IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Implementation of the EU Nitrates Directive in the Republic of Ireland — A view from the farm

  • Buckley, Cathal
Registered author(s):

    This paper employs Q methodology to investigate farmer opinions on the operation of the EU Nitrates Directive regulations after the first 4years of National Action Programme phase and explores the level of acceptance and refutation of measures from the view of farmers' own knowledge and experience of land stewardship. Results indicate 4 main opinion groups. A “Constrained Productionists” group remains unconvinced about the appropriateness of certain measures from a farm management, environmental and water quality perspective. A second group, “Concerned Practitioners”, shares some of these concerns but are generally more positive regarding other farm management and environmental benefits accruing from the regulations. A third group, “Benefit Accepters”, indicates quite an environmentalist position and is generally very positive towards regulation implementation and associated environmental and farm management benefits. The final group, “Regulation Unaffected”, has some concerns but are mostly unaffected by the regulations. Results suggest that there is a growing acceptance among some farmers of environmental benefits accruing from the regulation but scepticism remains around the validity of certain measures, especially, in the area of temporal farm practices.

    If 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.

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091200095X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Ecological Economics.

    Volume (Year): 78 (2012)
    Issue (Month): C ()
    Pages: 29-36

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:29-36
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. PeterJ May & Søren Winter, 1999. "Regulatory enforcement and compliance: Examining Danish agro-environmental policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 625-651.
    2. Barns, Sandra A. & Willoughby, B.E. & Kaine, Geoff & Lourey, R. & Murdoch, H., 2009. "How can marketing theory be applied to policy design to deliver on sustainable agriculture in England?," 83rd Annual Conference, March 30-April 1, 2009, Dublin, Ireland 50934, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Popp, Jennie S. Hughes & Rodriguez, German, 2007. "The Role of Stakeholders' Perceptions in Addressing Water Quality Disputes in an Embattled Watershed," 2007 Annual Meeting, February 4-7, 2007, Mobile, Alabama 34808, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    4. Swedeen, Paula, 2006. "Post-normal science in practice: A Q study of the potential for sustainable forestry in Washington State, USA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 190-208, May.
    5. Davies, B.B. & Hodge, I.D., 2007. "Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: A Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2-3), pages 323-333, March.
    6. Ben B. Davies & Ian D. Hodge, 2006. "Farmers' Preferences for New Environmental Policy Instruments: Determining the Acceptability of Cross Compliance for Biodiversity Benefits," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 393-414.
    7. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    8. Brodt, Sonja & Klonsky, Karen & Tourte, Laura, 2006. "Farmer goals and management styles: Implications for advancing biologically based agriculture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 90-105, July.
    9. Toddi A. Steelman & Lynn A. Maguire, 1999. "Understanding participant perspectives: Q-methodology in national forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(3), pages 361-388.
    10. Elnagheeb, A. H. & Jordan, J. L. & Humphrey, Vonda, 1995. "The Structure of Farmers’ Perceptions of Ground Water Pollution," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(01), pages 224-237, July.
    11. Søren C. Winter & Peter J. May, 2001. "Motivation for Compliance with Environmental Regulations," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 675-698.
    12. Lukas Zagata, 2010. "How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech Republic," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 277-290, September.
    13. A. P. Barnes & J. Willock & L. Toma & C. Hall, 2011. "Utilising a farmer typology to understand farmer behaviour towards water quality management: Nitrate Vulnerable Zones in Scotland," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(4), pages 477-494.
    14. Barnes, A.P. & Willock, J. & Hall, C. & Toma, L., 2009. "Farmer perspectives and practices regarding water pollution control programmes in Scotland," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1715-1722, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:78:y:2012:i:c:p:29-36. 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: (Shamier, Wendy)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.