Farmers’ preferences for nutrient and climate-related agri-environmental schemes: A cross-country comparison

Abstract

We use data from a survey of 2439 farmers in 5 countries around the Baltic Sea (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Poland and Sweden) to investigate their preferences for adopting agricultural practices aimed at reducing nutrient leaching and greenhouse gas emissions. The measures considered are set-aside, catch crops and reduced fertilization. Contracts vary with respect to the area enrolled, contract length, possibility of premature termination, availability of professional advice and compensation. We quantitatively describe farmers’ preferences in terms of their willingness-to-accept compensation for specific attributes of these contracts, if implemented. The results vary substantially between farm types (farmers’ characteristics) and between the 5 countries, and support differentiation of contract obligations and payments to improve the uptake of Agri-Environmental Schemes. The results can be readily used to improve the design of country-specific nutrient reduction policies, in accordance with the next Common Agricultural Policy.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Source: Eurostat, National statistics from the five countries and sample data from farm survey

Fig. 3

Source: Eurostat

Fig. 4

Source: After Zimmerman and Britz (2016)

Notes

  1. 1.

    Despite asking farmers to rank the alternatives, we only use the first-choice data here. The main reason for this was that in addition to estimation of implicit prices for contract characteristics we were also interested in welfare measures associated with contracts themselves (WTA for alternative-specific constants) and these could not reliably be estimated using the ranking data. In addition, utilizing ranking data is still considered less robust than the first-choice data, particularly with respect to incentive properties of the second and subsequent stages of ranking. The empirical results illustrated this, with unstable preferences across various ranking stages.

  2. 2.

    Please see Supplementary Material S2 for a description of the panels and for further details of survey distribution.

  3. 3.

    Our experimental design varied the share of the area to be enrolled in the set-aside and catch crops contracts from 1 to 25%. On the contrary, the fertilization utilization type of contract always specified that new practices would need to be implemented on all fertilized arable land of the farm.

  4. 4.

    In the choice situations presented to farmers contract lengths varied from 1 to 20 years.

  5. 5.

    Full modelling results are reported in Supplementary material S4.

  6. 6.

    The models also included a random log-normally distributed cost/scale parameter. We do not report it in Table 4, as this parameter cannot be interpreted in WTP space, unlike all other attributes. The interpretation of the confounded cost/scale parameter is not particularly useful for our analysis, except for stating that it is positive, as expected (and imposed by log-normal distribution). We provide the full modelling results in Supplementary material S4.

References

  1. Adams, V.M., R.L. Pressey, and N. Stoeckl. 2014. Estimating landholders’ probability of participating in a stewardship program, and the implications for spatial conservation priorities. PLoS ONE 9: e97941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097941.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahtiainen, H., J. Artell, M. Czajkowski, B. Hasler, L. Hasselström, A. Huhtala, J. Meyerhoff, J.C.R. Smart, et al. 2014. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction targets for the Baltic Sea – a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 3: 278–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/21606544.2014.901923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alló, M., M.L. Loureiro, and E. Iglesias. 2015. Farmers’ preferences and social capital regarding agri-environmental schemes to protect birds. Journal of Agricultural Economics 66: 672–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aslam, U., M. Termansen, and L. Fleskens. 2017. Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems. Ecosystem Services 27: 103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Beharry-Borg, N., J.R.C. Smart, M. Termansen, and K. Hubacek. 2013. Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands. Regional Environmental Change 13: 633–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Broch, S.W., N. Strange, J.B. Jacobsen, and K.A. Wilson. 2013. Farmers’ willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecological Economics 92: 78–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Choi, B.C.K., and A.W.P. Pak. 2005. A catalog of biases in questionnaires. Preventing Chronic Disease 2: 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Christensen, T., A.B. Pedersen, H.Ø. Nielsen, and B. Hasler. 2011. Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones. Ecological Economics 70: 1558–1564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Doeser, B. 2018. WFD and agriculture Assessment of Member States ‘2nd River Basin Management Plans. Update from the European Commission. Presentation at European Commission workshop on Water and Agriculture—Addressing Diffuse Water Pollution through the post-2020 CAP in Soroe, Denmark, November 2018.

  10. ECA. 2011. Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? Special Report No. 7. The European Court of Auditors, European Union.

  11. ECA. 2017. Greening, a complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally effective. Special Report No. 21. The European Court of Auditors, European Union.

  12. Eriksen, J., P.N. Jensen, B.H. Jacobsen, I.K. Thomsen, K. Schelde, G. Blicher-Mathiesen, B. Kronvang, E.M. Hansen, et al. 2014. Virkemidler til realisering af 2. generations vandplaner og målrettet arealregulering, vol. 052, DCA—Nationalt Center for Fødevarer og Jordbrug, DCA—Blichers Allé 20, 8830 Tjele. DCA Rapport, vol. 052.

  13. Espinosa-Goded, M., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, and E. Ruto. 2010. What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice Experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics 61: 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development. 2019. The post-2020 common agricultural policy: environmental benefits and simplification. DG Agriculture and Rural Development. European Union. https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/future-cap.

  15. Eurostat. 2013. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/agriculture/data/database.

  16. Franzén, F., P. Dinnétz, and M. Hammer. 2016. Factors affecting farmers’ willingness to participate in eutrophication mitigation—A case study of preferences for wetland creation in Sweden. Ecological Economics 130: 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gómez-Limón, J.A., C. Gutiérrez-Martín, and A.J. Villanueva. 2018. Optimal design of agri-environmental schemes under asymmetric information for improving farmland biodiversity. Journal of Agricultural Economics 70: 153–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hanley, N., and M. Czajkowski. 2017. Stated preference valuation methods: An evolving tool for understanding choices and informing policy. Department of Economics Working Paper 1(230), University of Warsaw.

  19. HELCOM. 2013. Summary report on the development of revised Maximum Allowable Inputs (MAI) and updated Country Allocated Reduction Targets (CART) of the Baltic Sea Action Plan. Helsinki: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission, HELCOM.

    Google Scholar 

  20. HELCOM. 2018: Sources and pathways of nutrients to the Baltic Sea. HELCOM PLC-6. Baltic Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 153. Helsinki Commission, Helsinki.

  21. Jaeck, M., and R. Lifran. 2014. Farmers’ preferences for production practices: A choice experiment study in the Rhone River Delta. Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 112–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kuhfuss, L., R. Préget, S. Thoyer, and N. Hanley. 2016. Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: The role of a collective bonus’. European Review of Agricultural Economics 43: 609–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Menegaki, A.N., S.B. Olsen, and K.P. Tsagarakis. 2016. Towards a common standard - a reporting checklist for web-based stated preference valuation surveys and a critique for mode surveys. Journal of Choice Modelling 18: 18–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2016.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mettepenningen, E., V. Vandermeulen, K. Delaet, G. Van Huylenbroeck, and E.J. Wailes. 2013. Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agri-environmental schemes on scheme adoption. Land Use Policy 33: 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nainggolan, D., B. Hasler, H.E. Andersen, S. Gyldenkærne, and M. Termansen. 2018. Water quality management and climate change mitigation: Cost-effectiveness of joint implementation in the Baltic Sea region. Ecological Economics 144: 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.07.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Olesen, J.E., U. Jørgensen, J.E. Hermansen, S.O. Petersen, J. Eriksen, K. Søegaard, F.P. Vinther, L. Elsgaard, et al. 2013. Effekter af tiltag til reduktion af landbrugets udledninger af drivhusgasser DCA rapport Nr. 027.

  27. Pfeffermann, Daniel. 1996. The use of sampling weights for survey data analysis. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 5: 239–261.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Poinello, M. 2018. Common Agricultural Policy post 2020—Water relevant aspects. Presentation at European Commission workshop on Water and Agriculture—Addressing diffuse water pollution through the post-2020 CAP in Soroe, Denmark, November 2018.

  29. Reusch, T.B.H., J. Dierking, H.C. Andersson, E. Bonsdorff, J. Carstensen, M. Casini, M. Czajkowski, B. Hasler, et al. 2018. The Baltic Sea as a time machine for the future coastal ocean. Science Advances. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aar8195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ruto, E., and G. Garrod. 2009. Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environmental schemes: A choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52: 631–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Salomon, E., and M. Sundberg. 2012. Implementation and status of priority measures to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus leakage. Summary of Country Reports. Baltic Compass, Work Package 3. Available January 24, 2017, from http://www.balticcompass.org/_blog/Project_Reports/post/Prioritized_measures_by_Work_Package_3_/.

  32. Scarpa, R., and J.M. Rose. 2008. Design efficiency for non-market valuation with choice modelling: How to measure it, what to report and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 52: 253–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Schulz, N., G. Breustedt, and U. Latacz-Lohmann. 2014. Assessing farmers’ willingness to accept “greening”: Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Journal of Agricultural Economics 65: 26–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Science for Environment Policy. 2017: Agri-environmental schemes: how to enhance the agriculture-environment relationship. Thematic Issue 57. Issue produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available from http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy.

  35. Villenueva, A.J., M. Rodríguez-Entrena, M. Arriaza, and J.A. Gómez-Limón. 2017. Heterogeneity of farmers’ preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural subsystems. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 60: 684–707. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zimmerman, A., and W. Britz. 2016. European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 50: 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by BONUS GO4BALTIC (BONUS, Art 185), funded jointly by the EU and national funding institutions in Denmark (the Innovation Fund), Estonia (Estonian Research Council ETAG), Finland (Academy of Finland), Poland (NCBR) and Sweden (FORMAS). The research has also received funding from Stockholm University Baltic Sea Center—project Baltic Eye. MC gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Centre of Poland (Sonata 10, 2015/19/D/HS4/01972). KZ gratefully acknowledges the support of the National Science Centre of Poland (Preludium 10, 2015/19/N/HS4/03365).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berit Hasler.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 277 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hasler, B., Czajkowski, M., Elofsson, K. et al. Farmers’ preferences for nutrient and climate-related agri-environmental schemes: A cross-country comparison. Ambio 48, 1290–1303 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01242-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agri-environmental schemes
  • Baltic Sea
  • Choice experiment
  • Farmers’ preferences
  • Willingness to accept