IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae14/182919.html

Evaluating agri-environmental schemes: the case of Tuscany

Author

Listed:
  • Campus, Daniela

Abstract

The present paper describes the role of organic farming measures in the safeguard of the High Nature Value in Tuscany. Using National Census of Agriculture data (2010) the probability of program enrolment has been computed, through a Probit model. After, a Propensity Score Matching approach has been implemented, to verify what would have happened if treated farms would not have participated to the program. Hence, a control group with similar characteristics as the treated one has been built. Finally, the Average Treatment on the Treated has been computed, revealing organic farming measures have not statistical relevance in enhancing biodiversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Campus, Daniela, 2014. "Evaluating agri-environmental schemes: the case of Tuscany," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182919, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae14:182919
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.182919
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/182919/files/367DanielaCampus_EAAE.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.182919?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. Dwyer, Janet, 2013. "Transformation for sustainable agriculture: what role for the second Pillar of CAP?," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 2(01), pages 1-19, April.
    2. Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hodge, Ian D., 2003. "European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(01), pages 1-17.
    3. Jūratė Jaraitė & Andrius Kažukauskas, 2012. "The Effect of Mandatory Agro-Environmental Policy on Farm Fertiliser and Pesticide Expenditure," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 656-676, September.
    4. repec:wbk:wbpubs:2693 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. 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.
    6. Schonhart, Martin & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schmid, Erwin, 2010. "Integrated land use modelling of agri-environmental measures to maintain biodiversity at landscape level," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109401, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Eli Feinerman & Marinus H.C. Komen, 2003. "Agri‐environmental Instruments for an Integrated Rural Policy: An Economic Analysis," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 1-20, March.
    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. Campus, Daniela, 2014. "Evaluating agri-environmental schemes. The case of Tuscany," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 172969, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    2. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Fateh Mamine & M’hand Farès, 2020. "Barriers and Levers to Developing Wheat–Pea Intercropping in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. Sergio Albertazzi & Irene Guerra & Laura Bortolotti & Piotr Medrzycki & Manuela Giovanetti, 2025. "Evaluating Spatial Representativity in a Stakeholder-Driven Honeybee Monitoring Network Across Italy," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-20, September.
    6. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    7. Arata, Linda & Sckokai, P., 2013. "Impact of Agri-environmental Schemes on Farm Performances in five EU Member States," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149771, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. Murphy, Geraldine & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne, 2014. "Modelling the Participation Decision in Agri-Environmental Schemes," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183069, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    9. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    10. Otieno, David & Ogutu, Sylvester, 2015. "Consumer willingness to pay for animal welfare attributes in a developing country context: The case of chicken in Nairobi, Kenya," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212602, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    14. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    15. Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori & Laura Fastelli & Massimo Rovai, 2013. "Understanding the participation in agri-environmental schemes: evidence from Tuscany Region," ERSA conference papers ersa13p1084, European Regional Science Association.
    16. Kennedy Otieno Pambo & David Jakinda Otieno & Julius Juma Okello, 2017. "Analysis of Consumer Preference for Vitamin A-Fortified Sugar in Kenya," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 29(4), pages 745-768, August.
    17. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Pouta, Eija & Hiedanpää, Juha, 2021. "Forest owners' interest in participation and their compensation claims in voluntary landscape value trading: The case of wind power parks in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    18. Domínguez-Torreiro, Marcos & Soliño, Mario, 2011. "Provided and perceived status quo in choice experiments: Implications for valuing the outputs of multifunctional rural areas," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2523-2531.
    19. Novikova, Anastasija & Rocchi, Lucia & Vitunskienė, Vlada, 2017. "Assessing the benefit of the agroecosystem services: Lithuanian preferences using a latent class approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 277-286.
    20. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:eaae14:182919. 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.