<i>Ex post</i>environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis

Finn, John A.; Bartolini, Fabio; Bourke, David; Kurz, Isabelle; Viaggi, Davide

doi:10.1080/09640560902958438

Cited by 68 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Globally, most biodiversity conservation programmes are not currently evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits, or their rate of return on the original investment (Haddock et al 2007), though there have been some notable exceptions (see: Moran et al 1996;Metrick and Weitzman 1998;Cullen et al 1999;Cullen et al 2001;Finn et al 2009;Laycock et al 2009Laycock et al , 2011Perkins et al 2011;Baker et al 2012;Pannell et al 2013;Shwiff et al 2013;Cullen and White 2013). Assessing the cost-effectiveness of conservation programmes can be challenging for a number of reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, most biodiversity conservation programmes are not currently evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits, or their rate of return on the original investment. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of such schemes is challenging as the relationship between spending and the effectiveness of conservation is dependent on many biological and socioeconomic factors. Here, we evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a selection of species and habitat conservation schemes undertaken through the Scotland Rural Development Programme. We use a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, based on expert knowledge, to estimate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different schemes and understand variations in the results. Our findings highlight a lack of geographical targeting in terms of where the funding might achieve the most conservation benefit, which may be contributing to high costs per unit of effectiveness. Recommendations include the need for improved advice on appropriate management and monitoring programmes that are linked closely to objectives. Conservation schemes within Scotland were used as the focus of the study, but the approaches used, interpretations drawn and improvements identified could be applied to any regional, national or international biodiversity conservation programmes. 123Biodivers Conserv (2015) 24:1359-1375 DOI 10.1007 Cost and effectiveness data can be subject to a high degree of uncertainty and hence any cost-effectiveness estimate is subject to a number of caveats. There is therefore a need to focus not only on improving the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes, but also to improve the robustness of cost-effectiveness assessments, in terms of data availability and accuracy and improved monitoring of the outcomes of interventions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In spite of this, neither the importance of each specific objective of a given AES, nor its expected target level are normally explicitly stated in the design process, and hence are not available in AES documentation (Oreade-Breche, 2005;Finn et al, 2009). The objective of this paper is to evaluate the importance of different environmental objectives in the AES of 10 case study areas (CSA) in Europe.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More precisely, the principal way to express the effectiveness of a policy can be identified through the comparison of objectives and results. Consequently, an unclear identification of the objectives does not allow the Decision Maker (DM) to evaluate adequately the program results during both the policy design and the implementation processes (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995;Weiss, 1998;Finn et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What do agri-environmental measures actually promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development program

Bartolini¹,

Gallerani²,

Viaggi³

1970

Span. j. agric. res.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides an analysis of the importance implicitly attached by local stakeholders to different environmental objectives in agri-environmental schemes in Europe. For at least 20 years, increasing the sustainability of agriculture has been a major policy concern in Europe. However, the relative importance of specific objectives of agri-environmental schemes is rarely quantified, and this strongly affects the ability to assess the actual effectiveness of such schemes. This paper adopts a methodology based on the use of the concept of «weight» as a quantitative measure of the importance of each objective. The objectives have been identified using a hierarchical grid of indicators based on the EU framework for the mandatory evaluation of agri-environmental schemes. The quantification of weights was based on a questionnaire submitted to more than 70 stakeholders in 10 case study regions in different EU countries. The results highlight different regional profiles, denoting strategies with very different objective-related agri-environmental scheme specialisations, with some programs focusing on specific individual environmental issues such as landscape and biodiversity, and others focusing on several environmental objectives. Such results emphasise the need to integrate academic and institutional evaluation exercises in the measurement of the policy priorities, hence enabling to provide robust evaluations of policy effectiveness.Additional key words: agri-environmental schemes; environmental policy objectives; expert opinion; weights. Resumen ¿Qué promueven los programas agroambientales? Investigación sobre los objetivos agroambientales del programa europeo de desarrollo rural 2000-2006En este artículo se ofrece un análisis de la importancia que los distintos agentes implicados conceden a los objetivos ambientales de los programas agroambientales de la política europea. Durante los últimos 20 años, el aumento de la sostenibilidad de la agricultura ha sido una de las mayores preocupaciones en Europa. Sin embargo, la importancia que los objetivos ambientales específicos tienen en los programas agroambientales ha sido escasamente cuantificada, lo que dificulta la evaluación de la eficacia de este tipo de programas. En este artículo se utiliza una metodología basada en el uso del concepto de «peso» como una medida cuantitativa para evaluar la importancia de cada uno de estos objetivos. Los objetivos han sido identificados utilizando una jerarquía de indicadores que se deriva del propio marco europeo para la evaluación obligatoria de los programas agroambientales. Se realizó la cuantificación de los pesos mediante un cuestionario presentado a más de 70 agentes en 10 regiones de diferentes países de la UE. Los resultados ponen de manifiesto la existencia de diferentes perfiles regionales, que revelan estrategias muy diferentes en cuanto a la especialización de los programas agroambientales. Estos van desde programas focalizados en un aspecto ambiental muy específico, como el paisaje y la biodiversidad, a pro...

show abstract

“…Purvis et al (2009a, p. 17-20) Critique of expected effects of REPS 4 on habitats and hoverfly diversity. Included REPS status as a variable in multivariate analysis of habitats on 50 farms (thirteen of which were REPS participants) Field margins Feehan et al (2005) Fritch et al (2009, 2011, Purvis et al (2009a), Sheridan et al (2008Sheridan et al ( , 2009 Finn et al (2007Finn et al ( , 2009 Finn et al (2008b) Kelly (2008) Carlin et al (2010) Multi-criteria analysis used to assess the effectiveness of REPS (and Italian scheme) based on data in the mid-term evaluation only. Experts' ratings of measures in REPS 2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of evidence on the environmental impact of Ireland's Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS)

Finn¹,

hUallacháin²

2012

Biology & Environment: Proceedings of the Royal Irish Acade

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

23Since its inception in 1994, there has been strong demand for evidence of the 24 environmental effectiveness of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), which 25 paid farmers in the Republic of Ireland over €3 billion by 2010. A variety of research 26 projects have been undertaken that investigate the environmental effects of REPS through 27 an examination of either specific environmental measures or specific geographical areas. A 28 review of available publications confirmed the absence of a comprehensive, national-scale 29

show abstract

Ex postenvironmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis

Cited by 68 publications

References 21 publications

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

Integrating quantitative and qualitative data in assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation programmes

What do agri-environmental measures actually promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development program

A review of evidence on the environmental impact of Ireland's Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About