Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes

Paulus, Anne; Hagemann, Nina; Baaken, Marieke Cornelia; Roilo, Stephanie; Alarcón-Segura, Viviana; Cord, Anna F.; Beckmann, Michael

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106320

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The implications for ecological effectiveness are therefore indirect and strongly linked to the concept of additionality (Engel, 2016), that is whether AES lead to an actual change of practice or rather subsidize a practice that the farmer was already implementing on their land (or, at least, was already considering to implement). Furthermore, the spatial placement of AES plays an important role in determining their ecological effectiveness—while on marginal land, they may entail the lowest opportunity costs, it may well be the intensively managed, productive areas where they would make the most significant difference in terms of ecological effectiveness (see Biffi et al, 2021; Früh‐Müller et al, 2019; Paulus et al, 2022). Also, to be ecologically effective, most AES need to be adopted long‐term themselves (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers

Bartkowski,

Beckmann,

Bednář

et al. 2023

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Europe and elsewhere, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons that drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES. Currently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio‐culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context‐specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied. In this article, we present the results from semi‐structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness. The main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non‐additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out. We find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…landscape structure, soil quality, etc.) also affects the action space and has been found to influence AES adoption (see Paulus et al, 2022; Wittstock et al, 2022). Where and how AES are implemented influences their ecological effectiveness (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers

Bartkowski,

Beckmann,

Bednář

et al. 2023

People and Nature

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[129,130] However, to sustain human existence, agriculture must meet the growing need for biomass to provide food, feed, biobased products and bioenergy, thus striking a balance can be difficult. [35,[131][132][133] In Europe, the integration of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AESs) reserves areas, so to speak, for numerous ES except those directly serving the provision of food crops or renewable resources while the farmers are enabled to compensate for the loss of income through appropriate subsidies [134] for which more than €22 billion were spent by the EU between 2007 and 2013. According to an extensive recent review of Paulus et al (2022), low yielding sites are mostly used for this purpose.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services-at the Farm Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[35,[131][132][133] In Europe, the integration of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AESs) reserves areas, so to speak, for numerous ES except those directly serving the provision of food crops or renewable resources while the farmers are enabled to compensate for the loss of income through appropriate subsidies [134] for which more than €22 billion were spent by the EU between 2007 and 2013. According to an extensive recent review of Paulus et al (2022), low yielding sites are mostly used for this purpose. [134] This represents a classic land use conflict due to a tradeoff between providing and regulating ESs: low-yield sites, most often referred to as marginal agricultural land, are considered as potential cropland for nonedible (industrial) crops to avoid land-use conflicts with food crop production.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services-at the Farm Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to an extensive recent review of Paulus et al (2022), low yielding sites are mostly used for this purpose. [134] This represents a classic land use conflict due to a tradeoff between providing and regulating ESs: low-yield sites, most often referred to as marginal agricultural land, are considered as potential cropland for nonedible (industrial) crops to avoid land-use conflicts with food crop production. [135][136][137][138][139] There are approaches to design a use of marginal land with industrial crops in a way that nevertheless also performs regulating functions along the lines of AESs, [19] such as perennial biomass crops, [19,136,137] flowering region-native crops, [140,141] or increasing the landscape heterogeneity.…”

Section: Trade-offs Of Ecosystem Services-at the Farm Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decade, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage these ES to minimize environmental impacts of business and everyday life. [8] Concepts such as civic ecology, [9] sustainable development, [10][11][12] and the bioeconomy [13,14] are being rapidly operationalized and often integrate ecological practices into their implementation strategies, by way of how we interact with nature. In this regard, philosopher and scientist Aldo Leopold wrote in the mid-20th century: "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." [15] Similarly, the paradigm of civic ecology [9] is founded in subjective philosophy, which aims to expand our awareness of the natural world and the systems in place.One of the fundamental practices in civic ecology is systems thinking, with the idea that individuals should form a relation to nature, like they do to a human community. Further, systems thinking is frequently used in science to understand how individuals interact with the system. For instance, an ecosystem shares this attribute, where a dynamically evolving system is influenced by interacting, individual elements including air, water, soil, microbes, plants, and animals. Unfortunately, this notion is often ignored, because the provisioning The current geological epoch is characterized by anthropogenic activity that greatly impacts on natural ecosystems and their integrity. The complex networks of ecosystem services (ESs) are often ignored because the provision of natural resources, such as food and industrial crops, is mistakenly viewed as an independent process separate from ecosystems and ignoring the impacts on ecosystems. Recently, research has intensified on how to evaluate and manage ES to minimize environmental impacts, but it remains unclear how to balance anthropogenic activity and ecosystem integrity. This paper reviews the main ESs at farm level including provisioning, regulating, habitat, and cultural services. For these ESs, synergies are outlined and evaluated along with the respective practices (e.g., cover-and intercropping) and ES suppliers (e.g., pollinators and biocontrol agents). Further, several farm-level ES trade-offs are discussed along with a proposal for their evaluation. Finally, a framework for stakeholder approaches specific to farm-level ES is put forward, along with an outlook on how existing precision agriculture technologies can be adapted for improved assessment of ES bundles. This is believed to provide a useful framework for both decision makers and stakeholders to facilitate the development of more sustainable and resilient farming systems.

show abstract

Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in a Carbon Sequestration Program – A Discrete Choice Experiment

Block,

Danne,

Mußhoff

2024

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers can counteract global warming by drawing carbon dioxide from the air into agricultural soils by building up humus. Humus programs were developed to motivate farmers for even more humus formation (= carbon sequestration) through an additional financial incentive. These programs are still at an early stage of development, which is why the number of participating farmers and research work is still low. This study is the first to analyze the willingness of German farmers to participate in hypothetical humus programs. The results of a discrete choice experiment show that a (higher) threshold for the payout of the premium, regional (rather than field-specific) reference values, and the risk of repayment clearly discourage farmers from participating. Program providers must more than double the premium (set at around 240 € per hectare and 0.1% humus increase) to maintain farmers’ willingness to participate despite a payout threshold. Regional reference values and an additional premium/repayment system would lead to an increase in the premium of around 20 € per hectare in order to keep the willingness to participate at the same level. The motivation to build up humus, the desire to maximize subsidies, and a higher livestock density have a positive influence on farmers’ decision to participate. Farm size and risk attitude have an impact on farmers’ preferences for program design. The study is relevant for policymakers and non-governmental organizations concerned with carbon management, as our findings highlight pathways for efficient, targeted designs of humus programs and carbon sequestration policies.

show abstract

Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes

Cited by 24 publications

References 50 publications

Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers

Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers

Ecosystem Services at the Farm Level—Overview, Synergies, Trade‐Offs, and Stakeholder Analysis

Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in a Carbon Sequestration Program – A Discrete Choice Experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About