Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study

Contents:

Author Info

  • Christensen, Tove
  • Pedersen, Anders Branth
  • Nielsen, Helle Oersted
  • Mørkbak, Morten Raun
  • Hasler, Berit
  • Denver, Sigrid

Abstract

Danish farmers have been far less interested in agri-environmental subsidy schemes (AES) than anticipated. In order to examine how to improve the appeal of such schemes, a choice experiment was conducted concerning 444 Danish farmers' preferences for subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones. A random parameter logit framework was used to capture heterogeneity among farmers. Our results indicate that 1) the vast majority of farmers are willing to trade off the size of the subsidy for less restrictive scheme requirements and that 2) the amount of the subsidy they are willing to trade off varies with specific scheme requirements, suggesting which features are most important for successful policy design. Our results suggest that farmers value flexible contract terms higher than reduced administrative burdens. Finally, we suggest a practical approach to estimating a monetary value of farmers' reluctance to participate in AES. While the trade off's that farmers are willing to make between subsidy size and individual scheme requirements are case specific, our results concerning increased use of farm advisors, farmers ability of valuing different types of flexibility, and our attempt to place a monetary value on farmers' reluctance to engage in regulatory subsidy schemes have a potentially broader application platform.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911001303
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

Volume (Year): 70 (2011)
Issue (Month): 8 (June)
Pages: 1558-1564

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:8:p:1558-1564

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

Related research

Keywords: Farmer Preferences Participation Agri-environmental schemes Choice experiments Voluntary agreements;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Gerard Wynn & Bob Crabtree & Jacqueline Potts, 2001. "Modelling Farmer Entry into the Environmentally Sensitive Area Schemes in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 65-82.
  2. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
  3. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
  4. Maria Espinosa-Goded & Jes�s Barreiro-Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273.
  5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132.
  6. Morten Mørkbak & Tove Christensen & Dorte Gyrd-Hansen, 2010. "Choke Price Bias in Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(4), pages 537-551, April.
  7. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri-environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511.
  8. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, April.
  9. Kahneman, Daniel & Tversky, Amos, 1979. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(2), pages 263-91, March.
  10. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers' Participation in Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, 02.
  11. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
  12. Andrew A. Goett & Kathleen Hudson & Kenneth E. Train, 2000. "Customers' Choice Among Retail Energy Suppliers: The Willingness-to-Pay for Service Attributes," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-28.
  13. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
  14. Hanley, Nick & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Wright, Robert E., 2005. "Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 227-234, October.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Laure Kuhfuss & Florence Jacquet & Raphaële Preget & Sophie Thoyer, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(4), pages 395-422.
  2. Greiner, Romy, 2014. "Willingness of north Australian pastoralists and graziers to participate in contractual biodiversity conservation," 2014 Conference (58th), February 4-7, 2014, Port Maquarie, Australia 165839, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
  3. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
  4. Alló, Maria & Igleasias, Eva & Loureiro, Maria L., 2013. "Farmers’ preferences and social capital towards agri-environmental schemes for protecting birds," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150620, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  5. Buckley, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Mechan, Sarah, 2012. "Operating or not Operating at the Margin: Farmers Willingness to Adopt a Riparian Buffer Zone," Working Papers 148830, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland, Galway.
  6. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2011:i:8:p:1558-1564. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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