Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers' contract design preferences for afforestation schemes

Land Use Policy

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 568-577

  Lienhoop, Nele ^a   Brouwer, Roy ^b  

^a HELMHOLTZ CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH UFZ   (Germany)

^b INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Afforestation; Agri environmental scheme; Choice experiment; Contract design; Subsidies; Willingness to accept

Indexed keywords

AFFORESTATION; AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; CARBON DIOXIDE; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; EUROPEAN UNION; FARMERS KNOWLEDGE; FOREST MANAGEMENT; SUBSIDY SYSTEM;

GERMANY; SAXONY;

EID: 84907998445     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.09.017     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Bennett J., Adamowicz W. Some fundamentals of environmental choice modelling. The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation 2001, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. J. Bennet, R.K. Blamey (Eds.).
2. Birol E., Smale M., Gyovai Á. Using a choice experiment to estimate farmers' valuation of agrobiodiversity on Hungarian small farms. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2006, 34:439-469.
3. Birol E., Koundouri P. Choice Experiments Informing Environmental Policy: A European Perspective 2008, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
4. BMELV (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection) Ernte 2013 - Mengen und Preise 2013, www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/Landwirtschaft/Markt-Statistik/Ernte2013MengenPreise.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (viewed 18.10.13).
5. BMELV (Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection) Forest Strategy 2020. Sustainable Forest Management - An Opportunity and a Challenge for Society 2011, www.bmelv.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/ForestStrategy2020.pdf;jsessionid=E02AC3AE4BE7D8EC870FAF46EE031A5E.2_cid288?__blob=publicationFile (viewed 11.03.13).
6. Broch S., Vedel S. Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in farmer agri-environmental contract preferences. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2012, 51(4):561-581.
7. Broch S., Strange N., Jacobsen J.B., Wilson K.A. Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 92:78-86.
8. BWaldG (National Forest Law) Gesetz zur Erhaltung des Waldes und zur Förderung der Forstwirtschaft (Bundeswaldgesetz) 1975, Vom 2. Mai 1975, zuletzt geändert durch Art. 1 G v. 31.7.2010.
9. Christensen T., Pedersen A.B., Nielsen H.O., Mørbak M.R., Haler B., Denver S. Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones. A choice experiment study. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1558-1564.
10. Chrzan K., Orme B. An overview and comparison of design strategies for choice-based conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series 2000, www.skimgroup.com/images/stories/technicalpapers/Design-of-Conjoint-Experiments/desgncbc.pdf (viewed 12.09.14).
11. Council Regulation Council Regulation on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Regulation No. 1698/2005, 20 September 2005 2005.
12. Court of Auditors Special Report No. 9/2004 on Forestry Measures within Rural Development Policy 2005, Official Journal of the European Union, C67.
13. Duke J.M., Borchers A.M., Johnston R.J., Absetz S. Sustainable agricultural management contracts: using choice experiments to estimate the benefits of land preservation and conservation practices. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 74:95-103.
14. EEA (European Environment Agency) European Forest Types. Categories and Types for Sustainable Forest Management Reporting and Policy 2007, EEA, Copenhagen.
15. Espinosa-Goded M., Barreiro-Hurle J., Ruto E. What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2010, 61(2):259-273.
16. Federal Statistical Office Germany Land Use Statistics 2012.
17. Garrod G., Willis K. Economic Valuation of the Environment. Methods and Case Studies 1999, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
18. Garrod G., Ruto E., Willis K., Powe N. Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of environmental stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 76:104-111.
19. Hensher D., Rose J.M., Greene W.H. Applied Choice Analysis: A Primer 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
20. 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. J. Nat. Conserv. 2007, 15:10-25.
21. Horne P. Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in. forest biodiversity conservation - a choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn. 2006, 40(1):169-178.
22. Hudson D., Lusk J. Risk and transaction cost in contracting: results from a choice-based experiment. J. Agric. Food Ind. Org. 2004, 2(1):1542-2485.
23. Hynes S., Campbell D., Howley P. A holistic vs. an attribute-based approach to agri-environmental policy valuation: do welfare estimates differ?. J. Agric. Econ. 2011, 62(2):305-329.
24. Kahneman D., Knetsch J.L., Thaler R.H. The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. J. Econ. Perspect. 1991, 5(1):193-206.
25. Kanninen B.J. Valuing Environmental Amenities using Stated Choice Studies 2007, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
26. KTBL Betriebsplanung Landwirtschaft 2010/2011 2010, KTBL, Darmstadt.
27. Lancaster K. Modern Consumer Theory 1991, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
28. LEP (State Development Plan) Landesentwicklungsplan 2003 2003, http://www.landesentwicklung.sachsen.de/2387.htm (viewed 11.03.13).
29. McFadden D. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. Frontiers in Econometrics 1974, 105-142. Academics, New York. P. Zarembka (Ed.).
30. Mettepenningen E., Verspecht A., Huylenbroeck van G. Measuring private transaction costs of European AES. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52(5):649-667.
31. OECD Cooperative Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture 1998, OECD, Paris.
32. Padberg A. Wald- und Waldfächenentwicklung in der Region Leipzig. Der Nutzen von Ökonomie und Ökosystemleistungen für die Naturschutzpraxis 2013, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn, BfN-Skripten 334. I. Ring (Ed.).
33. Pascual U., Perrings C. Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121:256-268.
34. RL AuW (Directive for agri-environmental schemes, Saxony) Richtlinie des Sächsischen Staatsministeriums für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft zur Förderung von flächenbezogenen Agrarumweltmaßnahmen und der ökologischen Waldmehrung. Issued 13 November 2007 2007, www.revosax.sachsen.de/Details.do?sid=1639515493140 (viewed 23.09.12).
35. RP (Regional Plan West Saxony) Regionalplan Westsachsen 2008 2008, www.rpv-westsachsen.de/regionalplanung/der-regionalplan.html (viewed 11.03.13).
36. Ruto E., Garrod G. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 61(2):259-273.
37. SächsWaldG (Forest law Saxony) Waldgesetz für den Freistaat Sachsen. Vom 10. April 1992, rechtsbereinigt mit Stand vom 1. August 2008 2008.
38. Siebert R., Toogood M., Knierim A. Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Ruralis 2006, 46(4):318-340.
39. SMUL (Ministry for Environment and Agriculture Saxony) Forstbericht der Sächsischen Staatsregierung. Berichtszeitraum: 1. Januar bis 31. Dezember 2007 2007, SMUL, Dresden.
40. SMUL Bericht zur Halbzeitbewertung des Entwicklungsprogrammes für den ländlichen Raum im Freistaat Sachsen 2007-2013 2010, www.smul.sachsen.de/foerderung/download/Bericht_zur_Halbzeitbewertung_des_EPLR_2009.pdf (viewed 12.09.12).
41. SMUL Bericht zur Halbzeitbewertung des Entwicklungsprogrammes für den ländlichen Raum im Freistaat Sachsen 2007-2013. Anhang zum Bericht 2010, www.smul.sachsen.de/foerderung/download/Anhang_Endbericht_2009_n.pdf (viewed 14.03.13).
42. SMUL Waldstrategie 2050 für den Freistaat Sachsen 2013, SMUL, Dresden.
43. Vedel S.E., Jacobsen J.B., Thorsen B.J. Contracts for Environmental Goods and the Role of Monitoring for Landowners' Willingness to Accept 2010, www.webmeets.com/files/papers/WCERE/2010/1016/Contracts%20for%20environmental%20goods%20and%20the%20role%20of%20monitoring%20for%20landowners%92%20willingness%20to%20accept.pdf (viewed 15.03.13).
44. Wilson G.A., Hart K. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ. Plan. A 2000, 32:2161-2185.