IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0071912.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a Solution to the Goose-Agriculture Conflict in North Norway, 1988–2012: The Interplay between Policy, Stakeholder Influence and Goose Population Dynamics

Author

Listed:
  • Ingunn M Tombre
  • Einar Eythórsson
  • Jesper Madsen

Abstract

This paper presents results from a multidisciplinary study of a negotiation process between farmers and wildlife authorities which led to an agricultural subsidy scheme to alleviate conflicts between agriculture and geese in Norway. The Svalbard-breeding population of pink-footed geese Anser brachyrhynchus has increased considerably over the last decades and conflicts with farmers have escalated, especially at stopover sites in spring when geese feed on newly sprouted pasture grass. In Vesterålen, an important stopover site for geese in North Norway, farmers deployed scaring of geese at varying intensity dependent on the level of conflict during 1988–2012. We assessed the efficiency of a subsidy scheme established in 2006, in terms of its conflict mitigation, reflected in a near discontinuation of scaring activities. The presence of pink-footed geese was analysed in relation to scaring intensity, the total goose population size and the increasing occurrence of another goose species, the barnacle goose Branta leucopsis. Scaring significantly affected the number of geese staging in Vesterålen, both in absolute and relative terms (controlling for total population size). The geese responded immediately to an increased, and reduced, level of scaring. Despite the establishment of the subsidy scheme, the number of pink-footed geese has recently declined which is probably caused by the increasing number of barnacle geese. For the farmers, the subsidy scheme provides funding that reduces the economic costs caused by the geese. Sustaining a low level of conflict will require close monitoring, dialogue and adaptation of the subsidy scheme to cater for changes in goose population dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • Ingunn M Tombre & Einar Eythórsson & Jesper Madsen, 2013. "Towards a Solution to the Goose-Agriculture Conflict in North Norway, 1988–2012: The Interplay between Policy, Stakeholder Influence and Goose Population Dynamics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-8, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0071912
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071912
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071912
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071912&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0071912?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Whitfield, 2006. "How green was my subsidy?," Nature, Nature, vol. 439(7079), pages 908-909, February.
    2. David Kleijn & Frank Berendse & Ruben Smit & Niels Gilissen, 2001. "Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6857), pages 723-725, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Meijerink, Gerdien W., 2007. "If services aren't delivered, people won't pay: the role of measurement problems and monitoring in Payments for Environmental Services," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7948, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. 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.
    3. Aerni, Philipp, 2009. "What is sustainable agriculture? Empirical evidence of diverging views in Switzerland and New Zealand," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1872-1882, April.
    4. Barraquand, F. & Martinet, V., 2011. "Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 910-920, March.
    5. Anja Schmitz & Johannes Isselstein, 2020. "Effect of Grazing System on Grassland Plant Species Richness and Vegetation Characteristics: Comparing Horse and Cattle Grazing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Vermaat, Jan E. & Eppink, Florian & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Barendregt, Aat & van Belle, Jasper, 2005. "Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 229-237, January.
    7. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    8. Wamelink, G.W.W. & de Jong, J.J. & Van Dobben, H.F. & Van Wijk, M.N., 2005. "Additional costs of nature management caused by deposition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 437-451, March.
    9. Mack, Gabriele & Ritzel, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2020. "Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Martinet, Vincent, 2014. "The economics of the Food versus Biodiversity debate," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182800, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. 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).
    12. 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).
    13. Ohl, C. & Drechsler, M. & Johst, K. & Wätzold, F., 2008. "Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: Existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 162-174, September.
    14. Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Rossing, Walter a.H. & Tichit, Muriel & Turpin, Nadine & Jellema, André & Baudry, Jacques & Verburg, Peter & Doyen, Luc & van de Ven, Gerrie, 2009. "On the contribution of modelling to multifunctional agriculture: learning from comparisons," MPRA Paper 65467, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Lerouge, Frederik & Sannen, Kurt & Gulinck, Hubert & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Revisiting production and ecosystem services for evaluating land use alternatives in a rural landscape," Working Papers 187605, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    16. Mouysset, L., 2014. "Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 15-23.
    17. Juha Siikamäki & David F. Layton, 2007. "Potential Cost-Effectiveness of Incentive Payment Programs for the Protection of Non-Industrial Private Forests," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 539-560.
    18. Chobotová, Veronika, 2013. "The role of market-based instruments for biodiversity conservation in Central and Eastern Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 41-50.
    19. Aerni, Philipp & Rae, Allan & Lehmann, Bernard, 2009. "Nostalgia versus Pragmatism? How attitudes and interests shape the term sustainable agriculture in Switzerland and New Zealand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 227-235, April.
    20. Xiaolong Guo & Lihong Cheng & Yugang Yu, 2022. "Government subsidy policy for green and efficient raw materials considering farmer heterogeneity," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(11), pages 4095-4112, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0071912. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.