The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions

Vainio, Annukka; Tienhaara, Annika; Haltia, Emmi; Hyvönen, Terho; Pyysiäinen, Jarkko; Pouta, Eija

doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104358

Cited by 31 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although empirical research on outcomes‐based payments has been limited, the gap has recently been filled quickly. For example, Vainio et al (2021) analyse the perceptions of the legitimacy of the existing action‐ and the proposed outcome‐based agri‐environmental schemes using farmers’ and citizens’ survey data in Finland. They find that citizens perceive the outcome‐based scheme as more legitimate, whereas farmers attribute greater legitimacy to the action‐oriented scheme.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Tanaka

Hanley

Kühfuss

2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We estimate farmers’ preferences for outcome‐based (or results‐based) payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan. To this end, we use a two‐stage stated preference approach—the first stage models farmers’ decisions to adopt outcome‐based contracts using a discrete choice experiment. The second stage estimates the areas of land which farmers who choose to participate will enrol in the scheme. Based on a sample of 333 respondents, our results show that most farmers are willing to participate in outcome‐based contacts. A variety of contract attributes are found to influence farmers’ decisions on participation. However, once a farmer decides to participate, their decision on how much farmland to enrol in is likely to be influenced solely by the per‐hectare payment. Therefore, to encourage more farmers to participate and enrol more farmland, policy‐makers’ decisions on the level of payments offered are critically important.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Tanaka

Hanley

Kühfuss

2022

J Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The heterogeneous distribution of motivations in the target population and among relevant stakeholder groups should be taken into account when designing policy interventions (Braito et al, 2020). Also, legitimacy and acceptance of the policy intervention by the addressees is an important issue here (Vainio et al, 2019), which points to interactions between behavioural adequacy and object adequacy (qui bono?). These considerations are strongly instrument-dependentfor instance, incentive-based and 'soft' instruments can be highly sensitive to behavioural factors, while regulatory instruments are less so.…”

Section: Behavioural Adequacy -(How) Will Instruments Trigger Desired Behavioural Changes?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of the governance disruptions framework to German agricultural soil policy

Bartkowski

Bartke

Hagemann

et al. 2021

SOIL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Governance of natural resources is inherently complex and requires navigating trade-offs at multiple dimensions. In this paper, we present and operationalize the “governance disruptions framework” (GDF) as a tool for holistic analysis of natural resource governance systems. For each of the four dimensions of the framework (target adequacy, object adequacy, instrument adequacy, and behavioural adequacy), we formulate guiding questions to be used when applying the framework to particular governance systems. We then demonstrate the use of GDF by applying it to the core of German agricultural soil policy. We show that for each framework dimension, the governance system exhibits deficits, particularly with respect to object adequacy and instrument adequacy. Furthermore, we use the GDF-based analysis to highlight research gaps. We find that stakeholder analyses are a central gap across GDF dimensions.

show abstract

“…A new result-oriented agri-environmental policy was introduced to the respondents by informing them that in the hypothetical new program, farmers would be paid for producing environmental benefits (see Vainio et al 2019). The effects of the program were described with four attributes: traditional rural biotopes and endangered species, the typical agricultural landscape (divided into grazing animals and the number of plant species in cultivation), climate effects, and water quality effects.…”

Section: Choice Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneous preferences of citizens towards agricultural ecosystem services: the demand relevance in a choice experiment

Tienhaara

Ahtiainen

Pouta

2021

Ecosystems and People

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri-environmental policies affect many ecosystem services from agricultural environments. Valuing ecosystem services with choice experiments requires operationalization of these services for the survey and a careful attribute selection process, as the attributes need to be relevant to respondents. In this paper, we expand the concept of demand relevance of attributes to include not only the importance of ecosystem services to the respondent, but also the success in the supply of these services and the need to improve them. We examined this in the context of citizens' preferences for ecosystem services from agri-environments. The results revealed five citizen groups with differing preferences. Respondents with high demand relevance for ES in the survey were divided into those emphasizing existence values and those emphasizing ES more directly related to the human use of ecosystems. In turn, low demand relevance for the ES was associated with a non-significant cost attribute, preventing the estimation of WTP for these respondents, and led to anomalies in choices. Our findings emphasize the need to take respondents' heterogeneity with respect to preferences, but also to demand relevance, into account in data analysis and support the inclusion of other factors than the importance of attributes when examining demand relevance.

show abstract

The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions

Cited by 31 publications

References 41 publications

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan

Application of the governance disruptions framework to German agricultural soil policy

Heterogeneous preferences of citizens towards agricultural ecosystem services: the demand relevance in a choice experiment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About