IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/semrui/148830.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Operating or not Operating at the Margin: Farmers Willingness to Adopt a Riparian Buffer Zone

Author

Listed:
  • Buckley, Cathal
  • Hynes, Stephen
  • Mechan, Sarah

Abstract

In the European Union, mitigation measures to abate diffuse pollution from agricultural land are implemented under the direction of the EU Nitrates and Water Framework Directives. As these measures are implemented in national policies, a review process will look at the efficacy of the measures with a view to recommending further measures as necessary. This study examines the willingness of farmers to adopt riparian buffer zones on agricultural land. A total of 247 farmers in 12 catchments in the Republic of Ireland were asked their opinion in relation to a proposal to install a 10 metre deep riparian buffer zone under a five year scheme and the analysis was based on principal components analysis, contingent valuation methodology and a Generalized Tobit Interval model. Results from this analysis indicated that famers’ willingness to supply a riparian buffer zone depended on a mix of economic, attitudinal and farm structural factors. A total of 53% of the sample indicated a negative preference for provision. Principle constraints to adoption include interference with production, nuisance effects and loss of production in small field systems. Of those willing to engage with supply, the mean willingness to accept based cost of provision for a 10 metre riparian buffer zone was estimated to be €1513 ha-1 per annum equivalent to €1.51 per linear metre of riparian area.

Suggested Citation

  • Buckley, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Mechan, Sarah, 2012. "Operating or not Operating at the Margin: Farmers Willingness to Adopt a Riparian Buffer Zone," Working Papers 148830, National University of Ireland, Galway, Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:semrui:148830
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.148830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/148830/files/12-WP-SEMRU-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.148830?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. Lynch, Lori & Hardie, Ian W. & Parker, Douglas D., 2002. "Analyzing Agricultural Landowners' Willingness To Install Streamside Buffers," Working Papers 28570, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Rory Deverell & Kevin McDonnell & Ger Devlin, 2009. "The Impact of Field Size on the Environment and Energy Crop Production Efficiency for a Sustainable Indigenous Bioenergy Supply Chain in the Republic of Ireland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 1(4), pages 1-18, November.
    3. Sabina L. Shaikh & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis Van Kooten, 2007. "Are Agricultural Values a Reliable Guide in Determining Landowners' Decisions to Create Forest Carbon Sinks?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 55(1), pages 97-114, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Hanley, Nicholas & Hynes, Stephen, 2008. "The "Crex crex" Lament: Estimating Landowners Willingness to Pay for Corncrake Conservation on Irish Farmland," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-14, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    6. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    7. Mark A. Sutton & Oene Oenema & Jan Willem Erisman & Adrian Leip & Hans van Grinsven & Wilfried Winiwarter, 2011. "Too much of a good thing," Nature, Nature, vol. 472(7342), pages 159-161, April.
    8. C. J. Vörösmarty & P. B. McIntyre & M. O. Gessner & D. Dudgeon & A. Prusevich & P. Green & S. Glidden & S. E. Bunn & C. A. Sullivan & C. Reidy Liermann & P. M. Davies, 2010. "Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7315), pages 555-561, September.
    9. Knetsch, Jack L., 1990. "Environmental policy implications of disparities between willingness to pay and compensation demanded measures of values," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 227-237, May.
    10. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    11. Steven D. Shultz, 2005. "Evaluating the Acceptance of Wetland Easement Conservation Offers," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 259-272.
    12. Amigues, Jean-Pierre & Boulatoff (Broadhead), Catherine & Desaigues, Brigitte & Gauthier, Caroline & Keith, John E., 2002. "The benefits and costs of riparian analysis habitat preservation: a willingness to accept/willingness to pay contingent valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 17-31, November.
    13. Ghazalian, Pascal L. & Larue, Bruno & West, Gale E., 2009. "Best Management Practices to Enhance Water Quality: Who is Adopting Them?," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(3), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Cooper, Joseph C., 1997. "Combining Actual And Contingent Behavior Data To Model Farmer Adoption Of Water Quality Protection Practices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 22(1), pages 1-14, July.
    15. Ribaudo, Marc O. & Heimlich, Ralph & Claassen, Roger & Peters, Mark, 2001. "Least-cost management of nonpoint source pollution: source reduction versus interception strategies for controlling nitrogen loss in the Mississippi Basin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 183-197, May.
    16. Cameron, Trudy Ann & Huppert, Daniel D., 1989. "OLS versus ML estimation of non-market resource values with payment card interval data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 230-246, November.
    17. P. Dupraz & D. Vermersch & B. De Frahan & L. Delvaux, 2003. "The Environmental Supply of Farm Households: A Flexible Willingness to Accept Model," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(2), pages 171-189, June.
    18. Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Edel Doherty, 2009. "Walking in the Irish countryside: landowner preferences and attitudes to improved public access provision," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(8), pages 1053-1070.
    19. Caroline Ducros & Nigel Watson, 2002. "Integrated Land and Water Management in the United Kingdom: Narrowing the Implementation Gap," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 403-423.
    20. Ramilan, Thiagarajah & Scrimgeour, Frank G. & Marsh, Dan, 2010. "Modelling riparian buffers for water quality enhancement in the Karapiro catchment," 2010 Conference (54th), February 10-12, 2010, Adelaide, Australia 59166, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    21. Jia Yu & Ken Belcher, 2011. "An Economic Analysis of Landowners’ Willingness to Adopt Wetland and Riparian Conservation Management," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 59, pages 207-222, June.
    22. Jordan F. Suter & Gregory L. Poe & Nelson L. Bills, 2008. "Do Landowners Respond to Land Retirement Incentives? Evidence from the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 17-30.
    23. R C Daniels & S Rospabe, 2005. "Estimating an Earnings Function From Coarsened Data by an Interval Censored Regression Procedure," Studies in Economics and Econometrics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(1), pages 29-46, April.
    24. Steven D. Shultz, 2005. "Evaluating the Acceptance of Wetland Easement Conservation Offers," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 27(2), pages 259-272.
    25. Stephen Hynes & Danny Campbell & Peter Howley, 2011. "A Holistic vs. an Attribute‐based Approach to Agri‐Environmental Policy Valuation: Do Welfare Estimates Differ?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 305-329, June.
    26. Sullivan, Jay & Amacher, Gregory S. & Chapman, Sara, 2005. "Forest banking and forest landowners forgoing management rights for guaranteed financial returns," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 381-392, March.
    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. Lindhjem, Henrik & Mitani, Yohei, 2012. "Forest owners’ willingness to accept compensation for voluntary conservation: A contingent valuation approach," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 290-302.
    2. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    3. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O’Donoghue, 2009. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring individuals’ WTP for the protection of traditional rural landscapes," Working Papers 0906, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    4. Lava Prakash Yadav & Stephen O’Neill & Tom van Rensburg, 2013. "Economic Crisis and the Restructuring of Wage Setting Mechanisms for Vulnerable Workers in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 44(2), pages 221-245.
    5. Greiner, Romy & Bliemer, Michiel & Ballweg, Julie, 2014. "Design considerations of a choice experiment to estimate likely participation by north Australian pastoralists in contractual biodiversity conservation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 34-45.
    6. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Glenk, Klaus & Rodriguez-Entrena, M., 2016. "Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236348, Agricultural Economics Society.
    7. Richard T. Carson & Miko_aj Czajkowski, 2014. "The discrete choice experiment approach to environmental contingent valuation," Chapters, in: Stephane Hess & Andrew Daly (ed.), Handbook of Choice Modelling, chapter 9, pages 202-235, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Jayalath, Tharaka A. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Evans, David L., 2021. "Increasing provision of ecosystem services through participation in a conservation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    9. Devkota, Nirmala & Paudel, Krishna P., 2009. "Production Termination As An Alternative To Mitigate Nutrient Pollution," 2009 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2009, Atlanta, Georgia 46826, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    10. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.
    11. Richard T. Carson, 2011. "Contingent Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2489.
    12. Murphy, Geraldine & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Green, Stuart, 2011. "Assessing the compatibility of farmland biodiversity and habitats to the specifications of agri-environmental schemes using a multinomial logit approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 111-121.
    13. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    14. 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.
    15. Cathal Buckley & Stephen Hynes & Tom van Rensburg & Edel Doherty, 2008. "Access to farmland for walking in the Republic of Ireland – The attitude of landowners," Working Papers 0814, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    16. Akbar Marvasti, 2006. "A Contingent Valuation of Customer Delay in Medical Services," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 32(1), pages 31-45, Winter.
    17. Yadav, Lava Prakash & O'Neill, Stephen, 2013. "Is there agreement between beneficiaries on who should bear the costs of conserving farm landscapes?," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 62-70.
    18. Mooney, Daniel F. & Barham, Bradford L. & Lian, Chang, 2013. "Sustainable Biofuels, Marginal Agricultural Lands, and Farm Supply Response: Micro-Evidence for Southwest Wisconsin," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150510, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. Cathal O'Donoghue & Thia Hennessy, 2014. "Chapter 03: The Agri-Food Sector," Chapters from Rural Economic Development in Ireland, in: Rural Economic Development in Ireland, edition 1, chapter 3, Rural Economy and Development Programme,Teagasc.
    20. Cathal O'Donoghue & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Policy and Economic Change in the Agri-Food Sector in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 46(2), pages 315-337.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ags:semrui:148830. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/semgaie.html .

    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.