IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/ajagec/v104y2022i5p1585-1604.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • David Wuepper
  • Robert Huber

Abstract

Agri‐environmental schemes are an important policy tool to foster agricultural sustainability. We assess the effectiveness and return on investment of two different schemes designed to encourage biodiversity conservation in Switzerland: payments for actions and payments for results. Empirically, we exploit a major policy reform that created a natural experiment by abruptly and unevenly increasing both payments across farmers. Using difference in differences, we estimate the effect of the policy reform on farmers for whom only the action‐ or the results‐based payments increased, as well as on those for whom both increased, compared to farmers for whom neither increased. Our findings are fourfold: First, higher payments increased the biodiversity conservation area. A payment raise by 1% increased conservation areas on average by 0.6% in the action based, and by 1% in the results‐based scheme. Second, the combination of both schemes increased average effectiveness but also windfall gains. Third, using a benefit transfer approach, we estimate a positive return of investment for all payment increases. Finally, the estimated return on investment for the results‐based payments is higher than for the action‐based payments.

Suggested Citation

  • David Wuepper & Robert Huber, 2022. "Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in Switzerland," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1585-1604, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:ajagec:v:104:y:2022:i:5:p:1585-1604
    DOI: 10.1111/ajae.12284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12284
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajae.12284?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. 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.
    2. Roger Claassen & Eric N. Duquette & David J. Smith, 2018. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(1), pages 19-35.
    3. Chabé-Ferret, Sylvain & Subervie, Julie, 2013. "How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 12-27.
    4. Robert Finger, 2010. "Revisiting the Evaluation of Robust Regression Techniques for Crop Yield Data Detrending," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(1), pages 205-211.
    5. Rewitzer, Susanne & Huber, Robert & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Barkmann, Jan, 2017. "Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 197-208.
    6. 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.
    7. Marita Laukkanen & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Evaluating Greening Farm Policies: A Structural Model for Assessing Agri-environmental Subsidies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 458-481.
    8. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    9. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    10. Michelle Marcus & Pedro H. C. Sant’Anna, 2021. "The Role of Parallel Trends in Event Study Settings: An Application to Environmental Economics," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 8(2), pages 235-275.
    11. S. Wunder & R. Brouwer & S. Engel & D. Ezzine-de-Blas & R. Muradian & U. Pascual & R. Pinto, 2018. "From principles to practice in paying for nature’s services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 145-150, March.
    12. Simanti Banerjee, 2018. "Improving Spatial Coordination Rates under the Agglomeration Bonus Scheme: A Laboratory Experiment with a Pecuniary and a Non-Pecuniary Mechanism (NUDGE)," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 100(1), pages 172-197.
    13. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    14. Derissen, Sandra & Quaas, Martin F., 2013. "Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 77-84.
    15. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2019. "Popular initiatives increasingly stimulate agricultural policy in Switzerland," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(2), pages 38-39, August.
    16. 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.
    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. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D.F. & Védrine, Lionel & Legras, Sophie & Le Gallo, Julie & Bellassen, Valentin, 2023. "Drivers of PES effectiveness: Some evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    2. 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).
    3. Huber, Robert & Späti, Karin & Finger, Robert, 2023. "A behavioural agent-based modelling approach for the ex-ante assessment of policies supporting precision agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. AJ A. Bostian & Moriah B. Bostian & Marita Laukkanen & Antti Simola, 2020. "Assessing the productivity consequences of agri-environmental practices when adoption is endogenous," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 141-162, April.
    3. Cisneros, Elías & Börner, Jan & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2022. "Impacts of conservation incentives in protected areas: The case of Bolsa Floresta, Brazil," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(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. Alexia Stokes & Géraldine Bocquého & Pascal Carrère & Raphaël Conde Salazar & Marc Deconchat & Léo Garcia & Antoine Gardarin & Christian Gary & Cédric Gaucherel & Mamadou Gueye & Mickael Hedde & Franç, 2023. "Services provided by multifunctional agroecosystems : Questions, obstacles and solutions," Post-Print hal-04056486, HAL.
    6. Robert Huber & Robert Finger, 2020. "A Meta‐analysis of the Willingness to Pay for Cultural Services from Grasslands in Europe," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(2), pages 357-383, June.
    7. Sawadgo, Wendiam & Plastina, Alejandro, 2021. "Do cost-share programs increase cover crop use? Empirical evidence from Iowa," ISU General Staff Papers 202101010800001084, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    9. Meike Weltin & Silke Hüttel, 2023. "Sustainable Intensification Farming as an Enabler for Farm Eco-Efficiency?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(1), pages 315-342, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Arriagada, Rodrigo & Villaseñor, Adrián & Rubiano, Eliana & Cotacachi, David & Morrison, Judith, 2018. "Analysing the impacts of PES programmes beyond economic rationale: Perceptions of ecosystem services provision associated to the Mexican case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 116-127.
    12. 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).
    13. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    14. Gwenolé Le Velly & Céline Dutilly, 2016. "Evaluating Payments for Environmental Services: Methodological Challenges," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-20, February.
    15. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Montoya-Zumaeta, Javier G. & Wunder, Sven & Tacconi, Luca, 2021. "Incentive-based conservation in Peru: Assessing the state of six ongoing PES and REDD+ initiatives," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank & Sturm, Astrid, 2020. "Distributional Impacts of Cost-effective Spatially Homogeneous and Regionalized Agri-Environment Payments. A case study of a Grassland Scheme in Saxony, Germany," MPRA Paper 104759, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Saint-Cyr, Legrand D.F. & Védrine, Lionel & Legras, Sophie & Le Gallo, Julie & Bellassen, Valentin, 2023. "Drivers of PES effectiveness: Some evidence from a quantitative meta-analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    19. Lichtenberg, Erik, "undated". "Additionality of Conservation Cost Sharing," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 259939, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Luc Behaghel & Karen Macours & Julie Subervie, 2019. "How can randomised controlled trials help improve the design of the common agricultural policy?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 473-493.

    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:wly:ajagec:v:104:y:2022:i:5:p:1585-1604. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1467-8276 .

    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.