This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Farmer Responses to Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Designation in Scotland

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Barnes, Andrew P.
Willock, J.
Hall, Clare
Luiza, Toma

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) were introduced in response to the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) which states that all EU countries must reduce the nitrate in drinking water to a maximum of 50mg/l. Farmers within a designated NVZ must adhere to strict rules over the timing and application of nitrogen from organic and inorganic sources. In Scotland, four NVZ regions were designated in 2003, covering around 14% of the land area. This paper outlines the results of a recent study to understand farmer activities in response to and attitudes towards NVZ regulations. A telephone survey of 177 farmers was administered, supplemented by four workshops held in each NVZ region. This was to explore, both quantitatively and qualitatively, farmer behaviour and attitudes when operating within these regions. Farmers have only responded to a small extent to the tighter restrictions placed on them after designation in 2003. The bulk of farmers claim to have made little capital investment, the major activity predominantly being in stock-proof fencing. Furthermore, few farmers have invested in increased slurry storage facilities, claiming to have had enough storage capacity before designation to cover the imposed closed period. Farmer attitudes indicate a mostly negative view towards the perceived environmental benefits, water management and towards compliance. This can be explained by a number of concerns raised by farmers towards the scientific basis for designations. Furthermore, farmers viewed the restrictions placed on farming practices within NVZs as too inflexible. This raises a number of issues; i) it suggests that the NVZ regulations adopted by the Scottish Government do not seem to have had a great effect on compromising activity levels, ii) it suggests that transfer of information has not helped to raise awareness of environmental issues; iii) farmers feel their concerns are not likely to be taken into account in terms of the future direction of the regulations; and iv) adoption of best practice is hindered by a belief of ‘victimisation’, regarding the NVZ designations.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/36767
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Agricultural Economics Society in its series 82nd Annual Conference, March 31 - April 2, 2008, Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, UK with number 36767.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 31 Mar 2008
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:ags:aes008:36767

Contact details of provider:
Email:
Web page: http://www.aes.ac.uk
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (AgEcon Search).

Related research
Keywords:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. John W. Cary & Roger L. Wilkinson, 1997. "Perceived Profitability And Farmers' Conservation Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(1-3), pages 13-21. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Segerson, Kathleen & Miceli, Thomas J., 1998. "Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Good or Bad News for Environmental Protection?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 109-130, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? LogEc provides statistical analysis about downloads from this service (and others).

This page was last updated on 2009-12-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.