A mixed-methods analysis for improving farmer participation in agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services in Vermont, USA

被引:20
|
作者
Rossi, Gemma Del [1 ,3 ]
Hecht, Jory S. [2 ]
Zia, Asim [1 ,2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vermont, Dept Community Dev & Appl Econ, Morrill Hall, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[2] Univ Vermont, VT EPSCoR, 23 Mansfield Ave, Burlington, VT 05401 USA
[3] Univ Vermont, Dept Anim & Vet Sci, 570 Main St, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
[4] Univ Vermont, Gund Inst Environm, Farrell Hall,210 Colchester Ave, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES); Governance of PES programs; Institutional design; Farmer participation; Agriculture-water quality trade-offs; Agri-environmental programs; CONSERVATION PROGRAMS; SCHEME PARTICIPATION; DESIGNING PAYMENTS; INCENTIVES; LESSONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101223
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
We examine whether using a payment for ecosystem services (PES) framework for agri-environmental programs could increase farmer participation through a mixed methods approach. We assess the institutional design of two U.S. agri-environmental programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), in the Lake Champlain Basin in the northeastern US, where managing eutrophication from phosphorus pollution remains a challenge. We synthesize a checklist of institutional markers previously derived from past PES literature and assess the extent to which these two programs increase participation and achieve environmental goals. Our analysis demonstrates EQIP and CREP meet several PES principles. However, transaction costs present a barrier towards participation with both programs. We suggest these costs can be lowered by greater technical assistance. We categorize EQIP program data by their ecosystem service provision using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification. We find EQIP demonstrates cost-effective targeting and conditionality yet may have an institutional focus on large-scale structural practices focused on "end of pipe" prevention of nutrient runoff. The positive effect that PES institutional design criteria have on participation in agri-environmental incentive programs motivates further research on synergies and tradeoffs between farmer participation and environmental outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-Rethinking agri-environmental payments
    Prager, Katrin
    Reed, Mark
    Scott, Alister
    LAND USE POLICY, 2012, 29 (01) : 244 - 249
  • [2] A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy
    Rodriguez-Ortega, T.
    Olaizola, A. M.
    Bernues, A.
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 34 : 74 - 84
  • [3] Facilitation of public Payments for Ecosystem Services through local intermediaries: An institutional analysis of agri-environmental measure implementation in Germany
    Schomers, Sarah
    Meyer, Claas
    Matzdorf, Bettina
    Sattler, Claudia
    ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND GOVERNANCE, 2021, 31 (05) : 520 - 532
  • [4] Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: Taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example
    Meyer, Claas
    Reutter, Michaela
    Matzdorf, Bettina
    Sattler, Claudia
    Schomers, Sarah
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2015, 157 : 146 - 159
  • [5] Farmland management regulates ecosystem services in Mediterranean drylands: Assessing the sustainability of agri-environmental payments for bird conservation
    Faria, Nuno
    Morales, Manuel B.
    JOURNAL FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, 2020, 58
  • [6] Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?
    Clive A. Potter
    Steven A. Wolf
    Agriculture and Human Values, 2014, 31 : 397 - 408
  • [7] Payments for ecosystem services in relation to US and UK agri-environmental policy: disruptive neoliberal innovation or hybrid policy adaptation?
    Potter, Clive A.
    Wolf, Steven A.
    AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN VALUES, 2014, 31 (03) : 397 - 408
  • [8] Putting nature 'to work' through Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Tensions between autonomy, voluntary action and the political economy of agri-environmental practice
    Kolinjivadi, Vijay
    Mendez, Alejandra Zaga
    Dupras, Jerome
    LAND USE POLICY, 2019, 81 : 324 - 336
  • [9] Integrating agri-environmental indicators, ecosystem services assessment, life cycle assessment and yield gap analysis to assess the environmental sustainability of agriculture
    Bergez, J-E
    Bethinger, A.
    Bockstaller, C.
    Cederberg, C.
    Ceschia, E.
    Guilpart, N.
    Lange, S.
    Muller, F.
    Reidsma, P.
    Riviere, C.
    Schader, C.
    Therond, O.
    van der Werf, H. M. G.
    ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2022, 141
  • [10] Understanding the dynamics and factors affecting cultural ecosystem services during urbanization through spatial pattern analysis and a mixed-methods approach
    Wang, Zhifang
    Xu, Min
    Lin, Haowen
    Qureshi, Salman
    Cao, Ankang
    Ma, Yujing
    JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2021, 279