IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i10p1092-d657144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Spatial Typography of Environmentally Friendly Common Agricultural Policy Support Relevant to European Green Deal Objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Roman Rudnicki

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Tourism, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń, Poland)

  • Łukasz Wiśniewski

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Tourism, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń, Poland)

  • Mirosław Biczkowski

    (Department of Spatial Planning and Tourism, Faculty of Earth Sciences and Spatial Management, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Lwowska 1, 87-100 Toruń, Poland)

Abstract

The European Union (EU), through its implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), is increasingly emphasising the development of environmentally friendly forms of agriculture. This is confirmed by, for example, the new European Green Deal (EGD). In Poland, the most important forms of CAP support for the environmentally friendly management of agricultural land were the following measures: agri-environment-climate measures (AECM) and organic farming (OF). These aid instruments facilitated the use of a range of packages and variants, which resulted in the pro-environmental forms of support offered by the CAP support having a very diverse internal structure. This study therefore attempts to synthesise the diversity of CAP financial support using spatial typology methods. The researched support measures were divided into three basic directions for developing agriculture: ecology, environment and habitat. The research procedure involved the D’Hondt method, the normalisation method, standardisation and correlation. The study was conducted on the example of Poland, and the basic territorial unit of analysis was the commune. It was shown that support for environmentally friendly activities in Poland related to almost 10% of the total farm area. The utilised agricultural area (UAA) covered by subsidies can be broken down as follows: organic farming—32.7%, environmental farming—31.8%, habitat farming—35.5%. The detailed results of the typology indicate the complexity of the spatial distribution of environmentally friendly CAP funds, which is defined by environmental determinants and the characteristics of the farms themselves. Farm-specific, non-environmental determinants were found to be the most significant, including farm size and managerial expertise.

Suggested Citation

  • Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "A Spatial Typography of Environmentally Friendly Common Agricultural Policy Support Relevant to European Green Deal Objectives," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1092-:d:657144
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1092/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/10/1092/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    2. Desjeux, Yann & Dupraz, Pierre & Latruffe, Laure & Maigne, Elise & Cahuzac, Eric, 2014. "Evaluating the impact of rural development measures on farm labour use: a spatial approach," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182817, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Kirschke, Dieter & Hager, Astrid & Jechlitschka, Kurt & Wegener, Stefan, 2007. "Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 56(07), pages 1-8.
    4. 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.
    5. Rudnicki, Roman & Jezierska-Thöle, Aleksandra & Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Janzen, Jörg & Kozłowski, Leszek, 2018. "Former political borders and their impact on the evolution of the present-day spatial structure of agriculture in Poland," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 120(1), April.
    6. Swinnen, Johan, 2021. "The political economy of agricultural and food policies," IFPRI book chapters, in: Agricultural development: New perspectives in a changing world, chapter 14, pages 471-502, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & Maria Espinosa-Goded & Pierre Dupraz, 2010. "Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(7), pages 891-905.
    8. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van 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, November.
    9. Stephen Hynes & Eoghan Garvey, 2009. "Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri‐environmental Scheme using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 546-562, September.
    10. Früh-Müller, Andrea & Bach, Martin & Breuer, Lutz & Hotes, Stefan & Koellner, Thomas & Krippes, Christian & Wolters, Volkmar, 2019. "The use of agri-environmental measures to address environmental pressures in Germany: Spatial mismatches and options for improvement," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 347-362.
    11. Mark Brady & Konrad Kellermann & Christoph Sahrbacher & Ladislav Jelinek, 2009. "Impacts of Decoupled Agricultural Support on Farm Structure, Biodiversity and Landscape Mosaic: Some EU Results," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 563-585, September.
    12. Pierre Dupraz & Pierre Rainelli, 2004. "Institutional approaches to sustain rural landscapes in France," Post-Print hal-01931648, HAL.
    13. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    14. Ekaterina Arabska, 2021. "From farm to fork: Human health and well-being through sustainable agri-food systems," JOURNAL OF LIFE ECONOMICS, Holistence Publications, vol. 8(1), pages .11-27, 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. Anne Gobin & Ann Van Herzele, 2023. "A Data-Driven Farm Typology as a Basis for Agricultural Land Use Decisions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Andreea-Emanuela Dragoi & Anca-Catalina Dragomir, 2022. "The Role of Common Agricultural Policy in Climate Actions," Global Economic Observer, "Nicolae Titulescu" University of Bucharest, Faculty of Economic Sciences;Institute for World Economy of the Romanian Academy, vol. 10(1), pages 80-87, June.
    3. Roman Rudnicki & Mirosław Biczkowski & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Paweł Wiśniewski & Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska, 2023. "Towards Green Agriculture and Sustainable Development: Pro-Environmental Activity of Farms under the Common Agricultural Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Małgorzata Dudzińska, 2022. "Environmental, Social, and Economic Aspects of the Green Economy in Polish Rural Areas—A Spatial Analysis," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-21, May.

    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. Mirosław Biczkowski & Roman Rudnicki & Justyna Chodkowska-Miszczuk & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Mariusz Kistowski & Paweł Wiśniewski, 2023. "Neo-colonialism in the Polish rural world: CAP approach and the phenomenon of suitcase farmers," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(2), pages 667-691, June.
    2. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    3. Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    4. Paweł Wiśniewski & Roman Rudnicki & Mariusz Kistowski & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Justyna Chodkowska-Miszczuk & Kazimierz Niecikowski, 2021. "Mapping of EU Support for High Nature Value Farmlands, from the Perspective of Natural and Landscape Regions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-28, September.
    5. Roman Rudnicki & Mirosław Biczkowski & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Paweł Wiśniewski & Stanisław Bielski & Renata Marks-Bielska, 2023. "Towards Green Agriculture and Sustainable Development: Pro-Environmental Activity of Farms under the Common Agricultural Policy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-23, February.
    6. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    7. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Drivers of Participation in Gypsum Treatment of Fields as an Innovation for Water Protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 382-393.
    8. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46, pages 273-282.
    9. Marek Zieliński & Jan Jadczyszyn & Jolanta Sobierajewska, 2023. "Predispositions and challenges of agriculture from areas particularly facing natural or other specific constraints in Poland in the context of providing environmental public goods under EU policy," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(8), pages 309-320.
    10. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesùs, 2009. "Fixed costs involved in crop pattern changes and agri-environmental schemes," Working Papers 211000, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    11. Früh-Müller, Andrea & Bach, Martin & Breuer, Lutz & Hotes, Stefan & Koellner, Thomas & Krippes, Christian & Wolters, Volkmar, 2019. "The use of agri-environmental measures to address environmental pressures in Germany: Spatial mismatches and options for improvement," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 347-362.
    12. Doris Läpple, 2010. "Adoption and Abandonment of Organic Farming: An Empirical Investigation of the Irish Drystock Sector," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 697-714, September.
    13. Santos, Rui & Clemente, Pedro & Brouwer, Roy & Antunes, Paula & Pinto, Rute, 2015. "Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-167.
    14. 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).
    15. Ioanna Grammatikopoulou & Eija Pouta & Sami Myyrä, 2016. "Exploring the determinants for adopting water conservation measures. What is the tendency of landowners when the resource is already at risk?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 59(6), pages 993-1014, June.
    16. Vollenweider, Xavier & Di Falco, Salvatore & O’Donoghue, Cathal, 2011. "Risk preferences and voluntary agri-environmental schemes: does risk aversion explain the uptake of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37585, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. K Hervé Dakpo & Laure Latruffe & Yann Desjeux & Philippe Jeanneaux, 2022. "Modeling heterogeneous technologies in the presence of sample selection: The case of dairy farms and the adoption of agri‐environmental schemes in France," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(3), pages 422-438, May.
    18. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Nadine Turpin, 2007. "Programmes agri-environnementaux en présence d’effets de seuil," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 82, pages 5-32.
    19. 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.
    20. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.

    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:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:10:p:1092-:d:657144. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.