IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v99y2020ics0264837720301290.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of policy instruments for supporting greenhouse gas mitigation efforts in agricultural and urban land use

Author

Listed:
  • Kärkkäinen, Leena
  • Lehtonen, Heikki
  • Helin, Janne
  • Lintunen, Jussi
  • Peltonen-Sainio, Pirjo
  • Regina, Kristiina
  • Uusivuori, Jussi
  • Packalen, Tuula

Abstract

The land use sector offers government the means to contribute to the achievement of climate change mitigation targets. The aim of this study was to identify the most important policy instruments for supporting climate change mitigation efforts in the land-use sector in Finland and increase understanding on the performance of these instruments. This was done by analysing experts’ views on the most effective policy instruments related to climate change mitigation in agricultural and urban land use in Finland and identifying the criteria that experts use when evaluating these instruments. The experts’ views were obtained by interviews, a workshop and a survey, and the results were qualitatively and quantitatively analysed. The experts emphasized the effectiveness of economic policy instruments in the promotion of practical measures for climate change mitigation. According to the experts, the most effective policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the land use sector would be a fee for deforestation. However, based on the analyses using four other evaluation criteria (efficiency, legality, democracy, legitimacy), economic policy instruments imply greater challenges than regulatory or informational policy instruments. Furthermore, based on the results, the coherence of economic policy instruments, i.e. to what extent they have synergies in achieving different policy objectives, needs to be carefully examined in the planning phase. In particular, more attention should be paid to the analysis of relationship across different scales of governance when designing new policy instruments for climate change mitigation.

Suggested Citation

  • Kärkkäinen, Leena & Lehtonen, Heikki & Helin, Janne & Lintunen, Jussi & Peltonen-Sainio, Pirjo & Regina, Kristiina & Uusivuori, Jussi & Packalen, Tuula, 2020. "Evaluation of policy instruments for supporting greenhouse gas mitigation efforts in agricultural and urban land use," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720301290
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104991
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837720301290
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104991?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. Heikki Lehtonen & Taru Palosuo & Panu Korhonen & Xing Liu, 2018. "Higher Crop Yield Levels in the North Savo Region—Means and Challenges Indicated by Farmers and Their Close Stakeholders," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Elisabete A. Silva & Ransford A. Acheampong, 2015. "Developing an Inventory and Typology of Land-Use Planning Systems and Policy Instruments in OECD Countries," OECD Environment Working Papers 94, OECD Publishing.
    3. Peltonen-Sainio, Pirjo & Jauhiainen, Lauri & Laurila, Heikki & Sorvali, Jaana & Honkavaara, Eija & Wittke, Samantha & Karjalainen, Mika & Puttonen, Eetu, 2019. "Land use optimization tool for sustainable intensification of high-latitude agricultural systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Borrás, Susana & Edquist, Charles, 2013. "The choice of innovation policy instruments," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1513-1522.
    5. Di Gregorio, Monica & Nurrochmat, Dodik Ridho & Paavola, Jouni & Sari, Intan Maya & Fatorelli, Leandra & Pramova, Emilia & Locatelli, Bruno & Brockhaus, Maria & Kusumadewi, Sonya Dyah, 2017. "Climate policy integration in the land use sector: Mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development linkages," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 35-43.
    6. Bjornlund, Henning & Nicol, Lorraine & Klein, K.K., 2007. "Challenges in implementing economic instruments to manage irrigation water on farms in southern Alberta," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 131-141, September.
    7. J. Lankoski & H. Lehtonen & M. Ollikainen & S. Myyrä, 2018. "Modelling Policy Coherence Between Adaptation, Mitigation and Agricultural Productivity," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 111, OECD Publishing.
    8. Tyrväinen, Liisa & Mäntymaa, Erkki & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Demand for enhanced forest amenities in private lands: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 4-13.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Raúl Tauro & Silvina Manrique & Iván Franch-Pardo & Juan F. Charre-Medellin & Cristian E. Ortega-Riascos & José A. Soria-González & Cynthia Armendáriz-Arnez, 2024. "Spatial expansion of avocado in Mexico: Could the energy use of pruning residues offset orchard GHG emissions?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 27325-27350, November.
    2. Xianxian Fan & Xin Jiang, 2024. "Regional differences and convergence of urban land green use efficiency in China under the constraints of carbon neutrality," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(9), pages 23499-23525, September.
    3. Jiake Li & Wei Wang & Meng Li & Qiao Li & Zeming Liu & Wei Chen & Yanan Wang, 2022. "Impact of Land Management Scale on the Carbon Emissions of the Planting Industry in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-15, May.
    4. Fischer, Richard & Lippe, Melvin & Dolom, Priscilla & Kalaba, Felix Kanungwe & Tamayo, Fabian & Torres, Bolier, 2023. "Effectiveness of policy instrument mixes for forest conservation in the tropics – Stakeholder perceptions from Ecuador, the Philippines and Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    5. Rita Mendonça & Peter Roebeling & Teresa Fidélis & Miguel Saraiva, 2021. "Policy Instruments to Encourage the Adoption of Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Landscapes," Resources, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.

    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. Reichardt, Kristin & Rogge, Karoline S. & Negro, Simona, 2015. "Unpacking the policy processes for addressing systemic problems: The case of the technological innovation system of offshore wind in Germany," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2015, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    2. Caloffi, Annalisa & Freo, Marzia & Ghinoi, Stefano & Mariani, Marco & Rossi, Federica, 2022. "Assessing the effects of a deliberate policy mix: The case of technology and innovation advisory services and innovation vouchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    3. Hans Pohl, 2021. "Internationalisation, innovation, and academic–corporate co-publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(2), pages 1329-1358, February.
    4. Mäntymaa, Erkki & Juutinen, Artti & Tyrväinen, Liisa & Karhu, Jouni & Kurttila, Mikko, 2018. "Participation and compensation claims in voluntary forest landscape conservation: The case of the Ruka-Kuusamo tourism area, Finland," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 14-24.
    5. Emmanuel Muller & Andrea Zenker & Miriam Hufnagl & Jean-Alain Héraud & Esther Schnabl & Teemu Makkonen & Henning Kroll, 2017. "Smart specialisation strategies and cross-border integration of regional innovation systems: Policy dynamics and challenges for the Upper Rhine," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(4), pages 684-702, June.
    6. Jose Guimon, 2014. "Regional Inovation Policy and Multilevel Governance in Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Reports 23655, The World Bank Group.
    7. Kajikawa, Yuya & Mejia, Cristian & Wu, Mengjia & Zhang, Yi, 2022. "Academic landscape of Technological Forecasting and Social Change through citation network and topic analyses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    8. Bento, Nuno & Sousa, Cristina & Trindade, Paula & Mamede, Ricardo Paes & Fontes, Margarida & Alves, Tiago, 2022. "Robust relation between public procurement for innovation and economic development," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    9. Qureshi, Muhammad Imran & Qayyum, Shazia & Nassani, Abdelmohsen A. & Aldakhil, Abdullah Mohammed & Qazi Abro, Muhammad Moinuddin & Zaman, Khalid, 2019. "Management of various socio-economic factors under the United Nations sustainable development agenda," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    10. Joanna Stryjek, 2021. "Counteracting the COVID-19 Crisis with Innovation Policy Tools: A Case Study of the EU’s Supranational Innovation Policy," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(3), pages 450-468.
    11. De Moortel, Kevin & Crispeels, Thomas, 2018. "International university-university technology transfer: Strategic management framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 145-155.
    12. Michailidis, Anastasios & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Loizou, Efstratios & Mattas, Konstadinos, 2010. "The adoption of water saving irrigation practices in the Region of West Macedonia," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109388, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Brueggemann, Julia & Meub, Lukas, 2015. "Experimental evidence on the effects of innovation contests," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 251, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    14. Befort, N., 2020. "Going beyond definitions to understand tensions within the bioeconomy: The contribution of sociotechnical regimes to contested fields," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    15. Demeulemeester, Sarah & Hottenrott, Hanna, 2015. "R&D subsidies and firms' cost of debt," DICE Discussion Papers 201, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    16. Hölzl, Werner & Janger, Jürgen, 2013. "Does the analysis of innovation barriers perceived by high growth firms provide information on innovation policy priorities?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(8), pages 1450-1468.
    17. Liu, Yang & Zhang, Yuchen & Zhao, Xiaoli & Farnoosh, Arash & Ma, Ruoran, 2024. "Synergistic effect of environmental governance instruments embedded in social contexts: A case study of China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    18. Rosny Jean & Kozma Naka & Colmore S. Christian & Buddhi Raj Gyawali & Troy Bowman & Sampson Hopkinson, 2022. "Identifying Primary Drivers of Participants from Various Socioeconomic Backgrounds to Choose National Forest Lands in the Southeastern Region of the US as a Travel Destination for Recreation," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, August.
    19. Marc Dijk & Eric Iversen & Antje Klitkou & René Kemp & Simon Bolwig & Mads Borup & Peter Møllgaard, 2020. "Forks in the Road to E-Mobility: An Evaluation of Instrument Interaction in National Policy Mixes in Northwest Europe," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-20, January.
    20. Costantini, Valeria & Crespi, Francesco & Palma, Alessandro, 2017. "Characterizing the policy mix and its impact on eco-innovation: A patent analysis of energy-efficient technologies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(4), pages 799-819.

    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:99:y:2020:i:c:s0264837720301290. 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.