Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Spatial Microsimulation for Rural Policy Analysis pp 123–141Cite as

Conservation and Rural Environmental Protection Schemes

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Advances in Spatial Science ((ADVSPATIAL))

Abstract

One of the main effects of intensification of agriculture in the last half century has been the reduction in the area of the various semi-natural habitats associated with traditional, mixed farming (Vickery et al. 2004). In general, since the land cover type and productivity of a specific location determine intensity of farming practices, the greatest habitat losses have occurred in lowland, fertile areas dominated by arable farming. However, as the RSPB (2001) point out, the decline in habitat quality has also been a major factor in marginal agricultural areas. Solutions to these problems of habitat loss have, in general, involved, firstly, the agricultural landscape being targeted for remedial work and secondly, the motivation of landowners by policymakers to change any farm practices that are detrimental to the rural environment. Incentives have been provided through a range of policy measures including agri-environment and wildlife management schemes.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For details on the actual payment scales and specifications of REPS1, REPS2 and REPS3 see http://www.agriculture.gov.ie/index.jsp?file=schemes/reps.xml.

  2. 2.

    Under a derogation, grassland farms will be allowed to apply cattle manure up to a maximum of 250 kg Nitrogen per hectare per year. Farms operating under a derogation are required to adopt additional nutrient management measures to ensure that operating at a higher livestock manure limit does not adversely impact on water quality. The main criteria of the Nitrogen derogation are an annual application by the farmer to the Department of the Environment; an application limit of 250 kg per hectare per year of manure from grazing livestock (cattle, sheep, deer and goats); 80 % of the agricultural area of the farm to be grassland; a farm phosphorus balance limit of 10 kg Phosphorus per hectare per year and the production and maintenance of fertilisation plans and accounts annually.

  3. 3.

    Hodge and McNally (1998) point out that the nature of scheme design, the method of implementation and the monitoring regime established will determine its effectiveness (in terms of delivering extra environmental benefits over and above what would be expected to occur in any case) and efficiency, in the use of public money.

  4. 4.

    Electoral Divisions (EDs) are geographical units of area that break up Irish counties into smaller parts that are then used as boundaries for political jurisdictions. There are 3,440 such EDs in the country.

  5. 5.

    An in-depth discussion on the microsimulation procedure used in this chapter and the validation of the microsimulated population figures is contained in Chap. 6.

  6. 6.

    The mapping unit employed in the FIPS–IFS habitat data set was 1 ha. The main classes in the FIPS–IFS habitat data set include bog and heath, fen, wet grassland, dry grassland, rocky complex, mature forestry, immature forestry and scrub, built land, sand and water (see Table 7.2).

  7. 7.

    We utilise the population weights provided for each farm in the NFS. These weights indicate how many farms in the country are represented by each observation in the sample. The NFS weights are produced and supplied to the NFS department by the Irish Central Statistics Office (CSO) and are based on the Census of Agriculture’s distribution of the farm population for the major systems and sizes of farms in the country.

  8. 8.

    It would also have been desirable to have information on each farmer’s education, off-farm revenue and each farmer’s attitudes toward the environment included in the models specification. Unfortunately, this information is not collected in the Irish FADN dataset used in this chapter. Also, as highlighted in Sect. 7.3, information relating to farmers perception of the administrative burden of the agri-environmental contract would also be an important determinant in a farmer’s decision to continue participation in the scheme or not. Again we did not have this information and were limited to the farm specific information that is collected in the NFS.

References

  • Berendse F, Chamberlain D, Kleijn D, Schekkerman H (2004) Declining biodiversity in agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Ambio 3:499–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock C, Styles D (2006) Towards sustainability in the national development plan 2007–2013. In: Proceedings of the Comhar conference. Davenport Hotel, Dublin, 4–6 Oct 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D (2007) Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58(3):467–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58(2):304–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clergue B, Amiaud B, Pervanchon F, Lasserre-Joulin F, Plantureux S (2005) Biodiversity: function and assessment in agricultural areas: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 25:1–15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connolly L, Kinsella A, Quinlan G, Moran B (2005) National farm survey 2003: analysis of REPS/non-REPS farms. Teagasc, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Crabtree J, Thorburn A, Chalmers N, Roberts D, Wynn, G, Barron N, Macmillan D, Barraclough F (1999) Socio-economic and agricultural impacts of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in Scotland. Report to the Scottish Executive, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham M (2005) A comparison of public lands and farmlands for grassland bird conservation. Prof Geog 57:51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • DAF (Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) (1999) Evaluation of the rural environment protection scheme, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2002) Working with the grain of nature: a biodiversity strategy for England. Defra, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupraz P, Vermersch D, Henry de Fraham B, Delvaux L (2003) The environmental supply of farm households: a flexible WTA model. Environ Resour Econ 25:171–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerson H, Gillmor D (1999) The rural environment protection scheme of the Republic of Ireland. Land Use Policy 16:235–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA (2004) State of the environment report 2004. EPA, Wexford

    Google Scholar 

  • European Court of Auditors (2005) The verification of agri-environment expenditure. European Court of Auditors special report no. 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer K, Dupraz P, Whitby M (2001) An investigation of policy administrative costs using panel data for the English environmentally sensitive areas. J Agric Econ 52(1):83–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn J (2003) The agri-environmental measure of the rural development regulation (1257/99): an overview of policy issues. Ir J Agri-Environ Res 3:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod G, Willis K (1999) Methodological issues in valuing the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas. J Rural Stud 15(1):111–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green R, Cornell S, Scharlemann J, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamell M (2001) Policy aspects of the agriculture: environment relationship. Tearmann 1:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Whitby M, Simpson I (1999) Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16:67–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodge I, McNally S (1998) Evaluating the environmentally sensitive areas: the value of rural environments and policy relevance. J Rural Stud 14:357–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes S, Garvey E (2009) Modelling farmers’ participation in an agri-environmental scheme using panel data: an application to the rural environmental protection scheme in Ireland. J Agri Econ 60(3):546–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hynes S, Kinsella A, Farrelly N (2007) A decade on: the effect of the rural environment protection scheme on national farming practices in Ireland. In: Agricultural research forum proceedings, Tullamore, 12 Mar 2007

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus M, Bulfin M, Farrelly N, Fealy R, Green S, Meehan R, Radford T (2002) The Irish forest soils project and its potential contribution to the assessment of biodiversity. Biol Environ Proc R Ir Acad 102(3):151–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long J, Freese J (2003) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata Press, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy O (1999) Impact of REPS: analysis from the National Farm Survey. Teagasc report, Rural Economic Research Centre, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2005) All-Ireland species action plans for the Irish Hare, the Corncrake, the Pollan and Irish Lady’s Tresses (www.npws.ie)

  • Peach W, Lovett L, Wotton S, Jeffs C (2001) Countryside stewardship delivers cirl buntings in Devon, UK. Biol Conserv 101:361–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rice G (2003) Progress on REPS mid-term review. Paper presented at the national REPS conference “REPS in a Changing Environment”, 4 Nov 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • RSPB (2001) Futurescapes: large-scale habitat restoration for wildlife and people. RSPB, Bedfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanslembrouck I, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agri Econ 53(3):1477–9552

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickery J, Bradbury R, Henderson I, Eaton M, Grice P (2004) The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biol Conserv 119:19–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weibull A, Östman Ö, Granqvist Å (2003) Species richness in agro-ecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers Conserv 12:1335–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wossink G, van Wenum H (2003) Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:461–485

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road Newcastle, Galway Co.Galway, Ireland

    Stephen Hynes

  2. Forestry Development Unit, Teagasc Athenry, Co, Galway, Ireland

    Niall Farrelly

  3. Discipline of Economics, National University of Ireland, University Road Newcastle, Galway Co, Galway, Ireland

    Eithne Murphy

  4. Rural Economy and Development Programme, Teagasc, Athenry, Ireland

    Cathal O’Donoghue

Authors
  1. Stephen Hynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Niall Farrelly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eithne Murphy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cathal O’Donoghue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen Hynes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Rural Economy Research Centre, Teagasc, Athenry, Co. Galway, Ireland

    Cathal O'Donoghue

  2. , Department of Geography, Sheffield University, Western Bank, Sheffield, S10 2TN, United Kingdom

    Dimitris Ballas

  3. School of Geography, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds, KS2 9JT, United Kingdom

    Graham Clarke

  4. , Socio-Economic Marine Research Unit, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road Newcastle, Galway, Galway Co., Ireland

    Stephen Hynes

  5. School of Envrionmental Sciences, University of Liverpool, Roxby Building, Liverpool, L69 7ZT, United Kingdom

    Karyn Morrissey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hynes, S., Farrelly, N., Murphy, E., O’Donoghue, C. (2013). Conservation and Rural Environmental Protection Schemes. In: O'Donoghue, C., Ballas, D., Clarke, G., Hynes, S., Morrissey, K. (eds) Spatial Microsimulation for Rural Policy Analysis. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30026-4_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30026-4_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-30025-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-30026-4

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation