by stakeholders within the study area. Land exchange models can be used to assess the impact of changes in climate, markets, and policy on land use change, and help to increase effectiveness of alternative land purchasing strategies by stakeholders or spatial planning policy.

show abstract

“…Therefore, the vulnerability of financially dependent conservation practices are a threat to their continuity over longer time spans. Preliminary evidence for this idea was found in a study on the social psychological underpinnings of both subsidized and non-subsidized conservation (Lokhorst et al, 2011). In this study it was found that farmers' intention to engage in non-subsidized conservation was better explained by psychological aspects of their motivation than their intention to engage in subsidized conservation.…”

Section: The Instrumental Perspectivementioning

confidence: 66%