IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae15/212517.html

Modelling the Participation Decision in Agri-Environmental Schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Murphy, Geraldine
  • O'Donoghue, Cathal
  • Hynes, Stephen
  • Murphy, Eithne

Abstract

Understanding what influences farmers’ decisions to participate in a voluntary agri-environmental scheme (AES) is essential for gauging scheme success. The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) was a voluntary AES that was available to all Irish farmers from 1994 to 2009. This paper models the participation decision of Irish farmers in REPS using a 15-year panel dataset. The approach taken is novel: actual values for gross outputs, direct costs and working hours are compared to simulated counterfactual values using a conditional logit framework. Model results show that Irish farmers behave rationally by maximising utility from both consumption and leisure but that their preferences differ by region and over time. In addition, the participation functions of viable and non-viable farmers are dissimilar in a number of ways. Policy makers may therefore need to target both groups of farmers using separate schemes in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Murphy, Geraldine & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen & Murphy, Eithne, 2015. "Modelling the Participation Decision in Agri-Environmental Schemes," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212517, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae15:212517
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.212517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/212517/files/Murphy-Modelling%20the%20Participation%20Decision%20in%20Agri-Environmental%20Schemes-244.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.212517?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    2. Andrew Moxey & Ben White & Adam Ozanne, 1999. "Efficient Contract Design for Agri‐Environment Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 187-202, May.
    3. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    4. Stephen Hynes & Eoghan Garvey, 2009. "Modelling Farmers’ Participation in an Agri‐environmental Scheme using Panel Data: An Application to the Rural Environment Protection Scheme in Ireland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 60(3), pages 546-562, September.
    5. Ruben N. Lubowski & Michael J. Roberts, 2005. "How Cost-Effective Are Land Retirement Auctions? Estimating the Difference between Payments and Willingness to Accept in the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1239-1247.
    6. Jeremy G. Weber & Nigel Key, 2012. "How much Do Decoupled Payments Affect Production? An Instrumental Variable Approach with Panel Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 52-66.
    7. Blundell, Richard & Macurdy, Thomas, 1999. "Labor supply: A review of alternative approaches," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 27, pages 1559-1695, Elsevier.
    8. 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.
    9. Becker, Gary S, 1993. "Nobel Lecture: The Economic Way of Looking at Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 385-409, June.
    10. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    11. Ayal Kimhi, 2004. "Family Composition and Off-Farm Participation Decisions in Israeli Farm Households," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 502-512.
    12. John Creedy & Guyonne Kalb, 2005. "Discrete Hours Labour Supply Modelling: Specification, Estimation and Simulation," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(5), pages 697-734, December.
    13. Hung-Hao Chang & Richard Boisvert, 2009. "Are farmers' decisions to work off the farm related to their decisions to participate in the conservation reserve program?," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 71-85.
    14. Shan Ma & Scott M. Swinton & Frank Lupi & Christina Jolejole-Foreman, 2012. "Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment-for-Environmental-Services Programmes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(3), pages 604-626, September.
    15. Joe Dewbre, 2006. "The Impact of Coupled and Decoupled Government Subsidies on Off-Farm Labor Participation of U.S. Farm Operators," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(2), pages 393-408.
    16. Ian J. Bateman & Richard T. Carson & Brett Day & Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Tannis Hett & Michael Jones-Lee & Graham Loomes, 2002. "Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2639, August.
    17. Scott Steele, 2010. "An Organisational Discussion of Incomplete Contracting and Transaction Costs in Conservation Contracts," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 163-174, February.
    18. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, January.
    19. J. A. Finn & F. Bartolini & D. Bourke & I. Kurz & D. Viaggi, 2009. "Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 717-737.
    20. Hisham El-Osta & Ashok Mishra & Mary Ahearn, 2004. "Labor Supply by Farm Operators Under “Decoupled” Farm Program Payments," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 2(4), pages 367-385, August.
    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. Murphy, Geraldine & Meredith, David, 2015. "A typology of cattle farmers in Ireland: An overview of data, method and indicators," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212518, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    3. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Glenk, Klaus & Rodriguez-Entrena, M., 2016. "Serial non-participation and ecosystem services providers’ preferences towards incentive-based schemes," 90th Annual Conference, April 4-6, 2016, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 236348, Agricultural Economics Society.
    6. Zhu, Lanlan & Zhang, Chunman & Cai, Yinying, 2018. "Varieties of agri-environmental schemes in China: A quantitative assessment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 505-517.
    7. 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.
    8. Rolf Aaberge & Ugo Colombino, 2014. "Labour Supply Models," Contributions to Economic Analysis, in: Handbook of Microsimulation Modelling, volume 127, pages 167-221, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    9. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    10. Nicole Bosch & Miriam Gielen & Egbert Jongen & Mauro Mastrogiacomo (DNB & voorheen CPB), 2013. "A structural analysis of labour supply elasticities in the Netherlands," CPB Discussion Paper 235, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    11. Jeffrey Gillespie & Ashok Mishra, 2011. "Off‐farm employment and reasons for entering farming as determinants of production enterprise selection in US agriculture," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(3), pages 411-428, July.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Brouwer, Roy & Lienhoop, Nele & Oosterhuis, Frans, 2015. "Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 205-222.
    15. 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.
    16. Pacifico, Daniele, 2009. "A behavioral microsimulation model with discrete labour supply for Italian couples," MPRA Paper 14198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Thoresen, Thor O. & Vattø, Trine E., 2015. "Validation of the discrete choice labor supply model by methods of the new tax responsiveness literature," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 38-53.
    18. Sauer, Johannes & Walsh, John, 2011. "ESS versus NVZ – The Cost-Effectiveness of Command-and-Control versus Agreement Based Policy Instruments," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108963, Agricultural Economics Society.
    19. Rhona Barr & Susana Mourato, 2012. "Investigating fishers� preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," GRI Working Papers 101, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    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

    Keywords

    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C33 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics

    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:iaae15:212517. 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/iaaeeea.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.