IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837720309261.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A socio-economic exploration of landholder motivations to participate in afforestation programs in the Republic of Ireland: The role of irreversibility, inheritance and bequest value

Author

Listed:
  • Vidyaratne, Herath
  • Vij, Akshay
  • Regan, Courtney M.

Abstract

Forest policy in Ireland has focused on the expansion of forest cover on private lands. Despite financial support to incentivize farmers to afforest agricultural land and the high returns of farm forestry relative to the agricultural alternatives, the rate of annual afforestation is falling well below targets. This paper presents results from a survey of farmers that examined the differences between the characteristics and attitudes of farmers that have planted trees and those that have not, with interest in the role of bequest value among other socio-economic determinants. We explore two decisions (a) the decision to enter forestry and (b) how much land is planted. The results show that while farmers consider a broad range of factors along with the expected economic returns in deciding whether to afforest land, the irreversibility of the planting decision and a desire to bequeath to descendants a property consisting of agricultural enterprises plays a significant role in the investment decision. Incentives for afforestation have underperformed in Ireland as they largely focus on the provision of economic benefits. Our results suggest demographic factors including those relating to inheritance and bequests are significant factors influencing afforestation decisions. Future incentive policies may be more effective in achieving increased afforestation, if policy makers can better target policies in order to address issues around farm inheritance, specifically the perceptions of irreversibility and intergenerational burden of land use change to forestry.

Suggested Citation

  • Vidyaratne, Herath & Vij, Akshay & Regan, Courtney M., 2020. "A socio-economic exploration of landholder motivations to participate in afforestation programs in the Republic of Ireland: The role of irreversibility, inheritance and bequest value," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720309261
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104987
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720309261
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104987?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. Chervier, Colas & Costedoat, Sébastien, 2017. "Heterogeneous Impact of a Collective Payment for Environmental Services Scheme on Reducing Deforestation in Cambodia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 148-159.
    2. Duku-Kaakyire, Armstrong & Nanang, David M., 2004. "Application of real options theory to forestry investment analysis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(6), pages 539-552, October.
    3. Schatzki, Todd, 2003. "Options, uncertainty and sunk costs:: an empirical analysis of land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 86-105, July.
    4. Jasmina Behan & Kieran McQuinn & Maurice J. Roche, 2006. "Rural Land Use: Traditional Agriculture or Forestry?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(1), pages 112-123.
    5. Astrid Zabel & Karen Pittel & Göran Bostedt & Stefanie Engel, 2011. "Comparing Conventional and New Policy Approaches for Carnivore Conservation: Theoretical Results and Application to Tiger Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 287-301, February.
    6. Emily Wiemers & Jasmina Behan, 2004. "Farm Forestry Investment in Ireland Under Uncertainty," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(3), pages 305-320.
    7. Isik, Murat & Yang, Wanhong, 2004. "An Analysis of the Effects of Uncertainty and Irreversibility on Farmer Participation in the Conservation Reserve Program," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 29(2), pages 1-18, August.
    8. Quang Nguyen & Colin Camerer & Tomomi Tanaka, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences Linking Experimental and Household Data from Vietnam," Post-Print halshs-00547090, HAL.
    9. Dhakal, Bhubaneswor & Bigsby, Hugh R. & Cullen, Ross, 2008. "Determinants of Forestry Investment and Extent of Forestry Expansion by Smallholders in New Zealand," Review of Applied Economics, Lincoln University, Department of Financial and Business Systems, vol. 4(1-2), pages 1-12.
    10. Burton, Michael & Dorsett, Richard & Young, Trevor, 1996. "Changing Preferences for Meat: Evidence from UK Household Data, 1973-93," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 23(3), pages 357-370.
    11. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Heterogeneous economic and behavioural drivers of the Farm afforestation decision," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-74.
    12. Dã‰Murger, Sylvie & Yang, Weiyong, 2006. "Economic changes and afforestation incentives in rural China," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(5), pages 629-649, October.
    13. Beach, Robert H. & Pattanayak, Subhrendu K. & Yang, Jui-Chen & Murray, Brian C. & Abt, Robert C., 2005. "Econometric studies of non-industrial private forest management: a review and synthesis," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 261-281, March.
    14. Connor, Jeffery D. & Ward, John & Clifton, Craig & Proctor, Wendy & Hatton MacDonald, Darla, 2008. "Designing, testing and implementing a trial dryland salinity credit trade scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 574-588, November.
    15. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    16. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    17. Carol Newman & Maeve Henchion, 2001. "Infrequency of purchase and double-hurdle models of Irish households' meat expenditure," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 28(4), pages 393-420, December.
    18. Tomomi Tanaka & Colin F. Camerer & Quang Nguyen, 2010. "Risk and Time Preferences: Linking Experimental and Household Survey Data from Vietnam," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 557-571, March.
    19. Zabel, Astrid & Pittel, Karen & Bostedt, Göran & Engel, Stefanie, 2011. "Comparing conventional and new policy approaches for carnivore conservation: Theoretical results and application to tiger conservation," Munich Reprints in Economics 19669, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    20. Brimont, L. & Karsenty, A., 2015. "Between incentives and coercion: the thwarted implementation of PES schemes in Madagascar׳s dense forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 113-121.
    21. Godoy, Ricardo A., 1992. "Determinants of smallholder commercial tree cultivation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 713-725, May.
    22. Duesberg, Stefanie & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2019. "Forest intensification in Ireland: Developing an approximation of social acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 368-386.
    23. Gintis, Herbert, 2000. "Beyond Homo economicus: evidence from experimental economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 311-322, December.
    24. Bhattarai, Madhusudan & Hammig, Michael, 2004. "Governance, economic policy, and the environmental Kuznets curve for natural tropical forests," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 367-382, July.
    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. Jodie Asselin, 2022. "Plantation politics and discourse: Forests and property in upland Ireland," Economic Anthropology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(2), pages 336-348, 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. Engel, Stefanie & Palmer, Charles & Taschini, Luca & Urech, Simon, 2012. "Cost-effective payments for reducing emissions from deforestation under uncertainty," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 44837, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Jin, Yan, 2022. "Understanding planting preferences – A case-study of the afforestation choices of farmers in Ireland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    3. Dumortier, Jerome & Kauffman, Nathan & Hayes, Dermot J., 2017. "Production and spatial distribution of switchgrass and miscanthus in the United States under uncertainty and sunk cost," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 300-314.
    4. Stein T. Holden & John Quiggin, 2017. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: shocks, drought tolerance and preferences," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 285-308.
    5. Joshua Byrnes & Anthony Shakeshaft & Dennis Petrie & Christopher Doran, 2016. "Is response to price equal for those with higher alcohol consumption?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(1), pages 23-29, January.
    6. Sheremenko, Ganna & Magnan, Nicholas, 2015. "Gender-specific Risk Preferences and Fertilizer Use in Kenyan Farming Households," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205766, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    7. Holden, Stein T., 2015. "Risk Preferences, Shocks and Technology Adoption: Farmers’ Responses to Drought Risk," CLTS Working Papers 3/15, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, revised 11 Oct 2019.
    8. Holden , Stein T. & Quiggin, John, 2015. "Climate risk and state-contingent technology adoption: The role of risk preferences and probability weighting," Working Paper Series 15-2015, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, School of Economics and Business.
    9. Duan, Wei & Shen, Jinyu & Hogarth, Nicholas J. & Chen, Qian, 2021. "Risk preferences significantly affect household investment in timber forestry: Empirical evidence from Fujian, China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    10. Wright, Austin L. & Sonin, Konstantin & Driscoll, Jesse & Wilson, Jarnickae, 2020. "Poverty and economic dislocation reduce compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place protocols," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 544-554.
    11. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    12. Work, James & Hauer, Grant & Luckert, M.K. (Marty), 2018. "What ethanol prices would induce growers to switch from agriculture to poplar in Alberta? A multiple options approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 51-62.
    13. Shi, Yun & Cui, Xiangyu & Zhou, Xunyu, 2020. "Beta and Coskewness Pricing: Perspective from Probability Weighting," SocArXiv 5rqhv, Center for Open Science.
    14. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    15. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    16. Langyintuo, Augustine S. & Mungoma, Catherine, 2008. "The effect of household wealth on the adoption of improved maize varieties in Zambia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 550-559, December.
    17. Daniel Woods & Mustafa Abdallah & Saurabh Bagchi & Shreyas Sundaram & Timothy Cason, 2022. "Network defense and behavioral biases: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 254-286, February.
    18. Yayan Hernuryadin & Koji Kotani & Tatsuyoshi Saijo, 2020. "Time Preferences of Food Producers: Does “Cultivate and Grow” Matter?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 96(1), pages 132-148.
    19. Bocqueho, Geraldine & Jacquet, Florence & Reynaud, Arnaud, 2011. "Expected Utility or Prospect Theory Maximizers? Results from a Structural Model based on Field-experiment Data," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114257, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    20. Meier, Stephan & Sprenger, Charles D., 2013. "Discounting financial literacy: Time preferences and participation in financial education programs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 159-174.

    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:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720309261. 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.