IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v139y2024ics0264837724000243.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who should deliver agri-environmental public goods in the UK? New land managers and their future role as public good providers

Author

Listed:
  • Kam, Hermann
  • Potter, Clive

Abstract

Agri-environmental policies in the UK stand on the threshold of significant change, with wide acceptance that radical changes are needed to ensure a better delivery of public goods in future. The UK’s departure from the EU presents an opportunity to fully realise the “Public Money for Public Goods” principle in the new suite of Environmental Land Management schemes. A likely priority will be the delivery of conservation goals at a landscape scale, which will require the recruitment of a broader range of actors and institutions than at present, including an emerging group of what we call in this paper ‘new land managers’. Understanding the changing dynamics of rural land occupancy, and the characteristics and motivations of these new land managers, will be essential in the future for the effective delivery of these public schemes. Data on land market trends is nevertheless patchy and poorly researched. For this paper, we drew on a survey of land agents in England, all of whom were members of the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers (CAAV), in order to gather information and reflections on contemporary land markets. A key finding is that agricultural policy reform and retrenchment is seen by many of these experts as a significant driver of future change. Taken together with other interacting factors such as the overall tax burden on businesses and the economic and personal situation of farmers and their succession status, many of our respondents predicted significant structural change, with more land coming on to the market for resale. At the same time, increasing demand for land from “lifestyle/non-farming landholders” and the growing presence of people entering the market interested in enroling land for carbon sequestration and natural capital improvements, will mean a shift in the types of individuals and organisations holding land. Those holding and managing land in coming years are likely to comprise an ever more diverse and fragmented community of land owners and occupiers The task for policymakers then, is to deliver a suite of interventions specifically tailored to the various types of landholders in order to engage them effectively into public goods delivery under ELMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Kam, Hermann & Potter, Clive, 2024. "Who should deliver agri-environmental public goods in the UK? New land managers and their future role as public good providers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:139:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000243
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107072
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837724000243
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2024.107072?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Morrison & Jeanette Durante & Jenni Greig & John Ward & Eddie Oczkowski, 2012. "Segmenting landholders for improving the targeting of natural resource management expenditures," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(1), pages 17-37, November.
    2. Gottfried, Robert & Wear, David & Lee, Robert, 1996. "Institutional solutions to market failure on the landscape scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 133-140, August.
    3. Joy Ogaji, 2005. "Sustainable Agriculture in the UK," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 7(2), pages 253-270, June.
    4. Dieter Helm, 2017. "Agriculture after Brexit," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(suppl_1), pages 124-133.
    5. Kam, Hermann & Smith, Heather & Potter, Clive, 2023. "Public money for public goods: The role of ideas in driving agriculture policy in the EU and post-Brexit UK," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    6. Berkeley Hill, 2021. "UK after Brexit – a Massive Field Experiment for CAP Reform?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(1), pages 62-66, April.
    7. Mark Shucksmith & Vera Herrmann, 2002. "Future Changes in British Agriculture: Projecting Divergent Farm Household Behaviour," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 37-50, March.
    8. Bateman, Ian J. & Balmford, Ben, 2018. "Public funding for public goods: A post-Brexit perspective on principles for agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 293-300.
    9. Nicholas Gill & Peter Klepeis & Laurie Chisholm, 2010. "Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(3), pages 317-334.
    10. Theresa M. Groth & Allan Curtis & Emily Mendham & Eric Toman, 2017. "Examining the agricultural producer identity: utilising the collective occupational identity construct to create a typology and profile of rural landholders in Victoria, Australia," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 628-646, April.
    11. Urquhart, Julie & Courtney, Paul, 2011. "Seeing the owner behind the trees: A typology of small-scale private woodland owners in England," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(7), pages 535-544, September.
    12. Alberto Navarro & José Vicente López-Bao, 2019. "EU agricultural policy still not green," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(11), pages 990-990, November.
    13. Berkeley Hill, 2017. "The United Kingdom's Domestic Policy for Agriculture after Brexit," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 16(2), pages 18-23, August.
    14. Häfner, Kati & Piorr, Annette, 2021. "Farmers’ perception of co-ordinating institutions in agri-environmental measures – The example of peatland management for the provision of public goods on a landscape scale," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Kam, Hermann & Metternicht, Graciela & Baumber, Alex & Cross, Rebecca, 2019. "Engaging absentee landholders in ecosystem service delivery in south-eastern Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(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. George Cusworth & Jennifer Dodsworth, 2021. "Using the ‘good farmer’ concept to explore agricultural attitudes to the provision of public goods. A case study of participants in an English agri-environment scheme," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 929-941, December.
    2. Franks, Jeremy R., 2019. "An assessment of the landscape-scale dimensions of land based environmental management schemes offered to farmers in England," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 147-159.
    3. Cooke, Benjamin & Moon, Katie, 2015. "Aligning ‘public good’ environmental stewardship with the landscape-scale: Adapting MBIs for private land conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 152-158.
    4. Franks, J.R., 2017. "Pr - The Development And Future Of Landscape-Scale, Collaborative Environmental Management In England," 21st Congress, Edinburgh, Scotland, July 2-7, 2017 345771, International Farm Management Association.
    5. Arnott, David & Chadwick, David & Harris, Ian & Koj, Aleksandra & Jones, David L., 2019. "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 194-208.
    6. Ficko, Andrej & Boncina, Andrej, 2013. "Probabilistic typology of management decision making in private forest properties," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 34-43.
    7. Bergstén, Sabina & Stjernström, Olof & Pettersson, Örjan, 2018. "Experiences and emotions among private forest owners versus public interests: Why ownership matters," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 801-811.
    8. Põllumäe, Priit & Lilleleht, Ando & Korjus, Henn, 2016. "Institutional barriers in forest owners' cooperation: The case of Estonia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-16.
    9. Xing Xiong & Xinghou Yu & Yuxin Wang, 2022. "The impact of basic public services on residents’ consumption in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    10. Fabra-Crespo, M. & Rojas-Briales, E., 2015. "Comparative analysis on the communication strategies of the forest owners' associations in Europe," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-30.
    11. Mark Morrison & Christine M Hill, 2017. "Understanding the Non-Market Value and Equity Implications of the Walsh Bay Arts Precinct Redevelopment," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 93(301), pages 302-313, June.
    12. Sutherland, Lee-Ann & Huttunen, Suvi, 2018. "Linking practices of multifunctional forestry to policy objectives: Case studies in Finland and the UK," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 35-44.
    13. Josset, Clement & Shanafelt, David W. & Abildtrup, Jens & Stenger, Anne, 2023. "Probabilistic typology of private forest owners: A tool to target the development of new market for ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    14. Angelika Zimmermann & Nora Albers & Jasper O. Kenter, 2022. "Deliberating Our Frames: How Members of Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Use Shared Frames to Tackle Within-Frame Conflicts Over Sustainability Issues," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 757-782, July.
    15. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    16. Ogawa, Keishi & Garrod, Guy & Yagi, Hironori, 2023. "Sustainability strategies and stakeholder management for upland farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    17. Kline, Jeffrey D. & Alig, Ralph J. & Johnson, Rebecca L., 2000. "Forest owner incentives to protect riparian habitat," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 29-43, April.
    18. 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.
    19. Holderieath, Jason, 2016. "Spatiotemporal management under heterogeneous damage and uncertain parameters. An agent-based approach," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235850, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Berkeley Hill & Dylan Bradley, 2024. "Goals and values of farmers revisited: Gasson fifty years on," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 108-113, February.

    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:eee:lauspo:v:139:y:2024:i:c:s0264837724000243. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.