IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Combining management plans and payment schemes for targeted grassland conservation within the Habitats Directive in Saxony, Eastern Germany


  • Lakner, Sebastian
  • Zinngrebe, Yves
  • Koemle, Dieter


As central policies for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes in the European Union (EU), the Habitats Directive and Agri-environmental programmes (AEP) have largely failed to halt biodiversity loss. In response, the German federal state of Saxony combined the instrument of management plans with AEPs to support the implementation of the Habitat Directive. In this study, we investigate the determinants of a farmers’ decisions to adjust their farming practices. Our data set consists of a quantitative survey with 131 farmers conducted between 2004 and 2011, complemented by implementation data from 333 grassland-plots. Determinants of farmers’ decisions to conserve grassland were estimated using a multinomial logit model. Our results show that a combination of management plans and AEPs can increase farmers’ disposition to adopt nature conservation measures. As central determinants, structural and location factors as well as the complementary provisiion of specifically designed AEPs increase farmers’ willingness to adopt conservation practices for grassland management. It can be concluded that additional costs are a major barrier to farmers’ adoption, particularly to those farms directing their farm management towards the optimisation of productivity and profitability . The findings highlight the complementary potential of integrated policy packages to incentivise specific measures of nature conservation within the framework of the Habitats Directive.

Suggested Citation

  • Lakner, Sebastian & Zinngrebe, Yves & Koemle, Dieter, 2020. "Combining management plans and payment schemes for targeted grassland conservation within the Habitats Directive in Saxony, Eastern Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719316382
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104642

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jens Peter Vesterager & Klaus Lindegaard, 2012. "The Role of Farm Advisors in Multifunctional Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Three Danish Areas, 1995 and 2008," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 673-702, December.
    2. Hart, Kaley & Little, Jonathan, 2012. "Environmental approach of the CAP legislative proposal," Politica Agricola Internazionale - International Agricultural Policy, Edizioni L'Informatore Agrario, issue 1, pages 1-11, August.
    3. Salvatore Di Falco & Thomas M. van Rensburg, 2008. "Making the Commons Work: Conservation and Cooperation in Ireland," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 620-634.
    4. 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.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    6. Pierre Dupraz & Maria Espinosa Goded & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle, 2013. "Identifying additional barriers in the adoption of agri-environmental schemes: the role of fixed costs," Post-Print hal-01208850, HAL.
    7. 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.
    8. Stefan Mann, 2005. "Farm Size Growth and Participation in Agri‐environmental Schemes: A Configural Frequency Analysis of the Swiss Case," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 373-384, December.
    9. Meredith J. Soule & Abebayehu Tegene & Keith D. Wiebe, 2000. "Land Tenure and the Adoption of Conservation Practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(4), pages 993-1005.
    10. Drechsler, Martin, 2017. "The Impact of Fairness on Side Payments and Cost-Effectiveness in Agglomeration Payments for Biodiversity Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 127-135.
    11. 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.
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    13. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Aleksandra Jezierska-Thöle & Roman Rudnicki & Łukasz Wiśniewski & Marta Gwiaździńska-Goraj & Mirosław Biczkowski, 2021. "The Agri-Environment-Climate Measure as an Element of the Bioeconomy in Poland—A Spatial Study," Agriculture, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(2), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Luca Giupponi & Valeria Leoni, 2020. "VegeT: An Easy Tool to Classify and Facilitate the Management of Seminatural Grasslands and Dynamically Connected Vegetation of the Alps," Land, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, November.

    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. Vedel, Suzanne Elizabeth & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2015. "Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 15-24.
    2. 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, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2018. "Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 227-235.
    5. Christensen, Tove & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Oersted & Mørkbak, Morten Raun & Hasler, Berit & Denver, Sigrid, 2011. "Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones--A choice experiment study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1558-1564, June.
    6. Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ollikainen, Markku, 2019. "Drivers of Participation in Gypsum Treatment of Fields as an Innovation for Water Protection," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 382-393.
    7. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    8. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, pages 273-282.
    9. 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.
    10. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    11. Rabotyagov, Sergey S. & Lin, Sonja, 2013. "Small forest landowner preferences for working forest conservation contract attributes: A case of Washington State, USA," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 307-330.
    12. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario & Arriaza, Manuel & Gomez-Limon, Jose A., 2015. "Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211919, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Houessionon, P. & Fonta, W. M. & Bossa, A. Y. & Sanfo, S. & Thiombiano, N. & Zahonogo, P. & Yameogo, T. B. & Balana, Bedru, "undated". "Economic valuation of ecosystem services from small-scale agricultural management interventions in Burkina Faso: a discrete choice experiment approach," Papers published in Journals (Open Access) H048370, International Water Management Institute.
    14. Lizin, Sebastien & Van Passel, Steven & Schreurs, Eloi, 2015. "Farmres' Perceived Cost of Land Use restrictions: A Simulated Purchasing Decision Using Dscrete Choice Experiments," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212054, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. Alló, Maria & Igleasias, Eva & Loureiro, Maria L., 2013. "Farmers’ preferences and social capital towards agri-environmental schemes for protecting birds," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150620, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Broch, Stine Wamberg & Strange, Niels & Jacobsen, Jette B. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2013. "Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 78-86.
    17. Abebe, Gumataw K. & Bijman, Jos & Kemp, Ron & Omta, Onno & Tsegaye, Admasu, 2013. "Contract farming configuration: Smallholders’ preferences for contract design attributes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 14-24.
    18. Zandersen, Marianne & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv & Nainggolan, Doan & Gyldenkærne, Steen & Winding, Anne & Greve, Mogens Humlekrog & Termansen, Mette, 2016. "Potential and economic efficiency of using reduced tillage to mitigate climate effects in Danish agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 14-22.
    19. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    20. 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.

    More about this item


    EU habitats directive; Management plans; Decision; Adoption; Saxony; Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); Agri-environmental programmes; Conservation measures; Agriculture; Rural landscapes;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment


    Access and download statistics


    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:97:y:2020:i:c:s0264837719316382. 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: (Joice Jiang). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.