IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v120y2022ics0264837722003088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Massfeller, Anna
  • Meraner, Manuela
  • Hüttel, Silke
  • Uehleke, Reinhard

Abstract

Results-based agri-environmental schemes (AES) seek to overcome reluctance to adopt other forms of AES in the European Union. Instead of complying with inflexible land management prescriptions, farmers receive payments after certain contracted environmental results are verified. In addition to reducing the organizational and administrative burdens, this practice allows farmers to focus on which practices can achieve the desired environmental outcomes. Farmer uptake of results-based payments may be limited by risk-adverse behavior, such as fear of not meeting environmental targets and forfeiting the contracted payment. This study investigated participation in a hypothetical results-based AES among arable farmers in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia and the number of hectares enrolled (participation intensity). Our hypothetical scheme sought to foster biodiversity in pollinator and bird species by supporting weed-species richness in intensive arable production. Our split-treatment research design investigated how social nudging influences acceptance and intensity. Approximately 60% of the 63 farmers in our convenience sample expressed a willingness to participate in our hypothetical scheme. Using a Heckman style selection model, we could not detect any effect of the social nudge tested on the likelihood of participation or its intensity. Cognitive factors correlated positively with the likelihood of participation, whereas social and dispositional factors correlated with participation intensity. Perceived lack of control was the main obstacle found to adoption. The findings suggest that policies can mitigate barriers to acceptance by reducing the bureaucratic burden and being transparent over expected costs and ecosystem benefits. This study was the first to investigate farmers' acceptance of a hypothetical results-based AES that targets the enrichment of biodiversity in arable farming and thus may serve as a stepping stone for follow-up studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003088
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837722003088
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106281?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. Läpple, Doris & Kelley, Hugh, 2013. "Understanding the uptake of organic farming: Accounting for heterogeneities among Irish farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 11-19.
    2. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    4. Chaplin, S.P. & Mills, J. & Chiswell, H., 2021. "Developing payment-by-results approaches for agri-environment schemes: Experience from an arable trial in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    6. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    7. Andres Trujillo-Barrera & Joost M. E. Pennings & Dianne Hofenk, 2016. "Understanding producers' motives for adopting sustainable practices: the role of expected rewards, risk perception and risk tolerance," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(3), pages 359-382.
    8. Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2001. "Measuring Producers' Risk Preferences: A Global Risk-Attitude Construct," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1009.
    9. Oriana Bandiera & Imran Rasul, 2006. "Social Networks and Technology Adoption in Northern Mozambique," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(514), pages 869-902, October.
    10. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    11. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Does the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme Design Reduce Adverse Selection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 369-380, June.
    12. Francis H. D'Emden & Rick S. Llewellyn & Michael P. Burton, 2008. "Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions ," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 169-182, June.
    13. G. A. A. Wossink, 2003. "Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 30(4), pages 461-485, December.
    14. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    15. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.
    16. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    17. Peth, Denise & Mußhoff, Oliver & Funke, Katja & Hirschauer, Norbert, 2018. "Nudging Farmers to Comply With Water Protection Rules – Experimental Evidence From Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 310-321.
    18. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    19. Jean‐Paul Chavas & Céline Nauges, 2020. "Uncertainty, Learning, and Technology Adoption in Agriculture," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 42-53, March.
    20. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Udry, 2010. "Learning about a New Technology: Pineapple in Ghana," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 35-69, March.
    21. David Kleijn & Frank Berendse & Ruben Smit & Niels Gilissen, 2001. "Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6857), pages 723-725, October.
    22. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    23. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 336-352, July.
    24. Angela Barbuto & Antonio Lopolito & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2019. "Improving diffusion in agriculture: an agent-based model to find the predictors for efficient early adopters," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, December.
    25. Mzoughi, Naoufel, 2011. "Farmers adoption of integrated crop protection and organic farming: Do moral and social concerns matter?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1536-1545, June.
    26. Farrow, Katherine & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette, 2017. "Social Norms and Pro-environmental Behavior: A Review of the Evidence," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 1-13.
    27. Giannoccaro, Giacomo & de Gennaro, Bernardo C. & De Meo, Emilio & Prosperi, Maurizio, 2017. "Assessing farmers' willingness to supply biomass as energy feedstock: Cereal straw in Apulia (Italy)," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 179-185.
    28. Lee Cronbach, 1951. "Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 16(3), pages 297-334, September.
    29. Sidemo-Holm, William & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2018. "Improving agricultural pollution abatement through result-based payment schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 209-219.
    30. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Schulz, Norbert & Breustedt, Gunnar, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept "Greening": Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Gremany," 88th Annual Conference, April 9-11, 2014, AgroParisTech, Paris, France 170560, Agricultural Economics Society.
    31. Doris Läpple & Hugh Kelley, 2015. "Spatial dependence in the adoption of organic drystock farming in Ireland," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 42(2), pages 315-337.
    32. Norbert Schulz & Gunnar Breustedt & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann, 2014. "Assessing Farmers' Willingness to Accept “Greening”: Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 26-48, January.
    33. Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & Maria Espinosa-Goded & Pierre Dupraz, 2010. "Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(7), pages 891-905.
    34. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Does the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme Design Reduce Adverse Selection?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 369-380, June.
    35. 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.
    36. 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.
    37. Quillerou, Emmanuelle & Fraser, Rob W. & Fraser, Iain, 2010. "Adverse Selection in the Environmental Stewardship Scheme: Evidence in the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme?," 84th Annual Conference, March 29-31, 2010, Edinburgh, Scotland 91676, Agricultural Economics Society.
    38. 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).
    39. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    40. Philippe Coent & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2021. "Farmers Follow the Herd: A Theoretical Model on Social Norms and Payments for Environmental Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 78(2), pages 287-306, February.
    41. D'Emden, Francis H. & Llewellyn, Rick S. & Burton, Michael P., 2008. "Factors influencing adoption of conservation tillage in Australian cropping regions," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 52(2), pages 1-14.
    42. Maria Alló & Maria L. Loureiro & Eva Iglesias, 2015. "Farmers' Preferences and Social Capital Regarding Agri‐environmental Schemes to Protect Birds," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 672-689, September.
    43. Heckman, James J, 1974. "Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 42(4), pages 679-694, July.
    44. J. Sok & H. Hogeveen & A.R.W. Elbers & A.G.J.M. Oude Lansink, 2018. "Perceived risk and personality traits explaining heterogeneity in Dutch dairy farmers’ beliefs about vaccination against Bluetongue," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(5), pages 562-578, May.
    45. Geoff A Wilson & Kaley Hart, 2000. "Financial Imperative or Conservation Concern? EU Farmers' Motivations for Participation in Voluntary Agri-Environmental Schemes," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(12), pages 2161-2185, December.
    46. Schilizzi, Steven & Breustedt, Gunnar & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2011. "Does tendering conservation contracts with performance payments generate additional benefits?," Working Papers 100883, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    47. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    48. Läpple, Doris & Rensburg, Tom Van, 2011. "Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1406-1414, May.
    49. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    50. Ozgur Dedehayir & Roland J. Ortt & Carla Riverola & Francesc Miralles, 2019. "Innovators and Early Adopters in the Diffusion of Innovations: A Literature Review," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Joe Tidd (ed.), Digital Disruptive Innovation, chapter 4, pages 85-115, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    51. Andor, Mark A. & Fels, Katja M., 2018. "Behavioral Economics and Energy Conservation – A Systematic Review of Non-price Interventions and Their Causal Effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 178-210.
    52. John Loomis, 2011. "What'S To Know About Hypothetical Bias In Stated Preference Valuation Studies?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 363-370, April.
    53. Herzon, I. & Birge, T. & Allen, B. & Povellato, A. & Vanni, F. & Hart, K. & Radley, G. & Tucker, G. & Keenleyside, C. & Oppermann, R. & Underwood, E. & Poux, X. & Beaufoy, G. & Pražan, J., 2018. "Time to look for evidence: Results-based approach to biodiversity conservation on farmland in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 347-354.
    54. Sylvain Chabé-Ferret & Philippe Le Coent & Arnaud Reynaud & Julie Subervie & Daniel Lepercq, 2019. "Can we nudge farmers into saving water? Evidence from a randomised experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 393-416.
    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. 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).
    2. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    3. Michels, Marius & Luo, Hao & Weller von Ahlefeld, Paul Johann & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2023. "Compliance with pre-harvest interval rules in apple production—A comparative analysis of green nudges among fruit growers and agricultural students in Germany," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    4. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.

    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. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    2. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Farmers’ acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes – insights from a case study in North Rhine-Westphalia," 61st Annual Conference, Berlin, Germany, September 22-24, 2021 317066, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA).
    3. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    4. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Hannus, Veronika & Sauer, Johannes, 2021. "It is not only about money —– German farmers' preferences regarding voluntary standards for farm sustainability management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    8. Yanbing Wang & Niklas Möhring & Robert Finger, 2023. "When my neighbors matter: Spillover effects in the adoption of large‐scale pesticide‐free wheat production," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(2), pages 256-273, March.
    9. Boun My, Kene & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Kim Cuong Pham, Thi & Stenger, Anne & Tiet, Tuyen & To-The, Nguyen, 2022. "Drivers of organic farming: Lab-in-the-field evidence of the role of social comparison and information nudge in networks in Vietnam," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    10. Kuhfuss, Laure & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2022. "Enhancing spatial coordination in payment for ecosystem services schemes with non-pecuniary preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    11. Coyne, L & Kendall, H & Hansda, R & Reed, M.S. & Williams, D.J.L., 2021. "Identifying economic and societal drivers of engagement in agri-environmental schemes for English dairy producers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    12. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Love Offeibea Asiedu-Ayeh & Xungang Zheng & Kobina Agbodah & Bright Senyo Dogbe & Adjei Peter Darko, 2022. "Promoting the Adoption of Agricultural Green Production Technologies for Sustainable Farming: A Multi-Attribute Decision Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-21, August.
    16. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    17. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    18. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    19. Peter Howley & Neel Ocean, 2022. "Can nudging only get you so far? Testing for nudge combination effects [Social norms and energy conservation]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(5), pages 1086-1112.
    20. Dmytro Serebrennikov & Fiona Thorne & Zein Kallas & Sinéad N. McCarthy, 2020. "Factors Influencing Adoption of Sustainable Farming Practices in Europe: A Systemic Review of Empirical Literature," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.

    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:lauspo:v:120:y:2022:i:c:s0264837722003088. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.