Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Spatial Targeting of Agri-Environmental Measures: Cost-Effectiveness and Distributional Consequences

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Agri-environmental measures are payments to farmers to reduce environmental risks or to preserve cultivated landscapes. These measures are codified in European Union regulations. Poor spatial targeting is one of the major causes of low cost-effectiveness in agri-environmental measures. Existing studies on spatial targeting focus primarily on selected individual measures; hence, they do not allow for conclusions at the program level, where the planning and implementing of decisions on a number of different measures has to be made. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of two spatial targeting options (targeting of erosion-reducing measures on erosion vulnerable areas; targeting of grassland extensification on N-pollution vulnerable areas) on the cost-effectiveness of the single measures and the entire agri-environmental program of the federal state of Brandenburg in Germany. The methodological steps included an analysis of empirical data on land use and program participation, an expert-based environmental impact assessment and a spatial allocation procedure based on linear programming. The environmental impact assessment delivered goal-specific index values for each measures-land parcel combination expressing the suitability of the measures for contributing to four regionally relevant program objectives. The cost-effectiveness of the measures and the program were calculated by putting budgetary costs in relation to the achieved environmental index sum. The calculated cost-effectiveness of the program in 2006 was 89.6% of the simulated optimal cost-effectiveness. The spatial targeting of erosion-reducing measures on erosion vulnerable areas caused an increase in the cost-effectiveness at the measures level and almost no changes at the program level. The spatial targeting of grassland extensification on N-pollution vulnerable areas, despite also improving the cost-effectiveness of this measure, had negative effects on the cost-effectiveness of the program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Astrain C, Zaragueta E (2006) Indirect assessment of an agri-environmental scheme aimed at the conservation of steppe birds in northern Spain. Ardeola 53:143–153

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger G, Kaechele H, Pfeffer H (2006) The greening of the European common agricultural policy by linking the European-wide obligation of set-aside with voluntary agri-environmental measures on a regional scale. Environmental Science & Policy 9:509–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bockstaller C, Guichard L, Makowski D, Aveline A, Girardin P, Plantureux S (2008) Agri-environmental indicators to assess cropping and farming systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28:139–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau JC, Witzke HP, Berkhout P, Gohin A, Heckelei T, Kreyzer MA, Kleinhanss W, Matthews A, Merbis MD, Rudloff B, Salvatici L (2007) Reflection on the possibilities for the future development of the CAP. European Parliament, 2007, European Commission, Policy Department Structural and Cohesion Policies, Brussels, pp 1–74. www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/expert/eStudies.do?language=EN

  • Canton J, De Cara S, Jayet PA (2009) Agri-environmental schemes: Adverse selection, information structure and delegation. Ecological Economics 68:2114–2121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claassen R, Cattaneo A, Johansson R (2008) Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: US experience in theory and practice. Ecological Economics 65:737–752

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COM (2005a) Agri-environment measures—overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, Unit G-4—Evaluation of Measures Applied to Agriculture, Studies, pp 1–24. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/agrienv/rep_en.pdf

  • COM (2005b) Synthesis of rural development mid-term evaluations. Lot 1 EAGGF Guarantee. Final Report for European Commission. Submitted by Agra CEAS Consulting, pp 1–605. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/rdmidterm/lot1/exsum.pdf

  • COM (2008) Green Paper on territorial cohesion—turning territorial diversity into strength. SEC (2008) 2550, pp 1–13. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/consultation/terco/paper_terco_en.pdf

  • Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Runge F, Trestini S (2008) Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: a northern Italian perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59:114–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Deumlich D, Kiesel J, Thiere J, Reuter HI, Volker L, Funk R (2006) Application of the SIte COmparison Method (SICOM) to assess the potential erosion risk—a basis for the evaluation of spatial equivalence of agri-environmental measures. Catena 68:141–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler M, Johst K, Ohl C, Watzold F (2007) Designing cost-effective payments for conservation measures to generate spatiotemporal habitat heterogeneity. Conservation Biology 21:1475–1486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egdell J (2000) Consultation on the countryside premium scheme: creating a ‘market’ for information. Journal of Rural Studies 16:357–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falconer K, Dupraz P, Whitby M (2001) An investigation of policy administrative costs using panel data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Journal of Agricultural Economics 52:83–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flury C, Gotsch N, Rieder P (2005) Site-specific and regionally optimal direct payments for mountain agriculture. Land Use Policy 22:207–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haaren CV, Bathke M (2008) Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services. Results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. Journal of Environmental Management 89:209–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge I (2001) Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy 18:99–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann J, Kiesel J, Strauss DD, Greef JM, Wenkel KO (2007) Farmland bird indicator on the basis of abundances of the breeding bird species in context to the spatial landscape structure. Landbauforschung Volkenrode 57:333–347

    Google Scholar 

  • Johst K, Drechsler M, Watzold F (2002) An ecological-economic modelling procedure to design compensation payments for the efficient spatio-temporal allocation of species protection measures. Ecological Economics 41:37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersebaum KC (2007) Modelling nitrogen dynamics in soil–crop systems with HERMES. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 77:39–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kersebaum KC, Matzdorf B, Kiesel J, Piorr A, Steidl J (2006) Model-based evaluation of agri-environmental measures in the Federal State of Brandenburg (Germany) concerning N pollution of groundwater and surface water. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science-Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkunde 169:352–359

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Klimek S, Kemmermann AR, Steinmann HH, Freese J, Isselstein J (2008) Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biological Conservation 141:2888–2897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kronvang B, Andersen HE, Borgesen C, Dalgaard T, Larsen SE, Bogestrand J, Blicher-Mathiasen G (2008) Effects of policy measures implemented in Denmark on nitrogen pollution of the aquatic environment. Environmental Science & Policy 11:144–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latacz-Lohmann U, Hodge I (2003) European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 47:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan DC, Marshall K (2006) The Delphi process—an expert-based approach to ecological modelling in data-poor environments. Animal Conservation 9:11–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marggraf R (2003) Comparative assessment of agri-environment programmes in federal states of Germany. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 98:507–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matzdorf B, Becker N, Reutter M, Tiemann S (2005) Aktualisierung der Halbzeitbewertung des Plans zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums gemäß VO (EG) Nr. 1257/1999 des Landes Brandenburg

  • Matzdorf B, Becker N, Reutter M, Sattler C, Lorenz J, Uthes S, Kiesel J (2008a) Ex post-Bewertung des Plans zur Entwicklung des ländlichen Raums gemäß VO (EG) Nr. 1257/1999 des Landes Brandenburg. Endbericht 07/08, Müncheberg (Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung). http://z2.zalf.de/oa/Ex%20post%20EPLR%20Brandenburg%20Gesamtbericht.pdf

  • Matzdorf B, Kaiser T, Rohner MS (2008b) Developing biodiversity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecological Indicators 8:256–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Messer KD (2006) The conservation benefits of cost-effective land acquisition: a case study in Maryland. Journal of Environmental Management 79:305–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Aurich A (2005) Economic and environmental analysis of sustainable farming practices—a Bavarian case study. Agricultural Systems 86:190–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mücher CA, Hennekens SM, Bunce RGH, Schaminée JHJ, Schaepman ME (2009) Modelling the spatial distribution of Natura 2000 habitats across Europe. Landscape and Urban Planning 92:148–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oates WE, Portney PR (2003) Chapter 8 The political economy of environmental policy. In: Mäler KG, Vincent JR (eds) Handbook of environmental economics environmental degradation and institutional responses. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 325–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohl C, Drechsler M, Johst K, Watzold F (2008) Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations. Ecological Economics 67:162–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A, Happe K, Sahrbacher A, Sattler C, Uthes S, Zander P (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environmental Science & Policy 12:1112–1136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making—learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. Journal of Environmental Management 90:1154–1167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primdahl J, Peco B, Schramek J, Andersen E, Onate JJ (2003) Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. Journal of Environmental Management 67:129–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler C, Nagel UJ (2010) Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—a case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 27:70–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler C, Nagel UJ, Werner A, Zander P (2010) Integrated assessment of agricultural production practices to enhance sustainable development in agricultural landscapes. Ecological Indicators 10:49–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmit C, Rounsevell MDA, La Jeunesse I (2006) The limitations of spatial land use data in environmental analysis. Environmental Science & Policy 9:174–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schuler J, Kächele H (2003) Modelling on-farm costs of soil conservation policies with MODAM. Environmental Science & Policy 6:51–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tinbergen J (1952) On the theory of economic policy. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Uthes S, Sattler C, Zander P, Piorr A, Matzdorf B, Damgaard M, Sahrbacher A, Schuler J, Kjeldsen C, Heinrich U, Fischer H (2010) Modeling a farm population to estimate on-farm compliance costs and environmental effects of a grassland extensification scheme at the regional scale. Agricultural Systems 103:282–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uthes S, Fricke K, König H, Zander P, Van Ittersum M, Sieber S, Helming K, Piorr A, Müller K (in press) Policy relevance of three integrated assessment tools—a comparison with specific reference to agricultural policies. Ecological Modelling. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.08.010

  • van der Horst D (2007) Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. Journal of Environmental Management 85:1076–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wätzold F, Lienhoop N, Drechsler M, Settele J (2008) Estimating optimal conservation in the context of agri-environmental schemes. Ecological Economics 68:295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA (1994) German agri-environmental schemes—I. A preliminary review. Journal of Rural Studies 10:27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S (2008) Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecological Economics 65:834–852

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecological Economics 65:822–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8:338–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was performed in the course of the ex-post evaluation of the rural development plan in the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany and was supported by funding from the Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Germany. Special thanks go to Dr. Detlef Deumlich and PD Dr. Kurt-Christian Kersebaum, who performed the site-vulnerability assessment for this study. Furthermore, the authors would like to acknowledge the constructive cooperation from the Brandenburg state office for the environment (LUA) and the Brandenburg state office for consumer protection, agriculture and land re-planning (LVLF).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Socioeconomics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Strasse 84, Müncheberg, 15374, Germany

    Sandra Uthes, Bettina Matzdorf, Klaus Müller & Harald Kaechele

Authors
  1. Sandra Uthes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bettina Matzdorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Klaus Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Harald Kaechele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Uthes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Uthes, S., Matzdorf, B., Müller, K. et al. Spatial Targeting of Agri-Environmental Measures: Cost-Effectiveness and Distributional Consequences. Environmental Management 46, 494–509 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9518-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9518-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation