IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i5p282-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale

Author

Listed:
  • Uthes, Sandra
  • Sattler, Claudia
  • Zander, Peter
  • Piorr, Annette
  • Matzdorf, Bettina
  • Damgaard, Martin
  • Sahrbacher, Amanda
  • Schuler, Johannes
  • Kjeldsen, Chris
  • Heinrich, Uwe
  • Fischer, Holger

Abstract

We used a farm-level modeling approach to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme in the district of Ostprignitz-Ruppin, Germany. The behavior of the regional farm population (n = 585) consisting of different farm types with different production orientations and grassland types was modeled under the presence and absence of the grassland extensification scheme using the bio-economic model MODAM. Farms were based on available accountancy data and surveyed production data, while information on farm location within the district was derived from a spatial allocation procedure. The reduction in total gross margin per unit area was used to measure on-farm compliance costs. A dimensionless environmental index was used to assess the suitability of the scheme to reduce the risk of nitrate-leaching. Calculated on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects were heterogeneous in space and farm types as a result of different agricultural production and site characteristics. On-farm costs ranged from zero up to almost 1500 Euro/ha. Such high costs occurred only in a very small part of the regional area, whereas the majority of the grassland had low on-farm costs below 50 Euro/ha. Environmental effects were moderate and greater on high-yield than on low-yield grassland. The low effectiveness combined with low on-farm costs in large parts of the region indicates that the scheme is not well targeted. The soft scheme design results from an attempt to achieve environmental and rural development objectives with only one scheme. Improving the efficiency of the scheme would require designing separate instruments for the two distinct objectives. This is in line with the Tinbergen rule, which states that consistent economic policy requires that the number of instruments equals the number of targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Uthes, Sandra & Sattler, Claudia & Zander, Peter & Piorr, Annette & Matzdorf, Bettina & Damgaard, Martin & Sahrbacher, Amanda & Schuler, Johannes & Kjeldsen, Chris & Heinrich, Uwe & Fischer, Holger, 2010. "Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 282-293, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:282-293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(10)00019-3
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Zander & Jeroen C.J. Groot & Etienne Josien & Isabella Karpinski & Andrea Knierim & Burghard C. Meyer & Livia Madureira & Mbolatiana Rambonilaza & Walter A.H. Rossing, 2008. "Farm models and economic valuation in the context of multifunctionality: a review of approaches from France, Germany, The Netherlands and Portugal," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(4/5), pages 339-360.
    2. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers' Participation in Agri-environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    3. Frank Wätzold & Martin Drechsler, 2005. "Spatially Uniform versus Spatially Heterogeneous Compensation Payments for Biodiversity-Enhancing Land-Use Measures," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(1), pages 73-93, May.
    4. Zander, P. & Kachele, H., 1999. "Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 311-325, March.
    5. Wätzold, Frank & Lienhoop, Nele & Drechsler, Martin & Settele, Josef, 2008. "Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 295-305, December.
    6. Berentsen, Paul B.M. & Hendriksen, Astrid & Heijman, Wim J.M. & van Vlokhoven, Haske A., 2007. "Costs and benefits of on-farm nature conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(3-4), pages 571-579, May.
    7. Canton, Joan & De Cara, Stéphane & Jayet, Pierre-Alain, 2009. "Agri-environmental schemes: Adverse selection, information structure and delegation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2114-2121, May.
    8. Happe, Kathrin & Damgaard, Martin & Osuch, Amanda & Sattler, Claudia & Zander, Peter & Uthes, Sandra & Schuler, Johannes & Piorr, Annette, 2006. "CAP-reform and the provision of non-commodity outputs in Brandenburg," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 0(Number 5-), pages 1-12.
    9. Claudia Sattler & Johannes Schuler & Peter Zander, 2006. "Determination of trade-off-functions to analyse the provision of agricultural non-commodities," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 5(2/3), pages 309-325.
    10. van Ittersum, Martin K. & Ewert, Frank & Heckelei, Thomas & Wery, Jacques & Alkan Olsson, Johanna & Andersen, Erling & Bezlepkina, Irina & Brouwer, Floor & Donatelli, Marcello & Flichman, Guillermo & , 2008. "Integrated assessment of agricultural systems - A component-based framework for the European Union (SEAMLESS)," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 150-165, March.
    11. Katherine Falconer & Pierre Dupraz & Martin Whitby, 2001. "An Investigation of Policy Administrative Costs Using Panel Data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 83-103.
    12. 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.
    13. Wossink, G. A. A. & Oude Lansink, A. G. J. M. & Struik, P. C., 2001. "Non-separability and heterogeneity in integrated agronomic-economic analysis of nonpoint-source pollution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 345-357, September.
    14. Meyer-Aurich, Andreas, 2005. "Economic and environmental analysis of sustainable farming practices - a Bavarian case study," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 190-206, November.
    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. repec:eee:agisys:v:154:y:2017:i:c:p:34-44 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Uthes, Sandra & Piorr, Annette & Zander, Peter & Bienkowski, Jerzy & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Dalgaard, Tommy & Stolze, Matthias & Moschitz, Heidrun & Schader, Christian & Happe, Kathrin & Sahrbacher, Amand, 2011. "Regional impacts of abolishing direct payments: An integrated analysis in four European regions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 110-121, February.
    3. repec:eee:agisys:v:159:y:2018:i:c:p:111-125 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Aurbacher, Joachim & Parker, Phillip S. & Calberto Sánchez, Germán A. & Steinbach, Jennifer & Reinmuth, Evelyn & Ingwersen, Joachim & Dabbert, Stephan, 2013. "Influence of climate change on short term management of field crops – A modelling approach," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 44-57.

    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:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:282-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.