IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis

  • J. A. Finn
  • F. Bartolini
  • D. Bourke
  • I. Kurz
  • D. Viaggi

Assessing the environmental impact of agri-environment schemes (AESs) is complicated by the lack of both specific measurable objectives and dedicated environmental monitoring of the impacts. A methodology to estimate the environmental performance of AESs was applied in nine EU case study areas, and reduced the complexity of scheme structure into elements that were assessed by experts. Multi-criteria analysis (MCA) techniques helped produce aggregated judgements about single objectives or measures. Expert panels assessed the link between environmental measures and objectives by scoring specific criteria that reflect important factors for delivering environmental effectiveness: valid research models for measures (cause-and-effect); quality of implementation by farmers and institutions; extent of participation and degree of spatial targeting. Multi-criteria analysis enabled comparison of the degree to which environmental effectiveness (estimated from the criteria scores) within a scheme was achieved across environmental objectives of different importance. There were considerable differences in overall environmental performance across different case study areas, and the experts' scores identified scope for improvement in one or more criteria in most measures. Higher priority environmental objectives (as assessed by stakeholders) did not necessarily demonstrate highest environmental performance. We discuss implications for learning how to improve the design and evaluation of AESs.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.

Volume (Year): 52 (2009)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
Pages: 717-737

in new window

Handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:52:y:2009:i:5:p:717-737
Contact details of provider: Web page:

Order Information: Web:

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jenpmg:v:52:y:2009:i:5:p:717-737. 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: (Michael McNulty)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.