IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/iaae18/277450.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmers Preferences for an Agri-Environemental Measure designed for Climate Friendly Peatland Managment

Author

Listed:
  • H, K.
  • Zasada, I.
  • Sagebiel, J.

Abstract

Well-managed, agriculturally used peatlands play an important role for the storage of greenhouse gases. A new agri-environmental measure (AEM) was established in the European Common Agricultural Policy to incentivise a land management, which conserves climate functionality of peatlands through high water levels. To investigate which factors influence the willingness of farmers to participate in this measure, we carried out an empirical study applying a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The aim was to identify optimal contract designs that can also reduce transaction costs for farmers. Besides monetary compensation, measure characteristics such as contract length, assured purchase of the cut grass, support in the cooperation with neighbouring farmers, and administrative efforts are considered as decisive attributes. Results show that the average willingness to adopt the measure is set at 522 /ha*a. Moreover, we find that factors such as supporting cooperation among farmers and regional value chain approaches have a statistically significant and large positive influence on the adoption decision. Based on our results, the uptake and success of the new measure could therefore be increased by a more appropriate tailoring towards different farm types and their needs. Adjustments would increase the climate protection potential of the proposed measure. Acknowledgement : This research was financially supported by the European Comission under the funding scheme Research and Innovation Action (RIA) under grant no. 633838 and conducted in the H2020 Project PROVIDE - PROVIding smart DElivery of public goods by EU agriculture and forestry.

Suggested Citation

  • H, K. & Zasada, I. & Sagebiel, J., 2018. "Farmers Preferences for an Agri-Environemental Measure designed for Climate Friendly Peatland Managment," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277450, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:iaae18:277450
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.277450
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/277450/files/656.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.277450?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. Evy Mettepenningen & Ann Verspecht & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. "Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 649-667.
    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. 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).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Latruffe , Laure & Piet, Laurent & Dupraz, Pierre & Le Mouël, Chantal, 2013. "Influence of Agricultural Support on Sale Prices of French Farmland: A comparison of different subsidies, accounting for the role of environmental and land regulations," Factor Markets Working Papers 163, Centre for European Policy Studies.
    5. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni, 2020. "Decentralisation of agri-environmental policy design," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(4), pages 1502-1530.
    6. Osgathorpe, Lynne M. & Park, Kirsty & Goulson, Dave & Acs, Szvetlana & Hanley, Nick, 2011. "The trade-off between agriculture and biodiversity in marginal areas: Can crofting and bumblebee conservation be reconciled?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(6), pages 1162-1169, April.
    7. Nick Hanley & Simanti Banerjee & Gareth D. Lennox & Paul R. Armsworth, 2012. "How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity?," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 28(1), pages 93-113, Spring.
    8. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    9. Christine Léger Léger-Bosch, 2019. "Farmland tenure and transaction costs: Public and collectively owned land vs conventional coordination mechanisms in France [Régime de tenure foncière et coûts de transaction: terres publiques et c," Post-Print hal-02573765, HAL.
    10. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2023. "Assessing the performance of agglomeration bonus in budget-constrained conservation auctions," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334544, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    11. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    12. Phan, Thu-Ha Dang & Brouwer, Roy & Davidson, Marc David, 2017. "A Global Survey and Review of the Determinants of Transaction Costs of Forestry Carbon Projects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Kuhfuss, Laure & Jacquet, Florence, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 93(4).
    14. Banerjee, Simanti & Cason, Timothy N. & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2017. "Transaction costs, communication and spatial coordination in Payment for Ecosystem Services Schemes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 68-89.
    15. Whitten, Stuart M. & Reeson, Andrew & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 82-92.
    16. Eory, Vera, 2015. "Evaluating the use of marginal abatement cost curves applied to greenhouse gas abatement in agriculture," Working Papers 199777, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    17. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    18. Christine Léger Léger-Bosch, 2018. "Farmland Tenure and Transaction Costs," Working Papers hal-01775201, HAL.
    19. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Edward B. Barbier, 2012. "Économie verte et développement durable : enjeux de politique économique," Reflets et perspectives de la vie économique, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 97-117.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    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:iaae18:277450. 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.