IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jageco/v75y2024i2p524-545.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing practice‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental schemes controlled by remote sensing: An application to olive groves in Spain

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasio J. Villanueva
  • Rubén Granado‐Díaz
  • Sergio Colombo

Abstract

Farmers' preferences toward practice‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are analysed using a labelled choice experiment. The analysis focuses on schemes involving an innovative satellite‐based monitoring system, with different environmental objectives. Olive groves in southern Spain are used as a case study. Results show no statistically significant differences in farmers' willingness to accept (WTA) payment for participating in practice‐ versus results‐based AES when the scheme targets carbon sequestration. By contrast, farmers require a significantly higher WTA payment for results‐based AES when targeting biodiversity (using bird species as an indicator), mostly due to the uncertainties related to its provision and monitoring. WTA significantly increases with provision level and remote sensing monitoring, regardless of the type of scheme. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed, partly explained by farmers' attitudes toward risk and their beliefs about environmental service provision and monitoring capacity. The results suggest useful policy implications, including the potential of making use of joint provision of environmental services in the design of results‐based AES and accompanying them with uncertainty mitigating measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasio J. Villanueva & Rubén Granado‐Díaz & Sergio Colombo, 2024. "Comparing practice‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental schemes controlled by remote sensing: An application to olive groves in Spain," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 524-545, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jageco:v:75:y:2024:i:2:p:524-545
    DOI: 10.1111/1477-9552.12573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12573
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1477-9552.12573?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. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    2. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    3. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A. & Caussade, Sebastian & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Jou, Rong-Chang, 2009. "Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 21-29.
    4. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    5. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    6. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    7. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    8. Wienand Kölle & Andrea Martínez Salgueiro & Matthias Buchholz & Oliver Musshoff, 2021. "Can satellite‐based weather index insurance improve the hedging of yield risk of perennial non‐irrigated olive trees in Spain?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 65(1), pages 66-93, January.
    9. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    10. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    11. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    13. Rubén Granado-Díaz & José A Gómez-Limón & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena & Anastasio J Villanueva, 2020. "Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches [Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 752-784.
    14. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    15. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    16. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    17. Derissen, Sandra & Quaas, Martin F., 2013. "Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 77-84.
    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. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Colombo, Sergio, 2024. "Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    2. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    3. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    4. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    5. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    6. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    7. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    8. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. 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).
    10. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    11. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    13. Nytte, Sharon & Navrud, Ståle & Alfnes, Frode, 2024. "Social acceptance of new floating offshore wind power: Do attitudes towards existing offshore industries matter?," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 230(C).
    14. Parron, Lucilia Maria & Villanueva, Anastasio Jose & Glenk, Klaus, 2022. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes amid intensification pressures: The Brazilian case," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    15. Robert J. Johnston & Tom Ndebele & David A. Newburn, 2023. "Modeling transaction costs in household adoption of landscape conservation practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 341-367, January.
    16. Alcon, Francisco & Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2022. "Assessment of social demand heterogeneity to inform agricultural diffuse pollution mitigation policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    17. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    18. Holland, Benedict M. & Johnston, Robert J., 2017. "Optimized quantity-within-distance models of spatial welfare heterogeneity," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 110-129.
    19. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    20. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jageco:v:75:y:2024:i:2:p:524-545. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0021-857X .

    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.