Agri-Environmental Schemes and Grassland Biodiversity: Another Side of the Coin
AbstractIn this paper part of the existing Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) of the European Union are evaluated by using data on county level instead of applying field studies. The attempt is made to disentangle the effects of AES on land management practice as well as land use on biodiversity. It is argued that subsidies as AES should promote environmental-friendly land use which, in turn, should lead to biodiversity conservation. First results show that AES promotes ecological land use rather than extensive agricultural practice. Furthermore, AES is predominantly allocated in biodiversity rich counties and not in counties with low biodiversity which should be enhanced. Furthermore, no clear evidence is so far found, that land use practice is improving the biodiversity status.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics in its series Jena Economic Research Papers with number 2010-026.
Date of creation: 19 Apr 2010
Date of revision:
AES effectiveness; biodiversity; policy evaluation;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
- Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
- R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-AGR-2010-05-02 (Agricultural Economics)
- NEP-ALL-2010-05-02 (All new papers)
- NEP-ENV-2010-05-02 (Environmental Economics)
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.:
- Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998.
"Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1836, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Andrew Metrick & Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "Conflicts and Choices in Biodiversity Preservation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 21-34, Summer.
- Andreas Freytag & C. Vietze & W. Völkl, 2009. "What Drives Biodiversity? An Empirical Assessment of the Relation between Biodiversity and the Economy," Jena Economic Research Papers 2009-025, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena, Max-Planck-Institute of Economics.
- Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
- Martin L. Weitzman, 1998. "The Noah's Ark Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(6), pages 1279-1298, November.
- R. Rawls & David Laband, 2004. "A Public Choice Analysis of Endangered Species Listings," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 121(3), pages 263-277, December.
- Parker, Dawn C. & Munroe, Darla K., 2007. "The geography of market failure: Edge-effect externalities and the location and production patterns of organic farming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 821-833, February.
- Eichner, Thomas & Pethig, Rudiger, 2006.
"Economic land use, ecosystem services and microfounded species dynamics,"
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,
Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 707-720, November.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2004. "Economic Land Use, Ecosystem Services and Microfounded Species Dynamics," CESifo Working Paper Series 1269, CESifo Group Munich.
- Thomas Eichner & Rüdiger Pethig, 2004. "Economic land use, ecosystem services and microfounded species dynamics," Volkswirtschaftliche DiskussionsbeitrÃ¤ge 116-04, Universität Siegen, Fakultät Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Wirtschaftsinformatik und Wirtschaftsrecht.
- H. Scott Gordon, 1954. "The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62, pages 124.
- Hanley, Nick & Shogren, Jason & White, Ben, 2013.
"Introduction to Environmental Economics,"
Oxford University Press,
edition 2, number 9780199568734.
- Luc Anselin, 2001. "Spatial Effects in Econometric Practice in Environmental and Resource Economics," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(3), pages 705-710.
- John Asafu-Adjaye, 2003. "Biodiversity Loss and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 21(2), pages 173-185, 04.
- Venkatachalam, L., 2008. "Behavioral economics for environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 640-645, November.
- Baylis, Kathy & Peplow, Stephen & Rausser, Gordon & Simon, Leo, 2008. "Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: A comparison," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 753-764, May.
- Hynes, Stephen & Farrelly, Niall & Murphy, Eithne & O'Donoghue, Cathal, 2008. "Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 258-269, June.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Markus Pasche).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.