IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae02/24937.html

Preservation of Bio-Diversity, Heterogeneity of Farm Practices and Payments for Cultural Landscapes under Inhomogeneous Natural Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Nuppenau, Ernst-August

Abstract

The paper explores the question of diversity in agricultural practice as related to bio-diversity and landscape appearance. It starts with the observation that, in the past, diverse natural conditions have considerably impacted on adapted modes of agricultural production, more than today, and that previously performed farm practices were strongly affiliated with specific natural conditions. These practices positively contributed to a motified, diverse and man-made environment which is frequently considered a beautiful landscape. This has changed dramatically. Particularly, where the European countryside is regarded a natural heritage, today, the public seems to be worried about modern farm practices. After the adoption of modern techniques, farmers prefer to apply unified production technologies and tend to set-up uniform farm structures and product mixes as well as land cultivation practices based on purchased inputs. Farm operations equalise natural conditions and contribute to uniform land rents. However, a rising public concern for the preservation of bio-diversity is asking for change and new measures. Additional to regulations on farm practices governments seek to compensate farmers for nature preservation and production of bio-diversity. Presuming that high biodiversity is dependent on diversity in agricultural practice and landscape appearance due to preserved natural conditions, the paper develops a model that links payments to diversity in farm practice and natural conditions. The applied model is landscape-oriented and classifies farm behaviour according to agronomic conditions. A reference system for a unified technology is presented and implications for payments are discussed using a behavioural approach. This behavioural approach focuses on regional dynamics in natural condition as major determinants for bio-diversity and payments as determinants for farm practices. Payments are directed to re-establish diversity in farm practices, counteract current technology dominance, and assure a new exposure to nature, though only partly. Diversity becomes prevalent; notably according to an economic calculus of costs and benefits from taxpayers' point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2002. "Preservation of Bio-Diversity, Heterogeneity of Farm Practices and Payments for Cultural Landscapes under Inhomogeneous Natural Conditions," 2002 International Congress, August 28-31, 2002, Zaragoza, Spain 24937, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae02:24937
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.24937
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/24937/files/cp02nu76.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.24937?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. Francois Bonnieux & Philippe Le Goffe, 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis of landscape restoration : a case-study in Western France [Evaluation des bénéfices de la restauration du bocage. Etude de cas dans l'ouest de la France]," Post-Print hal-02835655, HAL.
    2. F. Stuart Chapin III & Erika S. Zavaleta & Valerie T. Eviner & Rosamond L. Naylor & Peter M. Vitousek & Heather L. Reynolds & David U. Hooper & Sandra Lavorel & Osvaldo E. Sala & Sarah E. Hobbie & Mic, 2000. "Consequences of changing biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 234-242, 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. Mußhoff, O. & Hirschauer, N., . "Planspiele als experimentelle Methode der Politikfolgenabschätzung: Das Beispiel der Stickstoffextensivierung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48.
    2. Jansson, Åsa, 2013. "Reaching for a sustainable, resilient urban future using the lens of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 285-291.
    3. Jose A. Algarra & María M. Ramos-Lorente & Paloma Cariñanos, 2024. "Is the Spanish Population Pro-Conservation or Pro-Utilitarian towards Threatened Flora? Social Analysis on the Willingness to Protect Biodiversity," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-34, June.
    4. Deutsch, Lisa & Folke, Carl & Skanberg, Kristian, 2003. "The critical natural capital of ecosystem performance as insurance for human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(2-3), pages 205-217, March.
    5. Tiziano Gomiero, 2015. "Are Biofuels an Effective and Viable Energy Strategy for Industrialized Societies? A Reasoned Overview of Potentials and Limits," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(7), pages 1-31, June.
    6. Bogoni, Juliano André & Peres, Carlos A. & Ferraz, Katia M.P.M.B., 2020. "Effects of mammal defaunation on natural ecosystem services and human well being throughout the entire Neotropical realm," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    7. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    8. Ariane Amin & Johanna Choumert, 2015. "Development and biodiversity conservation in Sub-Saharan Africa: A spatial analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 35(1), pages 729-744.
    9. Pistorius, Till & Schaich, Harald & Winkel, Georg & Plieninger, Tobias & Bieling, Claudia & Konold, Werner & Volz, Karl-Reinhard, 2012. "Lessons for REDDplus: A comparative analysis of the German discourse on forest functions and the global ecosystem services debate," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 4-12.
    10. Mukherjee, Joyita & Scharler, Ursula M. & Fath, Brian D. & Ray, Santanu, 2015. "Measuring sensitivity of robustness and network indices for an estuarine food web model under perturbations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 306(C), pages 160-173.
    11. Lanz, Bruno & Dietz, Simon & Swanson, Tim, 2018. "The Expansion of Modern Agriculture and Global Biodiversity Decline: An Integrated Assessment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 260-277.
    12. Holly E Copeland & Kevin E Doherty & David E Naugle & Amy Pocewicz & Joseph M Kiesecker, 2009. "Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the US Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-7, October.
    13. Luis R Carrasco & Edward L Webb & William S Symes & Lian P Koh & Navjot S Sodhi, 2017. "Global economic trade-offs between wild nature and tropical agriculture," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    14. Markus Groth, 2009. "The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany," Working Paper Series in Economics 119, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    15. Hallegatte, Stephane & Heal, Geoffrey & Fay, Marianne & Treguer, David, 2011. "From growth to green growth -- a framework," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5872, The World Bank.
    16. Pritchard, Rose & Ryan, Casey M. & Grundy, Isla & van der Horst, Dan, 2018. "Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity and Rural Livelihoods: Findings From Six Villages in Zimbabwe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 115-124.
    17. Banerjee, Arnab & Scharler, Ursula M. & Fath, Brian D. & Ray, Santanu, 2017. "Temporal variation of keystone species and their impact on system performance in a South African estuarine ecosystem," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 363(C), pages 207-220.
    18. Wang Tian & Huayong Zhang & Lei Zhao & Xiang Xu & Hai Huang, 2016. "The Relationship between Phytoplankton Evenness and Copepod Abundance in Lake Nansihu, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Finnoff, David & Gong, Min & Tschirhart, John, 2012. "Perspectives on Ecosystem Based Management for Delivering Ecosystem Services with an Example from an Eighteen-Species Marine Model," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(1), pages 79-118, January.
    20. Coria, Jessica & Robinson, Elizabeth & Smith, Henrik G. & Sterner, Thomas, 2012. "Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Services Provision: Tale of Confused Objectives, Multiple Market Failures and Policy Challenges," Working Papers in Economics 546, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.

    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:ags:eaae02:24937. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    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.