IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/agribz/v42y2026i2p590-602.html

Who Are the Farmers Participating in a Carbon Sequestration Program? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Julia B. Block
  • Michael Danne
  • Oliver Mußhoff

Abstract

Agricultural soils offer great potential for carbon sequestration through humus formation. One way to motivate farmers to build up humus is through humus programs. These are still at an early stage of development, poorly explored, and the number of participating farmers is low. Our aim is to explain the heterogeneity of farmers' willingness to participate in humus programs by typologizing them according to different design preferences and socioeconomic backgrounds. To this end, we conducted a survey with German farmers including a discrete choice experiment and questions about environmental awareness, profit orientation and farm characteristics. We summarized farmers' attitudes towards for example, climate change with a factor analysis and included the results into the latent class model we used to analyze the discrete choice experiment. The farmers surveyed can be divided into four classes. The results show that the classes differ in the farmers' preferences for the characteristics of a humus program, for example, type of reference value and program duration, and according to the factors of the factor analysis, for example, advocacy of humus programs. The classes distinguish between disinterested and motivated farmers, farmers focusing on safe money and farmers focusing on quick money. With this study, we improve the understanding of farmers' acceptance of humus programs, which is essential before starting targeted (political) efforts.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia B. Block & Michael Danne & Oliver Mußhoff, 2026. "Who Are the Farmers Participating in a Carbon Sequestration Program? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment in Germany," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(2), pages 590-602, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:agribz:v:42:y:2026:i:2:p:590-602
    DOI: 10.1002/agr.70000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/agr.70000
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/agr.70000?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
    ---><---

    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. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    3. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    4. Charles F. Parker & Christer Karlsson, 2010. "Climate Change and the European Union's Leadership Moment: An Inconvenient Truth?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 923-943, September.
    5. 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.
    6. Meenakshi Sharma & Rajesh Kaushal & Prashant Kaushik & Seeram Ramakrishna, 2021. "Carbon Farming: Prospects and Challenges," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-15, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Kragt, Marit E. & Gibson, Fiona L., 2016. "What carbon farming activities are farmers likely to adopt? A best–worst scaling survey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 29-37.
    9. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    10. Kragt, M.E. & Gibson, F.L. & Maseyk, F. & Wilson, K.A., 2016. "Public willingness to pay for carbon farming and its co-benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 125-131.
    11. Hausman, Jerry & McFadden, Daniel, 1984. "Specification Tests for the Multinomial Logit Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(5), pages 1219-1240, September.
    12. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, Enero-Abr.
    13. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    14. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    15. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    16. Ben-Akiva, Moshe & McFadden, Daniel & Train, Kenneth & Börsch-Supan, Axel, 2002. "Hybrid Choice Models: Progress and Challenges," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 02-29, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    17. Huber, Robert & Bartkowski, Bartosz & Brown, Calum & El Benni, Nadja & Feil, Jan-Henning & Grohmann, Pascal & Joormann, Ineke & Leonhardt, Heidi & Mitter, Hermine & Müller, Birgit, 2024. "Farm typologies for understanding farm systems and improving agricultural policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    18. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:923-943 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. 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.
    20. Jacobs, Anna & Flessa, Heinz & Don, Axel & Heidkamp, Arne & Prietz, Roland & Dechow, René & Gensior, Andreas & Poeplau, Christopher & Riggers, Catharina & Schneider, Florian & Tiemeyer, Bärbel & Vos, , 2018. "Landwirtschaftlich genutzte Böden in Deutschland: Ergebnisse der Bodenzustandserhebung," Thünen Reports 64, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institute, Federal Research Institute for Rural Areas, Forestry and Fisheries.
    21. Romy Greiner, 2016. "Factors influencing farmers’ participation in contractual biodiversity conservation: a choice experiment with northern Australian pastoralists," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 60(1), pages 1-21, January.
    22. 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.
    23. Thomas Lundhede & Jette Bredahl Jacobsen & Nick Hanley & Niels Strange & Bo Jellesmark Thorsen, 2015. "Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 91(2), pages 296-316.
    24. repec:xrs:meawpa:02009 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. Kene Boun My & Quang-Huy Nguyen & Phu Nguyen-Van & Thi Kim Cuong Pham & Anne Stenger & Tuyen Tiet & Nguyen To-The, 2025. "Farmers' preferences toward organic certification scheme: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Northern Vietnam," Working Papers hal-04931827, HAL.
    4. Kanchanaroek, Yingluk & Termansen, Mette & Quinn, Claire, 2013. "Property rights regimes in complex fishery management systems: A choice experiment application," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 363-373.
    5. Haile, Kaleab K. & Tirivayi, Nyasha & Tesfaye, Wondimagegn, 2019. "Farmers’ willingness to accept payments for ecosystem services on agricultural land: The case of climate-smart agroforestry in Ethiopia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Venus, Terese E. & Sauer, Johannes, 2022. "Certainty pays off: The public's value of environmental monitoring," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    8. Prosper Houessionon & William M. Fonta & Aymar Y. Bossa & Safiétou Sanfo & Noel Thiombiano & Pam Zahonogo & Thomas B. Yameogo & Bedru Balana, 2017. "Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-16, September.
    9. 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).
    10. Azita Varziri & Shuoli Zhao & Timothy A. Woods & Favour Esene, 2025. "Consumer Preferences Toward Local Versus Carbon: A Study of Value‐Added Dairy Products," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 56(6), pages 961-975, November.
    11. Yang, YeHa & Yang, SoYoung & Moon, HyungBin & Woo, JongRoul, 2024. "Analyzing heterogeneous electric vehicle charging preferences for strategic time-of-use tariff design and infrastructure development: A latent class approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    12. Vásquez Lavin, Felipe & Barrientos, Manuel & Castillo, Álvaro & Herrera, Iván & Ponce Oliva, Roberto D., 2020. "Firewood certification programs: Key attributes and policy implications," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    13. Yu-Hui Chen & Kai-Han Qiu & Kang Ernest Liu & Chun-Yuan Chiang, 2020. "Are Consumers Willing to Pay a Premium for Pure Rice Noodles? A Study of Discrete Choice Experiments in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Oryani, Bahareh & Koo, Yoonmo & Shafiee, Afsaneh & Rezania, Shahabaldin & Jung, Jiyeon & Choi, Hyunhong & Khan, Muhammad Kamran, 2022. "Heterogeneous preferences for EVs: Evidence from Iran," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 181(C), pages 675-691.
    15. 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).
    16. Balaine, Lorraine & Gallai, Nicola & Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos, 2020. "Trading off environmental goods for compensations: Insights from traditional and deliberative valuation methods in the Ecuadorian Amazon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. Anastassiadis Friederike & Feil Jan-Henning & Musshoff Oliver & Schilling Philipp, 2014. "Analysing Farmers’ Use of Price Hedging Instruments: An Experimental Approach," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 181-192, January.
    20. Reithmayer, Corrina & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, "undated". "Societal attitudes in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 298040, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).

    More about this item

    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:wly:agribz:v:42:y:2026:i:2:p:590-602. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6297 .

    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.