Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change

Land Use Policy

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 628-641

  Burton, Rob J F ^a   Schwarz, G ^b  

^a Bygdeforskning   (Norway)

^b THÜNEN INSTITUTE OF CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE   (Germany)

Author keywords

Cultural change; European environmental policy; Farmer behaviour; Result oriented agri environmental schemes

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT; CULTURAL CHANGE; FARMERS ATTITUDE; FARMERS KNOWLEDGE; POLICY APPROACH; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SOCIAL CHANGE;

EUROPE;

EID: 84861969231     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.002     Document Type: Review

References (119)

1. Atari D., Yiridoe E., Smale S., Diunker P. What motivates farmers to participate in the Nova Scotia environmental farm plan program? Evidence and environmental policy implications. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:1269-1279.
2. Aviron S., Herzog F., Klaus I., Schüpbach B., Jeanneret P. Effects of wildflower strip quality, quantity, and connectivity on butterfly diversity in a Swiss arable landscape. Restoration Ecology 2010, 19(4):500-508.
3. Barnes, A.P., Schwarz, G., Keenleyside, C., Thomson, S., Waterhouse, T, Polakova, J., Stewart, S., McCracken, D., 2011. Alternative payment approaches for non-economic farming systems delivering environmental public goods. Final Report for Land Use Policy Group, March 2011. Scottish Agricultural College, Institute for European Environmental Policy, Johann Heinrich von Thünen Institut.
4. Baumgärtner J., Hartmann J. The design and implementation of sustainable plant diversity conservation program for alpine meadows. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2001, 14:67-83.
5. Beckmann V., Eggers J., Mettepenningen E. Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52(5):689-716.
6. Berendse F., Chamberlain D., Kleijn D., Schekkerman H. Declining biodiversity in agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 2004, 33(8):499-502.
7. Bertke E., Klimek S., Wittig B. Developing result-orientated payment schemes for environmental services in grasslands: results from two case studies in North-western Germany. Biodiversity 2008, 9(1/2):91-95.
8. Bills N., Gross D. Sustaining multifunctional agricultural landscapes: comparing stakeholder perspectives in New York (US) and England (UK). Land Use Policy 2005, 22:313-321.
9. Bisang I., Bergamini A., Lienhard L. Environmental-friendly farming in Switzerland is not hornwort-friendly. Biological Conservation 2009, 142:2104-2113.
10. Blandford D., Hill B. Guest editorial: directions in rural development policy - lessons from both sides of the Atlantic. Eurochoices 2008, 2008(Spring):6-12.
11. Blandford, D., Josling, T., 2007. Should the Green Box be Modified? IPC Discussion Paper. International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council. (accessed 15.06.11). http://www.agritrade.org/Publications/DiscussionPapers/Green_Box.pdf.
12. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. Handbook of Theory of Research for the Sociology of Education 1986, 241-258. Greenwood Press, New York. J. Richardson (Ed.).
13. Bräuer, I., Müssner, R., Marsden, K., Oosterhuis, F., Rayment, M., Miller, C., Dodoková, A., 2006. The use of market incentives to preserve biodiversity. Final Report, ENV.G.1/FRA/2004/0081, EcoLogic. Institute for International and European Environmental Policy. URL: (accessed 15.06.11). http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/BRAG_SE_Braueretal-TheUseofMarketIncentivestoPreserveBiodiversity%28EcologicReport%29.pdf.
14. Buckingham H., Chapman J., Newman R. Meadows Beyond the Millennium: The future for Hay Meadows in the Peak District National Park 1998, Peak District National Park Authority, Derbyshire, http://resources.peakdistrict.gov.uk/pubs/hmp/hmp.pdf (accessed 02.09.11).
15. Burger W. Creating wildlife habitat through federal farm programs: an objective-driven approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2006, 34(4):994-999.
16. Burgess J., Clark J., Harrison C. Knowledges in action: an actor network analysis of a wetland agri-environment scheme. Ecological Economics 2000, 35:119-132.
17. Burton R.J.F. Understanding farmers' aesthetic preference for tidy agricultural landscapes: a Bourdieusian perspective. Landscape Research 2012, 37(1):51-71.
18. Burton R.J.F., Kuczera C., Schwarz G. Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis 2008, 48(1):16-37.
19. Burton R.J.F., Paragahawewa U. Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 2011, 27:95-104.
20. Butler S., Vickery J., Norris K. Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science 2007, 315:381-384.
21. Butler S.J., Boccaccio L., Gregory R.D., Vorisek P., Norris K. Quantifying the impact of land-use change to European farmland bird populations. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2010, 137:348-357.
22. Castree N. Crisis, continuity and change: neoliberalism, the left and the future of capitalism. Antipode 2009, 41:185-213.
23. Claassen R., Cattane A., Johansson R. Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:737-752.
24. Cocklin C., Mautner N., Dibden J. Public policy, private landholders: perspectives on policy mechanisms for sustainable land management. Journal of Environmental Management 2007, 85:986-998.
25. Coombes B. Ecospatial outcomes of neoliberal planning: habitat management in Auckland region, New Zealand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2003, 30:201-218.
26. Deci E., Ryan R., Koestner R. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 1999, 125(6):627-668.
27. Degenfelder L., Lösch S., Seibert O. Evaluation of Agri-environmental Measures - Germany. Annex 6 (AGRI/G4/2004) 2005, Forschungsgruppe Agrar-und Regionalentwicklung, Triesdorf, Weidenbach-Triesdorf.
28. Dibden J., Potter C., Cocklin C. Contesting the neoliberal project for agriculture: productivist and multifunctional trajectories in the European Union and Australia. Journal of Rural Studies 2009, 25:299-308.
29. Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 2003, 302:1907-1912.
30. Dobbs T.L., Pretty J. Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom. Ecological Economics 2008, 65:765-775.
31. Dreschler M., Wätzold F., Johst K., Bergmann H., Settele J. A model-based approach for designing cost-effective compensation payments for conservation of endangered species in real landscapes. Biological Conservation 2007, 140:174-186.
32. Eggers, J., Mettepenningen, E., Beckmann, V., 2007. Assessing the efficiency of local action groups and auctions for designing and implementing agri-environmental measures in the EU - results from an expert survey. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 47th Annual Conference of the GEWISOLA (German Association of Agricultural Economists) and the 17th Annual Conference of the öGA (Austrian Association of Agricultural Economists), 'Changing Agricultural and Food sector', Freising/Weihenstephan, Germany, September 26-28, 2007. (accessed 16.06.11). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/handle/7584.
33. European Commission Council regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005. Official Journal of the European Union (Brussels: EU) 2005, Available online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:277:0001:0040:EN:PDF (accessed 24.06.11).
34. European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) (2011). Rural Development Programmes - output indicators realised 2007-2009, ENRD.
35. European Network for Rural Development and European Commission, 2010. Report on the Contribution of the European Network for Rural Development to the Public debate on the Common Agricultural Policy after 2013 (13/07/2010). European Commission, Brussels. (accessed 24.06.11). http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/app_templates/filedownload.cfm%3Fid=DAB81B97-9E9B-F50F-6F18-C76EBF6B1A4A.
36. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Secretariat (GATT) The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Legal Texts 1994, GATT, Geneva.
37. Gerowitt B., Isselstein J., Marggraf R. Rewards for ecological goods-requirements and perspectives for agricultural land use. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2003, 98:541-547.
38. Green M. More environment - less agri. ECOS 2004, 25(1):43-47.
39. Groth, M., 2008. Kosteneffizienter und effektiver Biodiversitätsschutz durch Ausschreibungen und eine ergebnisorientierte Honorierung: Das Modelprojekt Blühendes Steinburg. Working Paper Series in Economics No. 105, November 2008. University of Lüneburg. http://www.leuphana.de/vwl/papers.
40. Groth, M., 2009. The transferability and performance of payment-by-results biodiversity conservation procurement auctions: empirical evidence from northernmost Germany. Working Paper Series in Economics No. 119, February 2009. University of Lüneburg. http://www.leuphana.de/vwl/papers.
41. Haaren C., Bathke M. Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services. Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. Journal of Environmental Management 2008, 89:209-221.
42. Hailu A., Schilizzi S. Are auctions more efficient than fixed price schemes when bidders learn?. Australian Journal of Management 2004, 29:147-168.
43. Hampicke U. Jeder Markt honoriert nicht den Aufwand, sondern das Ergebnis. ökonomie der Honorierung ökologischer Leistungen-Anreiz. Workshopreihe "Naturschutz und ökonomie" Teil 1 2006, 161-172. BfN-Skripten. U. Hampicke, Arbeitsgruppe Landschaftsökonomie Greifswald (Projektleitung) (Eds.).
44. Herzog F., Dreier S., Hofer G., Marfurt C., Schüpbach B., Spiess M., et al. Effect of ecological compensation areas on floristic and breeding bird diversity in Swiss agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2005, 108:189-204.
45. Herzon I., Mikk M. Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 2007, 15:10-25.
46. Höft A., Gerowitt B. Rewarding weeds in arable farming - traits, goals and concepts. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz 2006, XX:517-526. (Sonderheft).
47. Höft A., Müller J., Gerowitt B. Vegetation indicators for grazing activities on grassland to be implemented in outcome-oriented agri-environmental payment schemes in North-East Germany. Ecological Indicators 2010, 10:719-726.
48. Jackson L.E., Pascual U., Hodgkin T. Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2007, 121:196-210.
49. Jones N., Sophoulis C.M., Iosifides T., Botetzagias I., Evangelinos K. The influence of social capital on environmental policy instruments. Environmental Politics 2009, 18(4):595-611.
50. Kaiser T., Rohner M.-S., Matzdorf B., Kiesel J. Validation of grassland indicator species selected for result-oriented agri-environmental schemes. Biodiversity and Conservation 2010, 19(5):1297-1314.
51. Klimek S., Richtergen. Kemmermann A., Steinmann H.-H., Freese J., Isselstein J. Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biological Conservation 2008, 141:2888-2897.
52. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R., Gilissen N. Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 2001, 413:723-725.
53. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R., Gilissen N., Smit J., Brak B., et al. Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in the Netherlands. Conservation Biology 2004, 18(3):775-786.
54. Kleijn D., Sutherland W.J. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40(6):947-969.
55. Latacz-Lohmann U. Beyond the green box: the economics of agri-environmental policy and free trade. Agrarwirtschaft 2000, 49:342-348.
56. Latacz-Lohmann, U., Schilizzi, R., 2005. Auctions for conservation contracts. A review of the theoretical and empirical literature. Report to the Scottish Executive and Rural Affairs Department (Project No.: UKL/001/05).
57. Latacz-Lohmann, U., Schilizzi, S., 2011. A note on the performance measure of conservation Auctions. Working Paper 1104. School of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia. (accessed, 24.06.11). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/100885/2/wp110004.pdf.
58. Latacz-Lohmann U., Hodge I. 'Multifunctionality' and 'free trade': conflict of harmony?. EuroChoices Premier Issue 2001, 42-47.
59. Latacz-Lohmann U., Schilizzi S. Quantifying the benefits of conservation auctions. EuroChoices 2007, 6(3):29-32.
60. Lazear E.P. Pay equality and industrial politics. The Journal of Political Economy 1989, 97:561-580.
61. Loisel O., Elyakime B. Incentive contract and weather risk. Environmental and Resource Economics 2006, 35:99-108.
62. Lowe, P., Falconer, K., Hodge, I., Moxey, A., Ward, N., Whitby, M., 1999. Integrating the environment into CAP-Reform. Centre for Rural Economy, Research Report.
63. Lütz M., Bastion O. Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape-a case study from Saxony. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2002, 92:159-170.
64. Macdonald D.W., Johnson P.J. Farmers and the custody of the countryside: trends in loss and conservation of non-productive habitats 1981-1998. Biological Conservation 2000, 94:221-234.
65. Mander L., Mikk M., Kuelvik M. Ecological and low intensity agriculture as contributors to landscape and biological diversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 1999, 46:169-177.
66. Marshall G.R. From words to deeds: enforcing farmers' conservation cost-sharing commitments. Journal of Rural Studies 2004, 20:157-167.
67. Mather A.S., Thomson K.J. The effects of afforestation on agriculture in Scotland. Journal of Rural Studies 1995, 11(2):187-202.
68. Matzdorf B., Kaiser T., Rohner M.-S. Developing biodiversity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecological Indicators 2008, 8(3):256-269.
69. Matzdorf B., Lorenz J. How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures? An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27(2):535-544.
70. Matzdorf B., Müller K., Kersebaum K.C., Kiesel J., Kaiser T. Improving agri-environmental benefits within the CAP. New Perspectives on Agri-environmental Policies 2010, Routledge/Taylor and Francis Group, London/New York, ISBN 0-415-77702-Xnat. S.J. Goetz, F. Brouwer (Eds.).
71. Mayrand, K., Paquin, M., 2004. Payments for Environmental Services: A Survey and Assessment of Current Schemes. A Report by Unisféra International Centre for the Commission for Environmental Co-operation of North America, Montreal, September 2004. (accessed 24.06.11). http://www.cec.org/files/PDF/ECONOMY/PES-Unisfera_en.pdf.
72. Midmore P., Sherwood A.-M., Roughley G. Policy reform and the sustainability of farming in the uplands of the United Kingdom: conflicts between environment and social support. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 2001, 3:43-63.
73. Musters C.J.M., Kruk M., De Graaf H.J., Keurs W.J.T. Breeding birds as a farm product. Conservation Biology 2001, 15:363-369.
74. Niederösterreichischer Oekopunkte Verein ökopunkte für die Landwirtschaft in Niederösterreich 2011, http://www.oekopunkte.at/Oekopunkte/Willkommen_auf_ Okopunkte.at.html (accessed 5.10.11).
75. Natural England Higher Level Stewardship: Environmental Stewardship Handbook. Third Edition (NE227) 2010, Natural England, Sheffield, Available from: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/NE227 (accessed 16.06.11).
76. OECD Paying for Biodiversity - Enhancing the Cost-effectiveness of Payments for Ecosystem Services 2010, OECD, Paris, ISBN 92-64-09027-9.
77. Oppermann R. Nature balance scheme for farms-evaluation of the ecological situation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2003, 98:463-475.
78. Oppermann R., Briemle G. Blumenwiesen in der landwirtschaftlichen Förderung. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 2002, 34:203-209.
79. Oppermann R., Gujer H.U. Artenreiches Grünland bewerten und fördern-MEKA und öQV in der Praxis (1) 2003, Verlag Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart, Hohenheim.
80. Osterburg, B., Nietsch, H., 2004. Integrated tools to design and implement agro environmental schemes. State of the Art and Methods: Report on Germany. Document Number ITAESWP2 P51DR01. Federal Agricultural Research Centre, Braunschweig.
81. Ostrom E. Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives 2000, 14(93):137-158.
82. Ostrom E. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 2009, 325:419-422.
83. Pasquini L., Cowling R.M., Twyman C., Wainwright J. Devising appropriate policies and instruments in support of private conservation areas: lessons learned from the Klein Karoo, South Africa. Conservation Biology 2009, 24(2):470-478.
84. Peck J., Theodore N., Brenner N. Postneoliberalism and its malcontents. Antipode 2009, 41:94-116.
85. Potter C., Tilzey M. Agricultural policy discourses in the European post-Fordist transition: neoliberalism, neomercantilism and multifunctionality. Progress in Human Geography 2005, 29(5):581-600.
86. Quillérou E., Fraser R. Adverse selection in the environmental stewardship scheme: does the higher level stewardship scheme design reduce adverse selection?. Journal of Agricultural Economics 2010, 61:369-380.
87. Richtergen. Kemmermann A., Klimek S., Bertke E., Isselstein J. Conceptual design and results of an outcome-based payment scheme for ecological services of agriculture. Mitteilungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Grünland und Futterbau 2005, 7:250-253.
88. Richtergen. Kemmerman, A., Klimek, S., Bertke, E., Isselstein, J., 2006. Auctioning ecological goods within agri-environmental schemes - a new approach and its implementation in species-rich grasslands. In: Meyer, B.C. (Ed.), Sustainable Land Use in Intensively Used Agricultural Regions. Landscape Europe. Alterra Report No. 1338. Wageningen. (accessed 24.06.11). http://www2.alterra.wur.nl/Webdocs/PDFFiles/Alterrarapporten/AlterraRapport1338.pdf.
89. Riley M. Reconsidering conceptualisations of farm conservation activity: the case of conserving hay meadows. Journal of Rural Studies 2006, 22(3):337-353.
90. Rogers E.M. Diffusion of Innovations 1983, The Free Press, New York. 3rd ed.
91. Roth T., Amrhein V., Peter B., Weber D. A Swiss agri-environment scheme effectively enhances species richness for some taxa over time. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2008, 125(1-4):167-172.
92. Ruto E., Garrod G. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2009, 52(5):631-647.
93. Sattler C., Nagel U.J. Factors affecting farmers' acceptance of conservation measures-a case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:70-77.
94. Schenk A., Hunziker M., Kienast F. Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures-a qualitative study in Switzerland. Journal of Environmental Management 2007, 83:66-79.
95. Siebert R. The 'green box': multifunctionality and biodiversity conservation in Europe. Agriculture, Biodiversity and Markets: Livelihoods and Agroecology in Comparative Perspective 2010, 269-286. Earthscan, London. S. Lockie, D. Carpenter (Eds.).
96. Schilizzi, S., Breustedt, G., Latacz-Lohmann, U., 2010. Should we combine incentive payments and tendering for efficiently purchasing conservation services from landholders? Paper given at the 54th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Adelaide, February 10-12, 2010.
97. Schmitzberger I., Wrbka T., Steurer B., Aschenbrenner G., Peterseil J., Zechmeister H.G. How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2005, 108:274-290.
98. Schwarz, G., Moxey, A., McCracken, D., Huband, S., Cummins, R., 2008. An analysis of the potential effectiveness of a payment-by-results approach to the delivery of environmental public goods and services supplied by Agri-Environment Schemes. Report to the Land Use Policy Group, UK. Macaulay Institute, Pareto Consulting and Scottish Agricultural College, 108pp.
99. Schweizerischer Bundesrat Verordnung über die regionale Förderung der Qualität und der Vernetzung von ökologischen Ausgleichsflächen in der Landwirtschaft 2001, Schweizer Bundesrat, Bern, http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/9/910.14.de.pdf (accessed 04.09.11).
100. Sligo F., Massey C. Risk, trust and knowledge networks in farmers' learning. Journal of Rural Studies 2007, 23(2):270-282.
101. Scottish Natural Heritage East Scotland Grassland Management Scheme 2005, SNH, Edinburgh, ISSN 1479-7798. http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/NatCare/GrasslandScheme.pdf (accessed 04.09.11).
102. Stapelholmer Naturschutzvereine, 2007. Erfolgsorientierter Naturschutz mit der Landwirtschaft: Gemeinschaftlicher Wiesenvogelschutz. Schleswig-Holstein.
103. Stoneham G., Chaudhri V., Ha A., Strappazzon L. Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's Bush Tender Trial. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 2003, 47(4):477-500.
104. Sutherland L.-A., Burton R.J.F. Good farmers, good neighbours? The role of cultural capital in social capital development in a Scottish farming community. Sociologia Ruralis 2011, 51(3):238-255.
105. Swagemakers P., Wiskerke H., Van Der Ploeg J.D. Linking birds, fields and farmers. Journal of Environmental Management 2009, 90:185-192.
106. Techen, A.K., Osterburg, B., 2011. Verifiability of result-oriented policy measures to reduce N emissions from German agriculture. Paper Presented at the at the Nitrogen & Global Change Science Conference, 12th April, 2011, Edinburgh.
107. Valentine I., Hurley E., Reid A., Allen W. Principles and processes for effecting change in environmental management in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management 2007, 82:311-318.
108. Verhulst J., Kleijn D., Berendse F. Direct and indirect effects of the most widely implemented Dutch agri-environment schemes on breeding waders. Journal of Applied Ecology 2007, 44:70-80.
109. Vickery J.A., Bradbury R.B., Henderson I.G., Eaton M.A., Grice P.V. The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biological Conservation 2004, 119:19-39.
110. Westerlink, J., Buizer, M., Ramos, J.S., 2008. European lessons for green and blue services in the Netherlands. Working Paper for the 6th Framework Programme PLUREL-Project, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
111. White, B., Burton, M. 2005. Measuring the efficiency of conservation auctions. Contributed Paper at the 49th Annual Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society Conference, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia.
112. Wilson G.A. Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 1997, 50:67-93.
113. Wilson G.A., Hart K. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking?. Sociologia Ruralis 2001, 41(2):254-274.
114. Wittig B., Richter A., Zacharias D. An indicator species approach for result-orientated subsidies of ecological services in grasslands - a study in North-western Germany. Biological Conservation 2006, 133:186-197.
115. Wrbka T., Schindler S., Pollheimer M., Schmitzberger I., Peterseil J. Impact of the Austrian agri-environmental scheme on diversity of landscapes, plants and birds. Community Ecology 2008, 9(2):217-227.
116. Zabel A., Holm-Müller K. Conservation performance payments for carnivore conservation in Sweden. Conservation Biology 2008, 22:247-251.
117. Zabel A., Roe B. Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives. Ecological Economics 2009, 69:126-134.
118. Zabel A., Pittel K., Bostedt G., Engel S. Comparing conventional and new policy approaches for carnivore conservation: theoretical results and application to tiger conservation. Environmental Resource Economics 2011, 48:287-301.
119. Zechmeister H.G., Schmitzberger I., Steurer B., Peterseil J., Wrbka T. The influence of land-use practices and economics on plant species richness in meadows. Biological Conservation 2003, 114:165-177.