IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04643826.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions

Author

Listed:
  • R. d'Alberto

    (UNIVR - Università degli studi di Verona = University of Verona)

  • S. Targetti

    (University of Bologna)

  • L. Schaller

    (BOKU - Universität für Bodenkultur Wien = University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences [Vienne, Autriche])

  • F. Bartolini

    (UniFE - Università degli Studi di Ferrara = University of Ferrara)

  • T. Eichhorn

    (BOKU - Universität für Bodenkultur Wien = University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences [Vienne, Autriche])

  • E. Haltia

    (LUKE - Natural Resources Institute Finland)

  • K. Harmanny

    (VU - Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam [Amsterdam])

  • Fanny Le Gloux

    (SMART - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Rennes Angers - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • D. Nikolov

    (Agricultural Academy - Bulgaria)

  • T. Runge

    (Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut = Thünen Institute)

  • D. Vergamini

    (University of Pisa - Università di Pisa)

  • D. Viaggi

    (UNIBO - Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna = University of Bologna)

Abstract

The agri-environment-climate measures of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy are incentives aiming to reduce negative environmental impacts and increase positive effects generated from agriculture. Several criticisms have been addressed to their efficiency and effectiveness and thus, the design of innovative contract solutions is currently suggested. Among the novel contractual solutions, there are result-based payments, collective implementation of measures, the engagement of private and business actors in value chains, and new forms of land tenure systems coupled with environmental clauses. Little is known about the factors at interplay influencing farmers' decision to uptake such contracts. The present paper investigates the acceptability determinants of the above-mentioned novel contractual solutions concerning a sample of nearly 1900 farmers from 10 European Union countries. The analysis is based on a questionnaire built through a common research framework. We apply ordered logistic regressions: both proportional and partial proportional odds models are used. Farmers' preferences are interpreted by splitting the innovative contractual solutions into 13 individual contractual features which are then modeled in combination with the structural characteristics of the farms and the sociodemographic and behavioral characteristics of the farmers. We estimate farmers' willingness to enroll in result-based, collective, value-chain, and land tenure contracts and highlight the positive and negative factors potentially influencing farmers' acceptability of each type of contract.

Suggested Citation

  • R. d'Alberto & S. Targetti & L. Schaller & F. Bartolini & T. Eichhorn & E. Haltia & K. Harmanny & Fanny Le Gloux & D. Nikolov & T. Runge & D. Vergamini & D. Viaggi, 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Post-Print hal-04643826, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04643826
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107120
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    2. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    3. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    4. Toderi, Marco & Francioni, Matteo & Seddaiu, Giovanna & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Trozzo, Laura & D’Ottavio, Paride, 2017. "Bottom-up design process of agri-environmental measures at a landscape scale: Evidence from case studies on biodiversity conservation and water protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 295-305.
    5. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    6. Carsten Meyer & Holger Kreft & Robert Guralnick & Walter Jetz, 2015. "Global priorities for an effective information basis of biodiversity distributions," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-8, November.
    7. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    8. Timothy Manyise & Domenico Dentoni, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Post-Print hal-03539208, HAL.
    9. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    10. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2015. "Nudging farmers to sign agri-environmental contracts: the effects of a collective bonus," Working Papers hal-01148581, HAL.
    11. M. Nyström & J.-B. Jouffray & A. V. Norström & B. Crona & P. Søgaard Jørgensen & S. R. Carpenter & Ö. Bodin & V. Galaz & C. Folke, 2019. "Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem," Nature, Nature, vol. 575(7781), pages 98-108, November.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Pierre Dupraz & Maria Espinosa Goded & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle, 2013. "Identifying additional barriers in the adoption of agri-environmental schemes: the role of fixed costs," Post-Print hal-01208850, HAL.
    15. Vergamini, Daniele & Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri, 2020. "Evaluating the Potential Contribution of Multi-Attribute Auctions to Achieve Agri-Environmental Targets and Efficient Payment Design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni & Davide Viaggi, 2023. "Agglomeration bonus and endogenous group formation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 76-98, January.
    17. Velten, Sarah & Schaal, Tamara & Leventon, Julia & Hanspach, Jan & Fischer, Joern & Newig, Jens, 2018. "Rethinking biodiversity governance in European agricultural landscapes: Acceptability of alternative governance scenarios," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 84-93.
    18. Linda Arata & Paolo Sckokai, 2016. "The Impact of Agri-environmental Schemes on Farm Performance in Five E.U. Member States: A DID-Matching Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(1), pages 167-186.
    19. Bartosz Bartkowski & Stephan Bartke, 2018. "Leverage Points for Governing Agricultural Soils: A Review of Empirical Studies of European Farmers’ Decision-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-27, September.
    20. Raina, Nidhi & Zavalloni, Matteo & Targetti, Stefano & D'Alberto, Riccardo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A systematic review of attributes used in choice experiments for agri-environmental contracts," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(2), April.
    21. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    22. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    23. Waylen, Kerry A. & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2018. "Surveying views on Payments for Ecosystem Services: Implications for environmental management and research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 23-30.
    24. David Wuepper & Robert Huber, 2022. "Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in Switzerland," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 104(5), pages 1585-1604, October.
    25. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    26. Maria Alló & Maria L. Loureiro & Eva Iglesias, 2015. "Farmers' Preferences and Social Capital Regarding Agri‐environmental Schemes to Protect Birds," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 672-689, September.
    27. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    28. Manyise, Timothy & Dentoni, Domenico, 2021. "Value chain partnerships and farmer entrepreneurship as balancing ecosystem services: Implications for agri-food systems resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    29. Yee, Thomas W., 2010. "The VGAM Package for Categorical Data Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 32(i10).
    30. 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.
    31. Bercedis Peterson & Frank E. Harrell, 1990. "Partial Proportional Odds Models for Ordinal Response Variables," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 39(2), pages 205-217, June.
    32. Maarten Buis & Richard Williams, 2013. "Using simulation to inspect the performance of a test, in particular tests of the parallel regressions assumption in ordered logit and probit models," German Stata Users' Group Meetings 2013 06, Stata Users Group.
    33. Richard Williams, 2006. "Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(1), pages 58-82, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vergamini, Daniele & Olivieri, Matteo & Andreoli, Maria & Bartolini, Fabio, 2024. "Simulating policy mixes to reduce soil erosion and land abandonment in marginal areas: A case study from the Liguria Region (Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).

    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. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    2. 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.
    3. 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).
    4. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    7. 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.
    8. Nguyen, Chi & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe & Hanley, Nick & Schilizzi, Steven & Iftekhar, Sayed, 2022. "Spatial Coordination Incentives for landscape-scale environmental management: A systematic review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    9. Bredemeier, Birte & Herrmann, Sylvia & Sattler, Claudia & Prager, Katrin & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Rex, Julia, 2022. "Insights into innovative contract design to improve the integration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    10. Kelemen, Eszter & Megyesi, Boldizsár & Matzdorf, Bettina & Andersen, Erling & van Bussel, Lenny G.J. & Dumortier, Myriam & Dutilly, Céline & García-Llorente, Marina & Hamon, Christine & LePage, Annabe, 2023. "The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    11. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Vergamini, Daniele & Olivieri, Matteo & Andreoli, Maria & Bartolini, Fabio, 2024. "Simulating policy mixes to reduce soil erosion and land abandonment in marginal areas: A case study from the Liguria Region (Italy)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    13. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    14. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    15. Gerhard Tutz & Moritz Berger, 2022. "Sparser Ordinal Regression Models Based on Parametric and Additive Location‐Shift Approaches," International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 90(2), pages 306-327, August.
    16. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A., 2022. "Willingness to accept for rewilding farmland in environmentally sensitive areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Raina, Nidhi & Zavalloni, Matteo & Targetti, Stefano & D'Alberto, Riccardo & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2021. "A systematic review of attributes used in choice experiments for agri-environmental contracts," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 10(2), April.
    19. Andrew S. Fullerton & Jun Xu, 2018. "Constrained and Unconstrained Partial Adjacent Category Logit Models for Ordinal Response Variables," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 47(2), pages 169-206, March.
    20. Le Gloux, Fanny & Ropars-Collet, Carole & Issanchou, Alice & Dupraz, Pierre, 2023. "Payments for environmental services with ecological thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a sponsorship bonus," Working Papers 337160, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).

    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:hal:journl:hal-04643826. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.