IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v184y2021ics0921800921000550.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financing on-farm ecosystem services in southern Quebec, Canada: A public call for pesticides reduction

Author

Listed:
  • Lévesque, Ann
  • Kermagoret, Charlène
  • Poder, Thomas G.
  • L'Ecuyer-Sauvageau, Chloé
  • He, Jie
  • Sauvé, Sébastien
  • Dupras, Jérôme

Abstract

Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs in agriculture are designed to encourage farmers to adopt agro-environmental practices through financial or non-financial incentives. Using a choice-based conjoint (CBC) analysis, we measured public preferences regarding different constitutive attributes of PES (e.g., types of agro-environmental measures, conditions of payment, responsible institutions, intervention sites) that aimed to reduce pollution from agricultural sources and increase biodiversity in the agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec. The CBC analysis revealed a strong preference by the respondents for a reduction of pesticide dependency in their choice of attributes with regard to the proposed scenarios. By carrying out PES scenario simulations, this study demonstrates that there is a ten times higher willingness to pay for pesticide reduction scenarios than for scenarios aiming to restore hydric resources such as wetlands and riparian-zones. In addition, this study finds a mixed interest in PES programs since ecosystem services generated by agro-environmental practices seem to be misunderstood by the public. Therefore, pesticide reduction could be used as a strategy for financing PES initiatives that are socially acceptable while bringing farmers flexibility in their choice of agro-environmental practices. In this way farmers can achieve pesticide reduction goals while promoting a bundle of ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Lévesque, Ann & Kermagoret, Charlène & Poder, Thomas G. & L'Ecuyer-Sauvageau, Chloé & He, Jie & Sauvé, Sébastien & Dupras, Jérôme, 2021. "Financing on-farm ecosystem services in southern Quebec, Canada: A public call for pesticides reduction," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:184:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921000550
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800921000550
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106997?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tamini, Lota D., 2011. "A nonparametric analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: A case study of Québec," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1363-1374, May.
    2. Raymond J. G. M. Florax & Chiara M. Travisi & Peter Nijkamp, 2005. "A meta-analysis of the willingness to pay for reductions in pesticide risk exposure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(4), pages 441-467, December.
    3. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    4. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    5. François Bonnieux & Alain Carpentier, 2007. "Préférence pour le statu quo dans la méthode des programmes : illustration à partir d'un problème de gestion forestière," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 117(5), pages 699-717.
    6. Jorgensen, Bradley S. & Syme, Geoffrey J., 2000. "Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 251-265, May.
    7. Jill J. McCluskey & Nicholas Kalaitzandonakes & Johan Swinnen, 2016. "Media Coverage, Public Perceptions, and Consumer Behavior: Insights from New Food Technologies," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 8(1), pages 467-486, October.
    8. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    9. Maj Rundlöf & Georg K. S. Andersson & Riccardo Bommarco & Ingemar Fries & Veronica Hederström & Lina Herbertsson & Ove Jonsson & Björn K. Klatt & Thorsten R. Pedersen & Johanna Yourstone & Henrik G. S, 2015. "Seed coating with a neonicotinoid insecticide negatively affects wild bees," Nature, Nature, vol. 521(7550), pages 77-80, May.
    10. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    11. Ann Lévesque & Jérôme Dupras & Jean-François Bissonnette, 2020. "The pitchfork or the fishhook: a multi-stakeholder perspective towards intensive farming in floodplains," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(11), pages 1987-2003, September.
    12. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2008. "Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 39(4), pages 433-446, April.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Diswandi, Diswandi, 2017. "A hybrid Coasean and Pigouvian approach to Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in West Lombok: Does it contribute to poverty alleviation?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 138-145.
    15. Tabaichount, B. & Wood, S.L.R. & Kermagoret, C. & Kolinjivadi, V. & Bissonnette, J.F. & Mendez, A. Zaga & Dupras, J., 2019. "Water quality trading schemes as a form of state intervention: Two case studies of state-market hybridization from Canada and New Zealand," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 1-1.
    16. Alfons Weersink & John R. Livernois & Jason F. Shogren & James S. Shortle, 1998. "Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy in Agriculture," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 24(3), pages 309-327, September.
    17. Baker, Gregory A., 1999. "Consumer Preferences For Food Safety Attributes In Fresh Apples: Market Segments, Consumer Characteristics, And Marketing Opportunities," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 24(1), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Katherine Harms & Emmanuel Omondi & Atanu Mukherjee, 2020. "Investigating Bat Activity in Various Agricultural Landscapes in Northeastern United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-10, March.
    19. Jie He & Jérôme Dupras & Thomas G. Poder, 2017. "The value of wetlands in Quebec: a comparison between contingent valuation and choice experiment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 51-78, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hasanzade, Vüsal & Elshiewy, Ossama & Toporowski, Waldemar, 2022. "Is it just the distance? Consumer preference for geographical and social proximity of food production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    2. Chunrong Yan & Danyang Di & Guoxiang Li & Jianmei Wang, 2022. "Environmental regulation and the supply efficiency of environmental public services: Evidence from environmental decentralization of 289 cities in China," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 515-535, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gatto, Paola & Vidale, Enrico & Secco, Laura & Pettenella, Davide, 2014. "Exploring the willingness to pay for forest ecosystem services by residents of the Veneto Region," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Glenk, Klaus & Hall, Clare & Liebe, Ulf & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2012. "Preferences of Scotch malt whisky consumers for changes in pesticide use and origin of barley," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 719-731.
    3. Wakita, Kazumi & Kurokura, Hisashi & Oishi, Taro & Shen, Zhonghua & Furuya, Ken, 2019. "Exploring the effect of psychometric variables on willingness to pay for marine ecosystem services: A survey in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 130-138.
    4. Magnus Söderberg & David Barton, 2014. "Marginal WTP and Distance Decay: The Role of ‘Protest’ and ‘True Zero’ Responses in the Economic Valuation of Recreational Water Quality," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(3), pages 389-405, November.
    5. Kim, Yeon-Su & Latifah, Sitti & Afifi, Mansur & Mulligan, Mark & Burke, Sophia & Fisher, Larry & Siwicka, Ewa & Remoundou, Kyriaki & Christie, Michael & Masek Lopez, Sharon & Jenness, Jeff, 2018. "Managing forests for global and local ecosystem services: A case study of carbon, water and livelihoods from eastern Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 153-168.
    6. Remoundou, Kyriaki & Kountouris, Yiannis & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2012. "Is the value of an environmental public good sensitive to the providing institution?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 381-395.
    7. Imamura, Kohei & Takano, Kohei Takenaka & Kumagai, Naoki H. & Yoshida, Yumi & Yamano, Hiroya & Fujii, Masahiko & Nakashizuka, Tohru & Managi, Shunsuke, 2020. "Valuation of coral reefs in Japan: Willingness to pay for conservation and the effect of information," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    8. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    9. Milad Haghani & Michiel C. J. Bliemer & John M. Rose & Harmen Oppewal & Emily Lancsar, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part I. Integrative synthesis of empirical evidence and conceptualisation of external validity," Papers 2102.02940, arXiv.org.
    10. Galina Williams, 2015. "Households Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Policy, Queensland, Australia," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(3), pages 21582440156, September.
    11. Blake, Miranda R. & Lancsar, Emily & Peeters, Anna & Backholer, Kathryn, 2019. "Sugar-sweetened beverage price elasticities in a hypothetical convenience store," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 98-107.
    12. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Morten Mørkbak & Søren Olsen, 2014. "A Meta-study Investigating the Sources of Protest Behaviour in Stated Preference Surveys," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(1), pages 35-57, May.
    13. Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Henrik Andersson & Olivier Beaumais & Romain Crastes & François-Charles Wolff, 2014. "Is Choice Experiment Becoming more Popular than Contingent Valuation? A Systematic Review in Agriculture, Environment and Health," Working Papers 2014.12, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    14. Ackerschott, Adriana & Kohlhase, Esther & Vollmer, Anita & Hörisch, Jacob & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2023. "Steering of land use in the context of sustainable development: A systematic review of economic instruments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    15. Voravee Saengavut & Chintana Somswasdi, 2022. "Preference Heterogeneity of Local Participation in Coupling Conservation and Community-Based Entrepreneurship Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-19, June.
    16. Contu, Davide & Mourato, Susana, 2020. "Complementing choice experiment with contingent valuation data: Individual preferences and views towards IV generation nuclear energy in the UK," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    17. Lee L. Schulz & Glynn T. Tonsor, 2010. "Cow‐Calf Producer Preferences for Voluntary Traceability Systems," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 138-162, February.
    18. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    19. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Rocchi, L. & Cortina, C. & Paolotti, L. & Massei, G. & Fagioli, F.F. & Antegiovanni, P. & Boggia, A., 2019. "Provision of ecosystem services from the management of Natura 2000 sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the costs and benefits, using choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 13-20.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:184:y:2021:i:c:s0921800921000550. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.