IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v109y2021ics026483772100421x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England

Author

Listed:
  • Chaplin, S.P.
  • Mills, J.
  • Chiswell, H.

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the potential for payment-by-results approaches to be adopted more widely in agri-environment schemes to address some of the limitations of conventional action-based approaches. To date, researchers have almost exclusively applied the approach in grassland farming systems. This paper reports on the results from an English, pure payment-by-results pilot scheme that tested the delivery of two environmental objectives: provision of winter bird food for farmland birds and provision of pollen and nectar resources for pollinating insects in arable farming systems, and incorporated farmer self-assessments. The method employed an assessment of environmental outcomes using an experimental design, recording the number of plants/seed heads per quadrat for specified species and an analysis of farmers’ attitudes using a qualitative survey. The results from 15 farms revealed improved environmental performance compared to similar measures implemented under conventional agri-environment schemes. The analysis also revealed a high correlation of farmer self-assessment of results with expert assessments. Survey findings also identified farmers’ views on the advantages (flexibility and freedom, fairness) and disadvantages (risk of failure and non-payment) of such an approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaplin, S.P. & Mills, J. & Chiswell, H., 2021. "Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100421x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105698
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483772100421X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105698?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. Poorvi Iyer & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Manuela Meraner & Robert Finger, 2020. "Measuring Farmer Risk Preferences in Europe: A Systematic Review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 3-26, February.
    2. White, Ben & Sadler, Rohan, 2012. "Optimal conservation investment for a biodiversity-rich agricultural landscape," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 56(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Reed, Mark S. & Moxey, Andrew & Prager, Katrin & Hanley, Nick & Skates, James & Bonn, Aletta & Evans, Chris D. & Glenk, Klaus & Thomson, Ken, 2014. "Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 44-53.
    4. Brown, Peter R. & Nelson, Rohan & Jacobs, Brent & Kokic, Phil & Tracey, Jacquie & Ahmed, Mehnaz & DeVoil, Peter, 2010. "Enabling natural resource managers to self-assess their adaptive capacity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(8), pages 562-568, October.
    5. Xavier Vollenweider & Salvatore Di Falco & Cathal O�Donoghue, 2011. "Risk preferences and voluntary agrienvironmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme?," GRI Working Papers 48, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    6. Wezel, Alexander & Vincent, Audrey & Nitsch, Heike & Schmid, Otto & Dubbert, Monika & Tasser, Erich & Fleury, Philippe & Stöckli, Sybille & Stolze, Matthias & Bogner, Daniel, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-127.
    7. Cornelis Gardebroek, 2006. "Comparing risk attitudes of organic and non-organic farmers with a Bayesian random coefficient model," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 33(4), pages 485-510, December.
    8. Frank Wätzold & Martin Drechsler, 2005. "Spatially Uniform versus Spatially Heterogeneous Compensation Payments for Biodiversity-Enhancing Land-Use Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 73-93, May.
    9. Zabel, Astrid & Roe, Brian, 2009. "Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 126-134, November.
    10. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    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. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    2. Elmiger, By Noëmi & Finger, Robert & Ghazoul, Jaboury & Schaub, Sergei, 2023. "Biodiversity indicators for result-based agri-environmental schemes – Current state and future prospects," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).
    3. Schöttker, Oliver & Hütt, Christoph & Jauker, Frank & Witt, Johanna & Bareth, Georg & Wätzold, Frank, 2022. "Monitoring costs of result-based payments for biodiversity conservation: Will UAV-based remote sensing be the game-changer?," MPRA Paper 112942, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).

    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. Zabel, Astrid, 2019. "Biodiversity-based payments on Swiss alpine pastures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 153-159.
    2. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    3. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    4. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. Schöttker, Oliver & Hütt, Christoph & Jauker, Frank & Witt, Johanna & Bareth, Georg & Wätzold, Frank, 2022. "Monitoring costs of result-based payments for biodiversity conservation: Will UAV-based remote sensing be the game-changer?," MPRA Paper 112942, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Engler, Jan O. & Cord, Anna F. & Wätzold, Frank, 2023. "A Cost Comparison Analysis of Bird-Monitoring Techniques for Result-Based Payments in Agriculture," MPRA Paper 116311, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Clements, Jen & Lobley, Matt & Osborne, Juliet & Wills, Jane, 2021. "How can academic research on UK agri-environment schemes pivot to meet the addition of climate mitigation aims?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    9. Drechsler, Martin & Wätzold, Frank & Grimm, Volker, 2022. "The hitchhiker's guide to generic ecological-economic modelling of land-use-based biodiversity conservation policies," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 465(C).
    10. Drechsler, Martin, 2017. "Performance of Input- and Output-based Payments for the Conservation of Mobile Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 49-56.
    11. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    12. Martina Bozzola & Robert Finger, 2021. "Stability of risk attitude, agricultural policies and production shocks: evidence from Italy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(3), pages 477-501.
    13. Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2010. "Performance payments: A new strategy to conserve large carnivores in the tropics?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 405-412, December.
    14. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    15. Laura Onofri & Samuele Trestini & Vasco Boatto, 2020. "Who Is Afraid of Biotic Threats? An Econometric Analysis of Veneto Wine Grape Farmers’ Propensity to Insure," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-9, August.
    16. Robert Finger & Nadja El Benni, 2021. "Farm income in European agriculture: new perspectives on measurement and implications for policy evaluation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(2), pages 253-265.
    17. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    18. Šumrada, Tanja & Vreš, Branko & Čelik, Tatjana & Šilc, Urban & Rac, Ilona & Udovč, Andrej & Erjavec, Emil, 2021. "Are result-based schemes a superior approach to the conservation of High Nature Value grasslands? Evidence from Slovenia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    19. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    20. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).

    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:lauspo:v:109:y:2021:i:c:s026483772100421x. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.