IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v70y2018icp106-116.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Flowering Farmland Competitions in Europe: History, facts and potential interactions with agri-environmental measures

Author

Listed:
  • Hilpold, Andreas
  • Tasser, Erich
  • Tappeiner, Ulrike
  • Niedrist, Georg

Abstract

Flowering Farmland Competitions (FFLCs) are becoming more and more prominent, especially in Europe. By conducting a survey among organisers and by searching the internet we are able to give a historical and spatial overview and to analyse their potential to promote sustainable farm management in combination with Agri-Environmental Measures (AEMs). The number of competitions held amounts to more than 300 in a time span of 15 years. In every case, they have been intended to raise awareness of biodiversity in agriculture and to promote co-existence or even symbiosis between good agricultural practices and nature conservation. They are usually organised by public administrative bodies and NGOs from the field of nature conservation, as well as those from the field of agriculture. The money spent on FFLCs is moderate and usually ranges between 5000 and 90,000 Euros per competition. FFLCs gain broad attention amongst the public, both with farmers and with people not involved in agriculture, and are therefore well-suited to raising awareness and supporting Agri-Environmental Measures. FFLCs are of course no substitute for AEMs since they do not offer substantial financial help to ameliorate the shortcomings of extensive agricultural practice, but they can be an effective measure for improving the acceptance of biodiversity-friendly and sustainable management.

Suggested Citation

  • Hilpold, Andreas & Tasser, Erich & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Niedrist, Georg, 2018. "Flowering Farmland Competitions in Europe: History, facts and potential interactions with agri-environmental measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 106-116.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:70:y:2018:i:c:p:106-116
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717300480
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.022?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. Stuart Landon & Constance E. Smith, 1998. "Quality Expectations, Reputation, and Price," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(3), pages 628-647, January.
    2. Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    3. 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.
    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. Diego Sebastián Tello & Jorge Dante Prada & Estela Raquel Cristeche, 2021. "A multi-criteria assessment for native forest policy analysis: the case of Caldén forest in the province of Córdoba, Argentina," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 5538-5556, April.
    2. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    3. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    4. Surun, Clément & Drechsler, Martin, 2018. "Effectiveness of Tradable Permits for the Conservation of Metacommunities With Two Competing Species," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 189-196.
    5. Frings, Oliver & Abildtrup, Jens & Montagné-Huck, Claire & Gorel, Salomé & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Do individual PES buyers care about additionality and free-riding? A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. Bardsley, Douglas K. & Bardsley, Annette M., 2014. "Organising for socio-ecological resilience: The roles of the mountain farmer cooperative Genossenschaft Gran Alpin in Graubünden, Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 11-21.
    7. McGrath, F.L. & Carrasco, L.R. & Leimona, B., 2017. "How auctions to allocate payments for ecosystem services contracts impact social equity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 44-55.
    8. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    9. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    10. Alessio D’Auria & Pasquale De Toro & Nicola Fierro & Elisa Montone, 2018. "Integration between GIS and Multi-Criteria Analysis for Ecosystem Services Assessment: A Methodological Proposal for the National Park of Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-25, September.
    11. Marco Costanigro & Yuko Onozaka, 2020. "A Belief‐Preference Model of Choice for Experience and Credence Goods," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(1), pages 70-95, February.
    12. Vincent Hoang & Takao Iida & Shigeru Matsumoto & Natsuki Watanabe & Clevo Wilson, 2016. "Consumer’s comparison between local and imported organic products: a hedonic analysis of the Japanese table wine market," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 6(3), pages 405-415, December.
    13. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    14. Tan Li & Qingguo Zhang & Ying Zhang, 2018. "Modelling a Compensation Standard for a Regional Forest Ecosystem: A Case Study in Yanqing District, Beijing, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-20, March.
    15. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    16. Scemama, Pierre & Levrel, Harold, 2019. "Influence of the Organization of Actors in the Ecological Outcomes of Investment in Restoration of Biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 71-79.
    17. Jennifer M. Alix-Garcia & Elizabeth N. Shapiro & Katharine R. E. Sims, 2012. "Forest Conservation and Slippage: Evidence from Mexico’s National Payments for Ecosystem Services Program," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(4), pages 613-638.
    18. Giraud-Héraud, Eric & Surry, Yves, 2001. "Les réponses de la recherche aux nouveaux enjeux de l’économie viti-vinicole," Cahiers d'Economie et de Sociologie Rurales (CESR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 60, pages 1-5.
    19. Thomas Campagnaro & Giovanni Trentanovi & Tommaso Sitzia, 2018. "Identifying Habitat Type Conservation Priorities under the Habitats Directive: Application to Two Italian Biogeographical Regions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    20. Bennett, Drew E. & Gosnell, Hannah & Lurie, Susan & Duncan, Sally, 2014. "Utility engagement with payments for watershed services in the United States," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 56-64.

    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:70:y:2018:i:c:p:106-116. 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.