Comparing practice- and results-based agri-environmental schemes controlled by remote sensing: An application to olive groves in Spain

被引:4
|
作者
Villanueva, Anastasio J. [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Granado-Diaz, Ruben [2 ,3 ]
Colombo, Sergio [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] IFAPA Inst Agr & Fisheries Res & Training, Ctr IFAPA Camino Purchil, POB 2027, E-18080 Granada, Spain
[2] Univ Cordoba, WEARE Water Environm & Agr Resources Econ Res Grp, Cordoba, Spain
[3] AGAPA Andalusian Agcy Agr & Fisheries Management, Cordoba, Spain
[4] Univ Cordoba, WEARE Res Grp, Rabanales Campus,Gregor Mendel Bldg, Cordoba 14071, Spain
关键词
actions-based schemes; discrete choice experiments; outcome-based payments; payments for ecosystem services; willingness to accept; FARMERS PREFERENCES; MANAGEMENT-SYSTEMS; FARMING PRACTICES; STATED CHOICE; BIODIVERSITY; WILLINGNESS; DESIGN; ACCEPT; FARMLAND; OUTPUTS;
D O I
10.1111/1477-9552.12573
中图分类号
F3 [农业经济];
学科分类号
0202 ; 020205 ; 1203 ;
摘要
Farmers' preferences toward practice- and results-based agri-environmental schemes (AES) are analysed using a labelled choice experiment. The analysis focuses on schemes involving an innovative satellite-based monitoring system, with different environmental objectives. Olive groves in southern Spain are used as a case study. Results show no statistically significant differences in farmers' willingness to accept (WTA) payment for participating in practice- versus results-based AES when the scheme targets carbon sequestration. By contrast, farmers require a significantly higher WTA payment for results-based AES when targeting biodiversity (using bird species as an indicator), mostly due to the uncertainties related to its provision and monitoring. WTA significantly increases with provision level and remote sensing monitoring, regardless of the type of scheme. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed, partly explained by farmers' attitudes toward risk and their beliefs about environmental service provision and monitoring capacity. The results suggest useful policy implications, including the potential of making use of joint provision of environmental services in the design of results-based AES and accompanying them with uncertainty mitigating measures.
引用
收藏
页码:524 / 545
页数:22
相关论文
共 6 条
  • [1] Data on farmers? acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes
    Massfeller, Anna
    Meraner, Manuela
    Huettel, Silke
    Uehleke, Reinhard
    [J]. DATA IN BRIEF, 2022, 45
  • [2] Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective
    Massfeller, Anna
    Meraner, Manuela
    Huttel, Silke
    Uehleke, Reinhard
    [J]. LAND USE POLICY, 2022, 120
  • [3] Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action- and results-based agri-environmental payments in Switzerland
    Wuepper, David
    Huber, Robert
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2022, 104 (05) : 1585 - 1604
  • [4] Assessment of greening and collective participation in the context of agri-environmental schemes: The case of Andalusian irrigated olive groves
    Villanueva, Anastasio J.
    Gomez-Limon, Jose A.
    Arriaza, Manuel
    Rodriguez-Entrena, Macario
    [J]. SPANISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 2015, 13 (04)
  • [5] Results-based agri-environmental schemes can reflect habitat integrity for a non-target taxonomic group: Carabidae
    Overy, Poppy
    Moran, James
    Crushell, Patrick
    Byrne, Dolores
    [J]. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2023, 154
  • [6] Do farmers prefer result-based, hybrid or practice-based agri-environmental schemes?
    Gars, Jared
    Guerrero, Santiago
    Kuhfuss, Laure
    Lankoski, Jussi
    [J]. EUROPEAN REVIEW OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, 2024, 51 (03) : 644 - 689