IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v81y2019icp194-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?

Author

Listed:
  • Arnott, David
  • Chadwick, David
  • Harris, Ian
  • Koj, Aleksandra
  • Jones, David L.

Abstract

Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote ‘greening’, ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecosystem services’ approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84% of recipients of AES payments receiving <£10k annually, comprising only 35% of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of ∼165, management options, accounted for >75% of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a ‘business as usual’ approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government’s ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the ‘“Public Goods”’ that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.

Suggested Citation

  • Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:81:y:2019:i:c:p:194-208
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718308184
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039?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. Laure Latruffe & Boris E. Bravo-Ureta & Alain Carpentier & Yann Desjeux & Víctor H. Moreira, 2017. "Subsidies and Technical Efficiency in Agriculture: Evidence from European Dairy Farms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 783-799.
    2. 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.
    3. Werner Kleinhanß & Carmen Murillo & Carlos San Juan & Stefan Sperlich, 2007. "Efficiency, subsidies, and environmental adaptation of animal farming under CAP," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 36(1), pages 49-65, January.
    4. Clive Potter & Steven Wolf, 2014. "Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(3), pages 397-408, September.
    5. Dieter Helm, 2017. "Agriculture after Brexit," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(suppl_1), pages 124-133.
    6. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    7. Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    8. Holcombe, Randall G. (Холкомб, Рэндалл Дж.), 2015. "A Theory of the Theory of Public Goods [Теория Происхождения Теории Общественных Благ]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 4, pages 196-207.
    9. Westerink, Judith & Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & Prager, Katrin & Franks, Jeremy & Dupraz, Pierre & Mettepenningen, Evy, 2017. "Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 176-192.
    10. Geoff A Wilson & Kaley Hart, 2000. "Financial Imperative or Conservation Concern? EU Farmers' Motivations for Participation in Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2161-2185, December.
    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. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Li, Dalei & Gao, Jianzhong, 2021. "Impact of Large-Scale Land Operation on the Development of Regional Public Brands of Agricultural Products," 2021 ASAE 10th International Conference (Virtual), January 11-13, Beijing, China 329397, Asian Society of Agricultural Economists (ASAE).
    3. 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).
    4. Giulia Bazzan & Carsten Daugbjerg & Jale Tosun, 2023. "Attaining policy integration through the integration of new policy instruments: The case of the Farm to Fork Strategy," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 45(2), pages 803-818, June.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Harkness, Caroline & Areal, Francisco J. & Semenov, Mikhail A. & Senapati, Nimai & Shield, Ian F. & Bishop, Jacob, 2021. "Stability of farm income: The role of agricultural diversity and agri-environment scheme payments," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    8. Image, Mike & Gardner, Emma & Breeze, Tom D., 2023. "Co-benefits from tree planting in a typical English agricultural landscape: Comparing the relative effectiveness of hedgerows, agroforestry and woodland creation for improving crop pollination service," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    9. Ferré, Marie & Engel, Stefanie & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth, 2022. "Incentivizing coordination in the adoption of sustainable land use when costs are heterogeneous: An economic experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Tsakiridis, Andreas & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Cullen, Paula & Ó hUallacháin, Daire & Sheridan, Helen & Stout, Jane, 2022. "Examining the relationship between farmer participation in an agri-environment scheme and the quantity and quality of semi-natural habitats on Irish farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    11. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Schilizzi, Steven & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2022. "Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    12. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    13. Lan Yao & Xiaobo Yan & Miaomiao Xu & Mengya Wu & Zhenning Yu & Min Li, 2021. "Study on Herders’ Willingness to Protect Grassland Based on the IAD Extended Decision Model," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    14. Kelemen, Eszter & Megyesi, Boldizsár & Matzdorf, Bettina & Andersen, Erling & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Dumortier, Myriam & Dutilly, Céline & García-Llorente, Marina & Hamon, Christine & LePage, Annabe, 2023. "The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(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. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    2. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Franks, Jeremy R., 2019. "An assessment of the landscape-scale dimensions of land based environmental management schemes offered to farmers in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-159.
    4. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    7. 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).
    8. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    9. 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).
    10. Runhaar, Hens & Polman, Nico, 2018. "Partnering for nature conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 11-19.
    11. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. Khafagy, Amr & Vigani, Mauro, 2022. "Technical change and the Common Agricultural Policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    13. Westerink, Judith & Pérez-Soba, Marta & van Doorn, Anne, 2020. "Social learning and land lease to stimulate the delivery of ecosystem services in intensive arable farming," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    14. Jasper R. de Vries & Eva van der Zee & Raoul Beunen & Rianne Kat & Peter H. Feindt, 2019. "Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    15. Çullu, Mehmet Ali & Teke, Mustafa & Aydoğdu, Mustafa Hakkı & Günal, Hikmet, 2022. "Effects of subsidy and regulation policy on soil and water resources of cotton planted lands in Harran Plain, Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    16. Alblas, Edwin & van Zeben, Josephine, 2023. "Public participation for a greener Europe: The potential of farmers in biodiversity monitoring," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    17. Häfner, Kati & Piorr, Annette, 2021. "Farmers’ perception of co-ordinating institutions in agri-environmental measures – The example of peatland management for the provision of public goods on a landscape scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Frýd, Lukáš & Sokol, Ondřej, 2021. "Relationships between technical efficiency and subsidies for Czech farms: A two-stage robust approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Bartolini, Fabio & Vergamini, Daniele & Longhitano, Davide & Povellato, Andrea, 2021. "Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    20. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(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:81:y:2019:i:c:p:194-208. 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.