IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v74y2025ics2212041625000531.html

Who should control the provider of ecosystem services in buyer-driven governance? A choice experiment on orchards in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Manhique, Henrique
  • Wätzold, Frank

Abstract

Buyer-driven governance arrangements have emerged as a promising innovative approach to mitigate the degradation of ecosystem services (ES) in agricultural landscapes. In such arrangements, ES buyers, such as consumers, support ES provision by remunerating farmers to adopt sustainable agricultural practices through market-based mechanisms, such as price premiums for (certified) sustainably produced products. In this context, effective compliance enforcement is essential, as it assures ES buyers that the services are delivered in accordance with agreed guidelines. Consequently, the level of trust ES buyers place in the organisation responsible for enforcing compliance is critical. We applied a discrete choice experiment to investigate ES buyers’ preferences for the organisation responsible for compliance enforcement for sustainably produced agricultural products. The survey used conventionally managed apple orchards in Germany as a case study and focused on the implementation of ES measures (flower strips, hedgerows, flower strips plus hedgerows, and mechanical weed control instead of chemical control) to support regulating (biological pest control and pollination), cultural (enhancement of landscape aesthetics), and provisioning ES (production of marketable fruits). To elicit preferences regarding compliance enforcement, the survey included four organisations: a state agency, a farmers’ association, a conservation NGO, and a representative body – composed of relevant societal actors collectively responsible for implementing compliance enforcement. The survey included a representative sample of 901 ES buyers (apple consumers) drawn from the German population. We find that most ES buyers trust conservation NGO, representative body, and farmers’ association, while less than half trust state agency; furthermore, ES buyers are willing to pay a substantially higher premium when a trusted organisation is enforcing compliance. Regarding ES measures, we find that ES buyers are willing to pay price premiums for all measures supporting ES provision, with higher premiums for mechanical weed control and the combination flower strips plus hedgerows.

Suggested Citation

  • Manhique, Henrique & Wätzold, Frank, 2025. "Who should control the provider of ecosystem services in buyer-driven governance? A choice experiment on orchards in Germany," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:74:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000531
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101749
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041625000531
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2025.101749?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2011. "Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 5(4), pages 309-351, September.
    2. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    3. Hecker, Lutz Philip & Sturm, Astrid & Querhammer, Lisa & Wätzold, Frank, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of state-dependent versus state-independent agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    4. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    5. Ladenburg, Jacob & Olsen, Søren Bøye, 2014. "Augmenting short Cheap Talk scripts with a repeated Opt-Out Reminder in Choice Experiment surveys," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 39-63.
    6. Macready, Anna L. & Hieke, Sophie & Klimczuk-Kochańska, Magdalena & Szumiał, Szymon & Vranken, Liesbet & Grunert, Klaus G., 2020. "Consumer trust in the food value chain and its impact on consumer confidence: A model for assessing consumer trust and evidence from a 5-country study in Europe," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Collins, Andrew T., 2016. "On determining priors for the generation of efficient stated choice experimental designs," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 21(C), pages 10-14.
    8. Ricci, Elena Claire & Banterle, Alessandro & Stranieri, Stefanella, 2018. "Trust to Go Green: An Exploration of Consumer Intentions for Eco-friendly Convenience Food," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 54-65.
    9. Kathy Baylis & Jonathan Coppess & Benjamin M. Gramig & Paavani Sachdeva, 2022. "Agri-environmental Programs in the United States and Canada," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 83-104.
    10. Ziegler, Andreas, 2021. "New Ecological Paradigm meets behavioral economics: On the relationship between environmental values and economic preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    11. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    12. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    13. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    14. William H. Greene & David A. Hensher, 2013. "Revealing additional dimensions of preference heterogeneity in a latent class mixed multinomial logit model," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(14), pages 1897-1902, May.
    15. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Zhen, Lin & Schröter, Barbara, 2020. "Social-Network Analysis of local governance models for China's eco-compensation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    16. Schulze, Christoph & Matzdorf, Bettina & Rommel, Jens & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & García-Llorente, Marina & Gutiérrez-Briceño, Inés & Larsson, Lina & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Zawadzki, Wojciech, 2024. "Between farms and forks: Food industry perspectives on the future of EU food labelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    17. Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "The Relevance of Attitudinal Factors for the Acceptance of Energy Policy Measures: A Micro-econometric Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-140.
    18. Margarethe Reichenspurner & Rena Barghusen & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Exploring farmers’ perspectives on collective action: a case study on co-operation in Dutch agri-environment schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 67(8), pages 1830-1851, July.
    19. Janssen, Meike & Hamm, Ulrich, 2014. "Governmental and private certification labels for organic food: Consumer attitudes and preferences in Germany," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P2), pages 437-448.
    20. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, Enero-Abr.
    21. Tran, Nhuong & Bailey, Conner & Wilson, Norbert & Phillips, Michael, 2013. "Governance of Global Value Chains in Response to Food Safety and Certification Standards: The Case of Shrimp from Vietnam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 325-336.
    22. Groh, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2022. "On the relevance of values, norms, and economic preferences for electricity consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    23. Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "Fair to the cow or fair to the farmer? The preferences of conventional milk buyers for ethical attributes of milk," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 223-239.
    24. Lohse Tim & Börger Tobias & Meyerhoff Jürgen & Qari Salmai, 2023. "Der Wert von Sicherheit und nationaler Verteidigung," Wirtschaftsdienst, Sciendo, vol. 103(6), pages 394-399, June.
    25. Malte Oehlmann & Jürgen Meyerhoff, 2017. "Stated preferences towards renewable energy alternatives in Germany – do the consequentiality of the survey and trust in institutions matter?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, January.
    26. Khachatryan, Hayk & Rihn, Alicia & Wei, Xuan, 2021. "Consumers’ Preferences for Eco-labels on Plants: The Influence of Trust and Consequentiality Perceptions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    27. Costa, Dora L. & Kahn, Matthew E., 2013. "Do liberal home owners consume less electricity? A test of the voluntary restraint hypothesis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 119(2), pages 210-212.
    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. Gleue, Marvin & Luigs, Theresa & Ziegler, Andreas, 2025. "The relevance of non-state climate protection activities as motivation for individual climate protection: Results from a framed field experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    2. Nthambi, Mary & Wätzold, Frank & Markova-Nenova, Nonka, 2018. "Quantifying benefit losses from poor governance of climate change adaptation projects: A discrete choice experiment with farmers in Kenya," MPRA Paper 94678, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Hensher, David A. & Ho, Chinh & Mulley, Corinne, 2015. "Identifying preferences for public transport investments under a constrained budget," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 27-46.
    4. Habla, Wolfgang & Kokash, Kumai & Löfgren, Åsa & Straubinger, Anna & Ziegler, Andreas, 2024. "Self-interest and support of climate-related transport policy measures: An empirical analysis for citizens in Germany and Sweden," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-028, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    5. Zawojska, Ewa & Gastineau, Pascal & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Cheze, Benoit & Paris, Anthony, 2021. "Measuring policy consequentiality perceptions in stated preference surveys," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313977, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M. & Oppewal, Harmen & Lancsar, Emily, 2021. "Hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments: Part II. Conceptualisation of external validity, sources and explanations of bias and effectiveness of mitigation methods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    7. Crastes dit Sourd, Romain & Zawojska, Ewa & Mahieu, Pierre-Alexandre & Louviere, Jordan, 2018. "Mitigating strategic misrepresentation of values in open-ended stated preference surveys by using negative reinforcement," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(C), pages 153-166.
    8. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    9. Nthambi, Mary & Markova-Nenova, Nonka & Wätzold, Frank, 2021. "Quantifying Loss of Benefits from Poor Governance of Climate Change Adaptation Projects: A Discrete Choice Experiment with Farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    11. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Margrethe Aanesen & Jannike Falk-Andersson & Ingvild Skumlien Furuseth & Nick Hanley & Brooks A. Kaiser & Melina Kourantidou & Ståle Navrud & Godwin Kofi Vondolia & Bui Bich Xu, 2025. "Exploring Information and Embedding Effects on Willingness-to-Pay to Control the Invasive Red King Crab in Norway," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 88(9), pages 2529-2556, September.
    12. Sophia Möller & Andreas Ziegler, 2025. "Willingness to pay for biodiversity conservation and climate protection: A comparative empirical analysis for Germany," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202502, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Liebe, Ulf & Glenk, Klaus & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Spiller, Achim, 2019. "A web survey application of real choice experiments," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    14. Ruokamo, Enni & Kopsakangas-Savolainen, Maria & Meriläinen, Teemu & Svento, Rauli, 2019. "Towards flexible energy demand – Preferences for dynamic contracts, services and emissions reductions," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    15. Zhou, Heng & Norman, Richard & Xia, Jianhong(Cecilia) & Hughes, Brett & Kelobonye, Keone & Nikolova, Gabi & Falkmer, Torbjorn, 2020. "Analysing travel mode and airline choice using latent class modelling: A case study in Western Australia," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 187-205.
    16. Groh, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2022. "On the relevance of values, norms, and economic preferences for electricity consumption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    17. Kanberger, Elke D. & Luigs, Theresa & Ziegler, Andreas, 2024. "The relevance of proximity and work-related experience for the individual support for the expansion of power plants: An empirical analysis of wind, coal, and nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    18. Soliño, M. & Alía, R. & Agúndez, D., 2020. "Citizens' preferences for research programs on forest genetic resources: A case applied to Pinus pinaster Ait. in Spain," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    19. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    20. Zawojska, Ewa & Czajkowski, Mikotaj, "undated". "Are preferences stated in web vs. personal interviews different? A comparison of willingness to pay results for a large multi-country study of the Baltic Sea eutrophication reduction," Annual Meeting, 2017, June 18-21, Montreal, Canada 258604, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:ecoser:v:74:y:2025:i:c:s2212041625000531. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.