IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v146y2018icp10-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation by Innovation: What Are the Triggers for Participation Among Swiss Farmers?

Author

Listed:
  • Mann, Stefan

Abstract

The Swiss government pays subsidies for the adoption of innovative conservation technologies such as no-tillage and slurry spreading with banding. Both a theoretical model and a quantitative survey show that dedication to innovation and conservation triggers farmers' participation in these schemes. Analysis of an excerpt from three interviews with participants shows cases of farmers who are primarily motivated by the possibility of additional income and emphasize the importance of using glyphosate. While this questions their environmental dedication, it underlines the importance of supplementary qualitative research.

Suggested Citation

  • Mann, Stefan, 2018. "Conservation by Innovation: What Are the Triggers for Participation Among Swiss Farmers?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 10-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:10-16
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916311399
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.09.013?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
    ---><---

    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. Stefan Mann & Simon Lanz, 2013. "Happy Tinbergen: Switzerland's New Direct Payment System," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 12(3), pages 24-28, December.
    2. Rob Fraser, 2009. "Land Heterogeneity, Agricultural Income Forgone and Environmental Benefit: An Assessment of Incentive Compatibility Problems in Environmental Stewardship Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(1), pages 190-201, February.
    3. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard G., 2008. "Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 142-162, March.
    4. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    5. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
    6. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    7. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    8. Stefan Mann, 2005. "Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri‐environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 373-384, December.
    9. 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.
    10. Karpoff, Jonathan M, 1985. "Non-pecuniary Benefits in Commercial Fishing: Empirical Findings from the Alaska Salmon Fisheries," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(1), pages 159-174, January.
    11. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    12. Mann, Stefan, 2013. "“Work”? On utility in the market and in the unpaid sphere," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 86-91.
    13. B W Ilbery & I R Bowler, 1993. "The Farm Diversification Grant Scheme: Adoption and Nonadoption in England and Wales," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 11(2), pages 161-170, June.
    14. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
    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. Isbell, Carina & Tobin, Daniel & Reynolds, Travis, 2021. "Motivations for maintaining crop diversity: Evidence from Vermont's seed systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    2. Wang, Yanbing & Schaub, Sergei & Wuepper, David & Finger, Robert, 2023. "Culture and agricultural biodiversity conservation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    3. Mack, Gabriele & Ritzel, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2020. "Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    5. Weituschat, Chiara Sophia & Pascucci, Stefano & Materia, Valentina Cristiana & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2023. "Can contract farming support sustainable intensification in agri-food value chains?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Hongbin Liu & Mengyao Wu & Xinhua Liu & Jiaju Gao & Xiaojuan Luo & Yan Wu, 2021. "Simulation of Policy Tools’ Effects on Farmers’ Adoption of Conservation Tillage Technology: An Empirical Analysis in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-23, October.
    8. Kreft, Cordelia & Huber, Robert & Wuepper, David & Finger, Robert, 2021. "The role of non-cognitive skills in farmers' adoption of climate change mitigation measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    9. 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.

    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. Laure Kuhfuss & Florence Jacquet & Raphaële Preget & Sophie Thoyer, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(4), pages 395-422.
    2. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    3. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    5. Alló, Maria & Igleasias, Eva & Loureiro, Maria L., 2013. "Farmers’ preferences and social capital towards agri-environmental schemes for protecting birds," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150620, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Anja Deelen, 2011. "Wage-Tenure Profiles and Mobility," CPB Discussion Paper 198.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    7. Francesco Vona & Francesco Nicolli & Lionel Nesta, 2012. "Determinants of renewable energy innovation: environmental policies vs. market regulation," Sciences Po publications 2012-05, Sciences Po.
    8. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    9. Joëlle Noailly & Svetlana Batrakova & Ruslan Lukach, 2010. "Home green home; a case study of inducing energy-efficient innovations in the Dutch building sector," CPB Document 198.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Aslam, Uzma & Termansen, Mette & Fleskens, Luuk, 2017. "Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 27(PA), pages 103-112.
    11. Hansen, Kristiana & Duke, Esther & Bond, Craig & Purcell, Melanie & Paige, Ginger, 2018. "Rancher Preferences for a Payment for Ecosystem Services Program in Southwestern Wyoming," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 240-249.
    12. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    13. Salazar-Ordóñez, Melania & Rodríguez-Entrena, Macario & Villanueva, Anastasio J., 2021. "Exploring the commodification of biodiversity using olive oil producers’ willingness to accept," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Kaczan, David & Swallow, Brent M. & Adamowicz, W.L. (Vic), 2013. "Designing a payments for ecosystem services (PES) program to reduce deforestation in Tanzania: An assessment of payment approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 20-30.
    15. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    16. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Mack, Gabriele & Huber, Robert, 2017. "On-farm compliance costs and N surplus reduction of mixed dairy farms under grassland-based feeding systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 34-44.
    19. Nicolli, Francesco & Vona, Francesco, 2016. "Heterogeneous policies, heterogeneous technologies: The case of renewable energy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 190-204.
    20. Noailly, Joëlle & Batrakova, Svetlana, 2010. "Stimulating energy-efficient innovations in the Dutch building sector: Empirical evidence from patent counts and policy lessons," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7803-7817, December.
    21. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46, pages 273-282.
    22. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/eu4vqp9ompqllr09j0h0ji242 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/4b9o704lm99vm9u7s9e6fdpp6r is not listed on IDEAS
    24. 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).

    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:eee:ecolec:v:146:y:2018:i:c:p:10-16. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.