IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v153y2025ics0264837725000584.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Could the new eco schemes replace the long-known agri-environmental measures? Evidence from two labeled discrete choice experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Anougmar, S.
  • Fockaert, L.
  • Michiel, K.
  • Van Passel, S.
  • Van Schoubroeck, S.

Abstract

In the context of the most recent reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy (2023–2027), new voluntary environment-friendly measures have been introduced. These measures, termed eco-schemes, represent one-year arrangements with limited restrictions. They are, therefore, considered to be more flexible than the revised and more demanding agri-environment-climate measures (AECM). The introduction of the new eco-schemes, alongside the AECM, raises questions regarding 1) the acceptance of eco-schemes by farmers, and 2) the impact on adoption of AECM. Would farmers prefer to continue with familiar measures or opt for the new, less restrictive, and shorter eco-schemes? To address these questions, two discrete choice experiments (a stated preference method) were conducted on a sample of 360 farmers with previous AECM experience. These experiments focus exclusively on grassland-related measures, as they are available in both contract forms, eco-schemes and AECM. The results reveal a general aversion to voluntary agri-environmental measures. However, farmers are more inclined to implement the new eco-schemes rather than the more familiar AECM, especially when the compensation of the latter is conditional on the environmental results. The findings also emphasize the impact of restrictions and the flexibility of the contract on farmers’ decision-making processes, particularly when dealing with result-based AECM.

Suggested Citation

  • Anougmar, S. & Fockaert, L. & Michiel, K. & Van Passel, S. & Van Schoubroeck, S., 2025. "Could the new eco schemes replace the long-known agri-environmental measures? Evidence from two labeled discrete choice experiments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725000584
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107525
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837725000584
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2025.107525?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. Admasu, Wubante Fetene & Van Passel, Steven & Nyssen, Jan & Minale, Amare Sewnet & Tsegaye, Enyew Adgo, 2021. "Eliciting farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for land use attributes in Northwest Ethiopia: A discrete choice experiment study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    2. Emily Lancsar & Jordan Louviere, 2008. "Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 26(8), pages 661-677, August.
    3. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    4. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    5. Uwe Latacz‐Lohmann & Mette Termansen & Chi Nguyen, 2022. "The New Eco‐Schemes: Navigating a Narrow Fairway," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 21(2), pages 4-10, August.
    6. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A. & Rose, John, 2006. "Accounting for heterogeneity in the variance of unobserved effects in mixed logit models," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 75-92, January.
    7. Sfeir, Georges & Abou-Zeid, Maya & Rodrigues, Filipe & Pereira, Francisco Camara & Kaysi, Isam, 2021. "Latent class choice model with a flexible class membership component: A mixture model approach," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    8. Krueger, Rico & Bierlaire, Michel & Daziano, Ricardo A. & Rashidi, Taha H. & Bansal, Prateek, 2021. "Evaluating the predictive abilities of mixed logit models with unobserved inter- and intra-individual heterogeneity," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    9. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    10. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    11. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    12. Linda Arata & Paolo Sckokai, 2016. "The Impact of Agri-environmental Schemes on Farm Performance in Five E.U. Member States: A DID-Matching Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(1), pages 167-186.
    13. 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.
    14. Raina, Nidhi & Zavalloni, Matteo & Targetti, Stefano & D'Alberto, Riccardo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A systematic review of attributes used in choice experiments for agri-environmental contracts," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(2), April.
    15. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    16. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    17. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    18. A.J. Villanueva & M. Rodríguez-Entrena & M. Arriaza & J.A. Gómez-Limón, 2017. "Heterogeneity of farmers' preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural subsystems," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 684-707, April.
    19. David Wuepper & Robert Huber, 2022. "Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in Switzerland," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1585-1604, October.
    20. Colombo, Sergio & Castro-Rodríguez, Juan & Peréz-Pérez, Daniel & Almagro, María, 2024. "Analysis of the environmental and economic performance of common agricultural policy eco-schemes in soil organic carbon sequestration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    21. 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.
    22. Bartolini, Fabio & Vergamini, Daniele & Longhitano, Davide & Povellato, Andrea, 2021. "Do differential payments for agri-environment schemes affect the environmental benefits? A case study in the North-Eastern Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    23. Camille Tevenart & Marielle Brunette, 2021. "Role of Farmers’ Risk and Ambiguity Preferences on Fertilization Decisions: An Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-27, August.
    24. Rossetti, Tomás & Hurtubia, Ricardo, 2020. "An assessment of the ecological validity of immersive videos in stated preference surveys," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 34(C).
    25. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, December.
    26. 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).
    27. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    28. Susana Oliveira & Lígia M. Costa Pinto, 2021. "Choice experiments to elicit the users’ preferences for coastal erosion management: the case of Praia da Amorosa," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 9749-9765, July.
    29. Dahlberg, Matz & Eklöf, Matias, 2003. "Relaxing the IIA Assumption in Locational Choice Models: A Comparison Between Conditional Logit, Mixed Logit, and Multinomial Probit Models," Working Paper Series 2003:9, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
    30. Hong Il Yoo, 2020. "lclogit2: An enhanced command to fit latent class conditional logit models," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 20(2), pages 405-425, June.
    31. 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.
    32. Daniele Pacifico & Hong il Yoo, 2013. "lclogit: A Stata command for fitting latent-class conditional logit models via the expectation-maximization algorithm," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 13(3), pages 625-639, September.
    33. 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).
    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. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Ober, Carina & Canessa, Carolin & Frick, Fabian & Sauer, Johannes, 2025. "The role of behavioural factors in accepting agri-environmental contracts – Evidence from a Q-method and thematic analysis in Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 231(C).
    3. 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.
    4. 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).
    5. 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).
    6. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    7. Gebreegziabher, Z. & Mekonnen, A. & Beyene, A.D. & Hagos, F., 2018. "Valuation of access to irrigation water in rural Ethiopia: application of choice experiment and contingent valuation methods," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277168, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    9. Halkos, George & Aslanidis, Panagiotis-Stavros, 2025. "The Socio-Cultural and Spiritual Dimensions on Non-marketed Environmental Valuation," MPRA Paper 124961, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Martin, Inès & Vranken, Liesbet & Ugás, Roberto, 2021. "Farmers’ Preferences to Cultivate Threatened Crop Varieties: Evidence from Peru," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315216, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Using stated preference methods to assess environmental impacts of forest biomass power plants in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 18(5), pages 1323-1337, October.
    13. Morrissey, Karyn & Plater, Andrew & Dean, Mary, 2018. "The cost of electric power outages in the residential sector: A willingness to pay approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 141-150.
    14. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    15. Contu, Davide & Strazzera, Elisabetta & Mourato, Susana, 2016. "Modeling individual preferences for energy sources: The case of IV generation nuclear energy in Italy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 37-58.
    16. Anabela Botelho & Lina Lourenço-Gomes & Lígia M. Costa Pinto & Sara Sousa & Marieta Valente, 2018. "Discrete-choice experiments valuing local environmental impacts of renewables: two approaches to a case study in Portugal," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 145-162, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    20. Alessandro Mengoni & Chiara Seghieri & Sabina Nuti, 2013. "The application of discrete choice experiments in health economics: a systematic review of the literature," Working Papers 201301, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna of Pisa, Istituto di Management.

    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:lauspo:v:153:y:2025:i:c:s0264837725000584. 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.