Skip to main content

Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ willingness to undertake environmental responsibility

Environmental Science and Pollution Research volume 26, pages 14732–14741 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of water resources protection and sustainable management, the European Parliament enacted directives based on the “polluter-pays” principle aiming for “environmental damage” protection and restoration of water resources. The main aim of this paper is to examine, for the first time in Greece, the possibility of achieving environmental goals, such as reduction of agrochemical pollution and irrigation water use, alongside with the farmers’ willingness to undertake the environmental costs arising from their activity. In a questionnaire survey, conducted using a “state preference” method, participants were asked to respond on whether they are willing to absorb an “environmental charge” for the protection and restoration of surface and ground water. It is an essential precondition to understand the factors that affect taxpayers’ willingness to participate in the Water Framework Directive, as they are expected to cover the cost of its implementation. The identification of the driving forces that affect stakeholders’ environmental decisions can emerge as an important and useful tool in extending public participation in the Water Framework Directive.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • Alberini A, Rosato P, Longo A, Zanatta V (2005) Information and willingness to pay in a contingent valuation study: the value of S. Erasmo in the Lagoon of Venice. J Environ Plan Manag 48:155–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnostopoulos K, Petalas C (2011) A fuzzy multicriteria benefit-cost approach for irrigation projects evaluation. Agric Water Manag 98(9):1409–1416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Portney P, Leamer E, Radner R, Schuman H (1993) Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman Ι, Turner K (1992) Evaluation of the environment: The Contingent Valuation Method. GEC Working Paper 92–18, Centre for Social and Economic Research of the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia, Norwich and University College London

  • Bishop P, Davis G (2002) Mapping public participation in policy choices. Aust J Public Adm 61:14–29. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118918353/abstract-fn1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R (2008) The potential role of stated preference methods in the Water Framework Directive to assess disproportionate costs. J Environ Plan Manag 51:597–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouwer R, Martín-Ortega J (2012) Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability. Resour Energy Econ 34:151–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley C, Hynes S, Mechan S (2012) Supply of an ecosystem service—farmers’ willingness to adopt 547 riparian buffer zones in agricultural catchments. Environ Sci Policy 24:101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckley C, Howley P, O’Donoghu C, Kilgarriff P (2016) Willingness to pay for achieving good status across rivers in the Republic of Ireland. Econ Soc Rev 47:425–445

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson R, Flores N, Meade N (2001) Contingent valuation: controversies and evidence. Environ Resour Econ 19:173–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen WY, Hua J (2015) Citizens’ distrust of government and their protest responses in a contingent valuation study of urban heritage trees in Guangzhou, China. J Environ Manag 155:40–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho S, Yen ST, Bowker JM, Newman DH (2008) Modeling willingness to pay for land conservation easements: treatment of zero and protest bids and application and policy implications. J Agric Appl Econ 40:267–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danso G, Drechsel P, Fialor S, Giordano M (2006) Estimating the demand for municipal waste compost via farmers’ willingness-to-pay in Ghana. Waste Manag 26:1400–1409

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Stefano L (2010) Facing the water framework directive challenges: a baseline of stakeholder participation in the European Union. J Environ Manag 91:1332–1340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Saz-Salazar S, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2009) The social benefits of restoring water quality in the context of the Water Framework Directive: a comparison of willingness to pay and willingness to accept. Sci Total Environ 407:4574–4583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Demetropoulou L, Nikolaidis N, Papadoulakis V, Tsakiris K, Koussouris T, Kalogerakis N, Koukaras K, Chatzinikolaou A, Theodoropoulos K (2010) Water framework directive implementation in Greece: introducing participation in water governance—the case of the Evrotas River Basin management plan. Env Pol Gov 20:336–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doherty E, Murphy G, Hynes S, Buckley C (2014) Valuing ecosystem services across water bodies: results from a discrete choice experiment. Ecosyst Serv 7:89–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domínguez-Torreiro Μ, Solino Μ (2016) Pricing a rural development program: uncertainty, indifference, and protest behaviors. Agric Econ 47:559–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doulgeris C, Georgiou P, Papadimos D, Papamichail D (2015) Water allocation under deficit irrigation using MIKE BASIN model for the mitigation of climate change. Irrig Sci 33:469–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dziegielewska DA, Mendelsohn R (2005) Valuing air quality in Poland. Environ Resour Econ 30:121–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzen Α, Meyer R (2009) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur Sociol Rev 26:219–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganoulis J, Murphy IL, Brilly M (eds) (2000) Transboundary water resources in the Balkans: initiating a sustainable co-operative network, NATO ASI SERIES, Partnership Sub-Series 2: Environmental Security, Kluwer Academic, Dodrecht, Boston, London, pp 254

  • Ganoulis J, Skoulikaris H, Monget JM (2008) Involving stakeholders in transboundary water resources management: the Mesta/Nestos ‘HELP’ basin. Water SA 34:461–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García-Llorente M, Martín-Lopez B, Montes C (2011) Exploring the motivations of protesters in contingent valuation: insights for conservation policies. Environ Sci Policy 14:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giovanopoulou E, Nastis SA, Papanagiotou E (2011) Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes. Ecol Econ 70:2175–2180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gkiougkis Ι, Kallioras A, Pliakas F, Pechtelidis A, Diamantis V, Diamantis I, Ziogas A, Dafnis I (2015) Assessment of soil salinization at the eastern Nestos River Delta, N.E. Greece. Catena 128:238–251

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haab TC (1999) Nonparticipation or misspecification? The impacts of nonparticipation on dichotomous choice contingent valuation. Environ Resour Econ 14:443–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haile D, Slangen L (2009) Estimating the willingness to pay for the benefit of AES using contingent valuation method. J Nat Res Policy Res 1:139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Black AR (2006) Cost-benefit analysis and the water framework directive in Scotland. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2:156–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J (2012) Contingent valuation: from dubious to hopeless. J Econ Perspect 26:43–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton B, Colarullo G, Bateman IJ, Peres CA (2003) Evaluating non-user willingness to pay for a large-scale conservation program in Amazonia: a UK/Italian contingent valuation study. Environ Conserv 30:139–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S (2000) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones N, Sophoulis CM, Malesios C (2008) Economic valuation of coastal water quality and protest responses: a case study in Mitilini, Greece. J Soc-Econ 37:2478–2491

  • Jørgensen SL, Olsen SB, Ladenburg J, Martinsen L, Svenningsen SR, Hasler B (2013) Spatially induced disparities in users’ and non-users’ WTP for water quality improvements: testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay. Ecol Econ 92:58–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanakoudis V, Tsitsifli S (2014) River basin management plans developed in Greece, based on the WFD 2000/60/EC guidelines. Desalin Water Treat 56:1231–1239. https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.979234

  • Kim JH, Keane TD, Bernard EA (2015) Fragmented local governance and water resource management outcomes. J Environ Manag 150:378–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kontogianni A, Damigos D, Tourkolias C, Vousdoukas M, Velegrakis A, Zanou B, Skourtos M (2014) Eliciting beach users’ willingness to pay for protecting European beaches from beachrock processes. Ocean Coast Manag 98:167–175

  • Kosenius AK (2010) Heterogeneous preferences for water quality attributes: the case of eutrophication in the Gulf of Finland, the Baltic Sea. Ecol Econ 69:528–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koutsouris A, Gidarakou I, Grava F, Michailidis A (2014) The phantom of (agri)tourism and agriculture symbiosis? A Greek case study. Tour Manag Perspect 12:94–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lake IR, Bateman IJ, Parfitt JP (1996) Assessing a kerbside recycling scheme: a quantitative and willingness to pay case study. J Environ Manag 46:239–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langford IH, Kontogianni A, Skortous MS, Georgiou S, Bateman I (1998) Multivariate mixed models for open-ended contingent valuation data. Environ Resour Econ 12:443–456

  • Latinopoulos D, Malios Z, Latinopoulos P (2016) Valuing the benefits of an urban park project: a contingent valuation study in Thessaloniki, Greece. Land Use Policy 55:130–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazaridou D, Michailidis A, Stefanidis P, Trigkas M (2017) Willingness to undertake the environmental responsibility by the irrigators. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Environmental Management, Engineering, Planning & Economics, Thessaloniki, Greece 886–896

  • Lee MK, Yoo SH (2016) Public’s willingness to pay for a marina port in Korea: a contingent valuation study. Ocean Coast Manag 119–127

  • Lichtenberg E, Zimmerman R (1999) Farmers’ willingness to pay for ground water protection. Water Resour Res 35:833–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loizou E, Michailidis A, Chatzitheodoridis F (2013) Investigating the drivers that influence the adoption of differentiated food products: the case of a Greek urban area. Br Food J 115(7):917–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madureira L, Nunes L, Borges J, Falcão A (2011) Assessing forest management strategies using a contingent valuation approach and advanced visualisation techniques: a Portuguese case study. J For Econ 17:399–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyerhoff J, Morkbak MR, Olsen SB (2014) A meta-study investigating the sources of protest behaviour in stated preference surveys. Environ Resour Econ 58:35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Michailidis A, Partalidou AM, Nastis SA, Papadaki-Klavdianou A, Charatsari C (2011) Who goes online? Evidence of internet use patterns from rural Greece. Telecommun Policy 35(4):333–343

  • Mitchell RC, Carson RT (1989) Using surveys to value public goods: the contingent valuation method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, Washington DC, Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins University Press

  • Moore R, Provencher B, Bishop RC (2011) Valuing a spatially variable environmental resource: reducing non-point-source pollution in Green Bay, Wisconsin, Land Economics 87:45–59

  • Morris C, Potter C (1995) Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agrienvironmental schemes in the U.K. J Rural Stud 11:51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myronidis D, Emmanouloudis D (2008) A water balance model of the Natura 2000 protected area “Nestos delta”. J Eng Sci Technol 1:45–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orfanidis S, Panayotidis P, Stamatis N (2001) Ecological evaluation of transitional and coastal waters: a marine benthic macrophytes-based model. Mediterr Mar Res 2:45–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papastergios G, Fernandez-Turiel JL, Georgakopoulos A, Gimeno D (2009) Natural and anthropogenic effects on the sediment geochemistry of Nestos River, northern Greece. Environ Geol 58:1361–1370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pedreira R, Kallioras A, Pliakas F, Gkiougkis I, Schuth C (2015) Groundwater vulnerability assessment of a coastal aquifer system at River Nestos eastern Delta, Greece. Environ Earth Science 73:6387–6415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrero F, Kalavrouziotis I, Alarcón JJ, Koukoulakis P, Asano T (2010) Use of treated municipal wastewater in irrigated agriculture—review of some practices in Spain and Greece. Agr Water Manag 97:1233–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polyzou E, Jones N, Evangelinos IK, Halvadakis CP (2011) Willingness to pay for drinking water quality improvement and the influence of social capital. J Soc-Econ 40:74–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieto Montes M, Patsia A, Angelakou G, Kanli L, Kasapi KA, Ntislidou Ch, Kotzageorgis G, Georgiadis P, Lazaridou M (2009) Ecological quality of river Nestos (Hellas) and its tributaries in September 2008, In: Proceedings of the Eleventh international congress on the zoogeography and ecology of Greece and adjacent regions, Irakleio, 25–29 September 2009

  • Ramajo-Hernández J, del Saz-Salazar S (2012) Estimating the non-market benefits of water quality improvement for a case study in Spain: a contingent valuation approach. Environ Sci Policy 22:47–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samaras AG, Koutitas CG (2008) Modelling the impact on coastal morphology of the water management in transboundary river basins: the case of River Nestos. Manag Environ Qual 19:455–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skoulikidis N (2009) The environmental state of rivers in the Balkans—a review within the DPSIR framework. Sci Total Environ 407:2501–2516

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stithou M, Scarpa R (2012) Collective versus voluntary payment in contingent valuation for the conservation of marine biodiversity: an exploratory study from Zakynthos, Greece. Ocean Coast Manag 56:1–9

  • Vanslembrouck I, van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agric Econ 53:489–511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang YM, Elhag T (2007) A comparison of neural network, evidential reasoning and multiple regression analysis in modeling bridge risks. Expert Syst Appl 32:336–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Shi Y, Kim Y, Kamata T (2013) Valuing water quality improvement in China: a case study of Lake Puzhehei in Yunnan province. Ecol Econ 94:56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson M, Daly M, Gordon S, Pratt A (1996) Sex differences in valuations of the environment? Popul Environ 18:143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynn G, Crabtree B, Potts J (2001) Modelling farmer entry into the environmentally sensitive area schemes in Scotland. J Agric Econ 52:65–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xeidakis G, Georgoulas A, Kotsovinos N, Delimani P, Varaggouli E (2010) Environmental degradation of the coastal zone of the west part of Nestos River delta, N. Greece, In: Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference of the Geological Society of Greece (Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece), Patra, Greece, 1074–1085

  • Yamane T (1967) Elementary sampling theory. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Forest Economics, Faculty of Forestry and Natural Environment, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    D. Lazaridou & M. Trigkas

  2. Laboratory of Agricultural Extension and Rural Sociology, Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

    A. Michailidis

Authors
  1. D. Lazaridou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Michailidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Trigkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Michailidis.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Philippe Garrigues

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lazaridou, D., Michailidis, A. & Trigkas, M. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers’ willingness to undertake environmental responsibility. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26, 14732–14741 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2463-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2463-7

Keywords

  • State preference method
  • Sustainable water management
  • Polluter pays principle
  • Public participation
  • Water Framework Directive