IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/aieabj/347570.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the Landscape Recovery Scheme in the UK: a Q methodology study in Yorkshire, UK

Author

Listed:
  • Tyllianakis, Emmanouil

Abstract

Embedded within the European Union’s Green Deal is a re-enforced scope to encourage farmers’ participation in primarily voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Although outside of the European Union, the newly announced agri-environment schemes in England mirror such a policy shift towards incentivising participation in order to deliver more and better climate public goods. Farmers’ viewpoints regarding such schemes and contracts are therefore important to examine, as they should be main determinants of current and future enrolment. In this paper, upland Yorkshire farmers were asked to express their opinions for the Landscape Recovery scheme that aims to encourage collaboration and achieve landscape-wide interventions to ensure lasting delivery of climate public goods. Viewpoints show divergent views between environmentally conscious farmers and pragmatic farmers objecting to the functioning of agri-environmental schemes. Farmer viewpoints lean towards ‘broad and shallow’ schemes that would have simple contract requirements and only achieve marginal gains in the delivery of agri-environmental climate public goods while still showing concern about the natural environment and its impact on farming.

Suggested Citation

  • Tyllianakis, Emmanouil, 2024. "Assessing the Landscape Recovery Scheme in the UK: a Q methodology study in Yorkshire, UK," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 13(1), May.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aieabj:347570
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.347570
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/347570/files/Assessing.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.347570?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Iofrida, Nathalie & De Luca, Anna Irene & Gulisano, Giovanni & Strano, Alfio, 2018. "An application of Q-methodology to Mediterranean olive production – stakeholders' understanding of sustainability issues," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 46-55.
    2. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    3. Riley, Mark & Sangster, Heather & Smith, Hugh & Chiverrell, Richard & Boyle, John, 2018. "Will farmers work together for conservation? The potential limits of farmers’ cooperation in agri-environment measures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 635-646.
    4. Walder, Peter & Kantelhardt, Jochen, 2018. "The Environmental Behaviour of Farmers – Capturing the Diversity of Perspectives with a Q Methodological Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 55-63.
    5. Andreas Muhar & Christopher M. Raymond & Riyan J.G. van den Born & Nicole Bauer & Kerstin Böck & Michael Braito & Arjen Buijs & Courtney Flint & Wouter T. de Groot & Christopher D. Ives & Tamara Mitro, 2018. "A model integrating social-cultural concepts of nature into frameworks of interaction between social and natural systems," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(5-6), pages 756-777, May.
    6. Noori Akhtar-Danesh, 2018. "qfactor: A command for Q-methodology analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(2), pages 432-446, June.
    7. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    8. John R. Parkins & Sven Anders & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Monique Holowach, 2022. "Landowner Acceptance of Wind Turbines on Their Land: Insights from a Factorial Survey Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(4), pages 674-689.
    9. Barbosa, Roseli Azambuja & Domingues, Carla Heloisa de Faria & Silva, Marcelo Corrêa da & Foguesatto, Cristian Rogério & Pereira, Mariana de Aragão & Gimenes, Régio Marcio Toesca & Borges, João August, 2020. "Using Q-methodology to identify rural women’s viewpoint on succession of family farms," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    10. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    11. Vecchio, Yari & Di Pasquale, Jorgelina & Del Giudice, Teresa & Pauselli, Gregorio & Masi, Margherita & Adinolfi, Felice, 2022. "Precision farming: what do Italian farmers really think? An application of the Q methodology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    12. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fu, Shaoling & Huang, Yatao, 2024. "Exploring farmers' perceptions of the technological characteristics of traceability systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    3. Lumumba, Brian Omondi & Otieno, David Jakinda & Nyikal, Rose Adhiambo, 2024. "Exploring farmers’ perspectives on desert locust management in Kenya: a comparison of Q and R-methodologies," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344320, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
    4. Håkan Berg & Simon Dang & Nguyen Thanh Tam, 2023. "Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-15, July.
    5. Johanna Norris & Bettina Matzdorf & Rena Barghusen & Christoph Schulze & Bart van Gorcum, 2021. "Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Schulze, Christoph & Matzdorf, Bettina & Rommel, Jens & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & García-Llorente, Marina & Gutiérrez-Briceño, Inés & Larsson, Lina & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Zawadzki, Wojciech, 2024. "Between farms and forks: Food industry perspectives on the future of EU food labelling," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    7. Thiermann, Insa & Silvius, Brechtje & Splinter, Melody & Dries, Liesbeth, 2023. "Making bird numbers count: Would Dutch farmers accept a result-based meadow bird conservation scheme?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    8. Braito, Michael & Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Schauppenlehner-Kloyber, Elisabeth & Thaler, Georg & Flint, Courtney G., 2020. "The plurality of farmers’ views on soil management calls for a policy mix," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Canessa, Carolin & Ait-Sidhoum, Amer & Wunder, Sven & Sauer, Johannes, 2024. "What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    10. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    11. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    12. Balázsi, Ágnes & Riechers, Maraja & Hartel, Tibor & Leventon, Julia & Fischer, Joern, 2019. "The impacts of social-ecological system change on human-nature connectedness: A case study from Transylvania, Romania," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Iversen, Sara V. & Naomi, van der Velden & Convery, Ian & Mansfield, Lois & Holt, Claire D.S., 2022. "Why understanding stakeholder perspectives and emotions is important in upland woodland creation – A case study from Cumbria, UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    14. Bourceret, Amélie & Accatino, Francesco & Robert, Corinne, 2024. "A modeling framework of a territorial socio-ecosystem to study the trajectories of change in agricultural phytosanitary practices," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 494(C).
    15. Katalin Ásványi & Márk Miskolczi & Melinda Jászberényi & Zsófia Kenesei & László Kökény, 2022. "The Emergence of Unconventional Tourism Services Based on Autonomous Vehicles (AVs)—Attitude Analysis of Tourism Experts Using the Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-14, March.
    16. S. S. Ganji & A. N. Ahangar & Samaneh Jamshidi Bandari, 2022. "Evaluation of vehicular emissions reduction strategies using a novel hybrid method integrating BWM, Q methodology and ER approach," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(10), pages 11576-11614, October.
    17. John C. Boik, 2020. "Science-Driven Societal Transformation, Part I: Worldview," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-28, August.
    18. Zdeňka Žáková Kroupová & Lukáš Čechura & Matěj Opatrný & Zuzana Hloušková & Iveta Mlezivová, 2023. "Assessment of the impact of agricultural support on crop diversity," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(3), pages 89-100.
    19. Loučanová, Erika & Paluš, Hubert & Báliková, Klára & Dzian, Michal & Slašťanova, Nikola & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2020. "Stakeholder's perceptions of the innovation trends in the Slovak forestry and forest based sectors," MPRA Paper 109679, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. John C. Boik, 2020. "Science-Driven Societal Transformation, Part II: Motivation and Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-23, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:aieabj:347570. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aieaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.