Factors affecting farmers' willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation — A case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden

Ecological Economics

Volumn 130, Issue , 2016, Pages 8-15

  Franzén, Frida ^a   Dinnétz, Patrik ^a   Hammer, Monica ^a  

^a SÖDERTÖRN UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Agri environmental schemes; Eutrophication; Stakeholder participation; Water management; Wetland creation

Indexed keywords

COMPENSATION SYSTEM; DISCRETE CHOICE ANALYSIS; ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS; EUROPEAN UNION; EUTROPHICATION; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; STAKEHOLDER; WATER MANAGEMENT; WETLAND; WILLINGNESS TO PAY;

HIMMERFJARDEN; STOCKHOLM [SWEDEN]; SWEDEN;

EID: 84978168188     PISSN: 09218009     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.05.019     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aizaki, H., Basic functions for supporting an implementation of choice experiments in R. J. Stat. Softw. 50 (2012), 1–24.
2. Alpizar, F., Carlsson, F., Martinsson, P., Using choice experiments for non-market valuation. Economic Issues-Stoke on trent- 8 (2003), 83–110.
3. Arheimer, B., Dahné, J., Donnelly, C., Climate change impact on riverine nutrient load and land-based remedial measures of the Baltic Sea action plan. Ambio 41 (2012), 600–612.
4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4. R Package Version 1, 2014, 1–5 ( http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4).
5. Beharry-Borg, N., Smart, J.C.R., Termansen, M., Hubacek, K., Evaluating farmers' likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands. Reg. Environ. Chang. 13 (2013), 633–647.
6. Blomqvist, A., How can stakeholder participation improve European watershed management: the water framework directive, watercourse groups and Swedish contributions to Baltic Sea eutrophication. Water Policy 6 (2004), 39–52.
7. Burton, R.J., Schwarz, G., Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30 (2013), 628–641.
8. Burton, R., Kuczera, C., Schwarz, G., Exploring farmers' cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol. Rural. 48 (2008), 16–37.
9. Carlsson, F., Frykblom, P., Liljenstolpe, C., Valuing wetland attributes: an application of choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 47 (2003), 95–103.
10. Christensen, T., Branth Pedersen, A., Oersted Nielsen, H., Mørkbak, M.R., Hasler, B., Denver, S., Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones — a choice experiment study. Ecol. Econ. 70 (2011), 1558–1654.
11. Daily, G., Natures' Services. Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. 1997, Island Press, Washington D.C.
12. Donohue, M.C., Edland, S.D., Longpower: power and sample size calculators for longitudinal data. R Package Version 1, 2013, 0–11.
13. Elgåker, H., The new equine sector and its influence on multifunctional land use in periurban areas. GeoJournal 77 (2012), 591–613.
14. Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Ruto, R., What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. J. Agric. Econ. 61 (2010), 259–271.
15. European Commission, Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/EC) guidance document no. 12. The Role of Wetlands in the EU Water Framework Directive, 2003 (Luxembourg).
16. European Parliament, Council, Directive 2000/60/EC (water framework directive). 2000.
17. Falconer, K., Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J. Rural. Stud. 16 (2000), 379–394.
18. Faraway, J.J., Extending the Linear Model With R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models. 2006, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
19. Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K., Global consequences of land use. Science 309:5734 (2005), 570–574, 10.1126/science.1111772.
20. Franzén, F., Hammer, M., Balfors, B., Institutional development for stakeholder participation in local water management—an analysis of two Swedish catchments. Land Use Policy 43 (2015), 217–227.
21. Glöckner, A., Betsch, T., Decisions beyond boundaries: when more information is processed faster than less. Acta Psychol. 139 (2012), 532–542.
22. Hammer, M., Balfors, B., Mörtberg, U., Petersson, M., Quin, A., Governance of water resources in the phase of change — a case study of the implementation of the EU water framework directive. Ambio 40 (2011), 210–220.
23. Hansson, A., Pedersen, E., Weisner, S.E., Landowners' incentives for constructing wetlands in an agricultural area in south Sweden. J. Environ. Manag. 113 (2012), 271–278.
24. Hedenborg, S., The horse in Sweden: workmate and leisure pursuit. Agriculture and Forestry in Sweden since 1900: Geographical and Historical Studies, 2011, The Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry, Stockholm.
25. Hoyos, D., The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments. Ecol. Econ. 69 (2010), 1595–1603.
26. Hurlbert, S.H., Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecol. Monogr. 54 (1984), 187–211.
27. Lienhoop, N., Brouwer, R., Agri-environmental policy valuation: farmers' contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy 42 (2015), 568–577.
28. Lindahl, T., Söderqvist, T., Building a catchment-based environmental programme: a stakeholder analysis of wetland creation in Scania, Sweden. Reg. Environ. Chang. 4 (2004), 132–144.
29. Lundqvist, L.J., Games real farmers play: knowledge, memory and the fate of collective action to prevent eutrophication of water catchments. Local Environ. 6 (2001), 407–419.
30. Matzdorf, B., Kaiser, T., Rohner, M.S., Developing biodiversity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecol. Indicat. 8 (2008), 256–269.
31. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. 2005, Island Press, Washington D.C. USA.
32. North Baltic River Basin District, Förvaltningsplan 2009–2015. 2009 (In Swedish).
33. Öhlund, E., Zurek, K., Hammer, M., Towards sustainable agriculture? The EU framework and local adaptation in Sweden and Poland. Environ. Policy Gov. 25 (2015), 270–287.
34. Polman, N.B.P., Slangen, L.H.G., Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: the role of trust and social capital. NJAS-Wagening. J. Life Sci. 55 (2008), 413–430.
35. Quetier, F., Gordon, J., ‘Horsiculture’: how important a land use change in Scotland?. Scott. Geogr. J. 119 (2003), 153–158.
36. R Core Team, R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2013, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria (URL http://www.R-project.org/).
37. Read, S.J., Miller, L.C., On the dynamic construction of meaning: an interactive activation and competition model of social perception. Read, S.J., Miller, L.C., (eds.) Connectionist Models of Social Reasoning and Social Behavior, 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, US, 27–68 (xxiv, 372 pp.).
38. Ruto, E., Garrod, G., Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 52 (2009), 631–647.
39. Saunders, F., Complex shades of green: gradually changing notions of the “good farmer” in a Swedish context. Sociol. Rural., 2015, 10.1111/soru.12115.
40. Siebert, R., Togood, M., Knierim, A., Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 46 (2006), 318–340.
41. Silva, J.P., Phillips, L., Jones, W., Eldridge, J., O'Hara, E., Life and Europe's Wetlands. Restoring a Vital Ecosystem. 2007, European Commission.
42. Söderqvist, T., Are farmers prosocial? Determinants of the willingness to participate in a Swedish catchment-based wetland creation programme. Ecol. Econ. 47 (2003), 105–120.
43. Stockholm Country Board, Planeringsunderlag för anläggning och restaurering av våtmarker I odlingslandskapet. Rapport, RU18, 2006 (In Swedish).
44. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Kriterier för våtmarker i odlingslandskapet – kriterier för rening av växtnäring med beaktande av biologisk mångfald och kulturmiljö. Rapport 2004:2, 2004, Jordbruksverket (In Swedish).
45. Swedish Board of Agriculture, Jordbruksstatistik årsbok 2014. 2014, Jordbruksverket (In Swedish).
46. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental objectives on a new basis. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency's Revised Yearly Report of the Environmental Objectives 2011. Report 6433, 2011.
47. Trepel, M., Palmeri, L., Quantifying nitrogen retention in surface flow wetlands for environmental planning at the landscape-scale. Ecol. Engin. 19 (2002), 127–140.
48. Vanslembrouck, I., Huylenbroeck, G., Verbeke, W., Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J. Agric. Econ. 53 (2002), 489–511.
49. Viklund, M.J., Trust and risk perception in Western Europe: a cross-national study. Risk Anal. 23 (2003), 727–738.
50. Vymazal, J., Removal of nutrients in various types of constructed wetlands. Sci. tot. envi. 380 (2007), 48–65.
51. Zasada, I., Berges, R., Hilgendorf, J., Piorr, A., Horsekeeping and the peri-urban development in the berlin metropolitan region. J. Land Use Sci. 8 (2013), 199–214.