IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020i1p348-366.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Chosen Socio-Economic Problems of Protecting Valuable Agricultural Land in Natura 2000 Areas in Poland

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Brodzińska
  • Wojciech Gotkiewicz
  • Bartosz Mickiewicz
  • Adam Pawlewicz

Abstract

Purpose: Intensive development of agriculture has led to the loss of many valuable ecosystems and thus to a significant impoverishment of biodiversity in rural areas. In the context of the analysed research problem, i.e. the functioning of agriculture in N2000 areas, Poland is a special country where there are semi-natural unique habitats disappearing in the European landscape. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of conservation measures financed under the EU CAP on agricultural land located on N2000 areas. Design/Methodology/Approach: The analytical material consisted of the results of surveys using a standardized questionnaire which carried out among 292 farmers (152 organic farmers and 140 conventional farmers) from the the area of N2000 "Biebrza Valley" PLH200008. The assumptions were verified based on the Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA analysis and gamma rank correlation. The analytical material also consisted of EUROSTAT data on the area of the N2000 network and the area of agricultural land covered by this form of protection in EU countries. These data were subject to horizontal and vertical (years 2009-2017) comparative analysis. Findings: Polish experience regarding the implementation of conservation measures on naturally valuable agricultural land (N2000) allows to state that environmental policy should be based on the idea of socially sustainable agriculture, including ecological sustainability (proper delimitation of areas predestined for protection, their environmental valorisation, development of conservation measures and their implementation, a bonus system for the sustainability of agri-environmental commitments), economic sustainability (the system of agricultural subsidies and/or other solutions to meet the basic living needs of farmers and their families), social sustainability (effective inclusion of local communities in information, education and decision-making processes at the stages of development, deployment and implementation of protection programs). Practical Implications: The recommendations resulting from the conducted research and analyses may be adopted by the institutions responsible for the creation of an environmental protection policy which can improve the effectiveness of active forms of protection in valuable natural habitats that are used for agriculture. Originality/Value: The article indicates the recommendations based on building a lasting relationship between farmers and the protection of the environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Brodzińska & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Adam Pawlewicz, 2020. "The Chosen Socio-Economic Problems of Protecting Valuable Agricultural Land in Natura 2000 Areas in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 348-366.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:1:p:348-366
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1560/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew J Tanentzap & Anthony Lamb & Susan Walker & Andrew Farmer, 2015. "Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    2. Maczka, Krzysztof & Chmielewski, Piotr & Jeran, Agnieszka & Matczak, Piotr & van Riper, Carena J., 2019. "The ecosystem services concept as a tool for public participation in management of Poland’s Natura 2000 network," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 173-183.
    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. Aneta Bełdycka-Bórawska & Piotr Bórawski & Lisa Holden & Tomasz Rokicki & Bogdan Klepacki, 2022. "Factors Shaping Performance of Polish Biodiesel Producers Participating in the Farm Accountancy Data Network in the Context of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-25, October.

    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. Katarzyna Brodzinska & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Adam Pawlewicz, 2020. "The Chosen Socio-Economic Problems of Protecting Valuable Agricultural Land in Natura 2000 Areas in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 228-245.
    2. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Strzelecka, Marianna & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Akhshik, Arash & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2021. "Environmental justice in Natura 2000 conservation conflicts: The case for resident empowerment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    5. Chen, Yuquan & Fan, Shenggen & Liu, Chang & Yu, Xiaohua, 2022. "Is there a tradeoff between nature reserves and grain production in China?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    6. Pedro Pérez Medina & María Guadalupe Galindo Mendoza & Gregorio Álvarez Fuentes & Leonardo David Tenorio Martínez & Valter Armando Barrera López, 2023. "Economic Assessment of the Impact of the Sugarcane Industry: An Empirical Approach with Two Focuses for San Luis Potosí, México," J, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, June.
    7. Etter, Andrés & Andrade, Angela & Nelson, Cara R. & Cortés, Juliana & Saavedra, Kelly, 2020. "Assessing restoration priorities for high-risk ecosystems: An application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    8. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Farkas, Jenő Zsolt & Kovács, András Donát, 2021. "Nature conservation versus agriculture in the light of socio-economic changes over the last half-century–Case study from a Hungarian national park," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    10. Gábor Bakó & Zsolt Molnár & Lilla Bakk & Ferenc Horváth & Luca Fehér & Örs Ábrám & Edina Morvai & Csaba Biro & Gergely Pápay & Attila Fűrész & Károly Penksza & Diána Pácsonyi & Krisztina Demény & Erik, 2021. "Toward a High Spatial Resolution Aerial Monitoring Network for Nature Conservation—How Can Remote Sensing Help Protect Natural Areas?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Raza Ullah & Zubair Aslam & Mansoor Maitah & Qamar uz Zaman & Safdar Bashir & Waseem Hassan & Zhongbing Chen, 2020. "Sustainable Weed Control and Enhancing Nutrient Use Efficiency in Crops through Brassica ( Brassica compestris L.) Allelopathy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-17, July.
    12. Carla Inguaggiato & Michele Graziano Ceddia & Maurice Tschopp & Dimitris Christopoulos, 2021. "Collaborative Governance Networks: A Case Study of Argentina’s Forest Law," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-14, September.
    13. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    14. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    15. Czarnecki, Adam & Milczarek-Andrzejewska, Dominika & Widła-Domaradzki, Łukasz & Jórasz-Żak, Anna, 2023. "Conflict dynamics over farmland use in the multifunctional countryside," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    16. Bell-James, Justine & Lovelock, Catherine E, 2019. "Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: An Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change mitigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    17. Mollie Chapman & Susanna Klassen & Maayan Kreitzman & Adrian Semmelink & Kelly Sharp & Gerald Singh & Kai M. A. Chan, 2017. "5 Key Challenges and Solutions for Governing Complex Adaptive (Food) Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-30, September.
    18. PANȚA Nancy Diana, 2017. "Arguments In Favor Of Moving To A Sustainable Business Model In The Apiary Industry," Studies in Business and Economics, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Economic Sciences, vol. 12(3), pages 159-170, December.
    19. Luis R Carrasco & Edward L Webb & William S Symes & Lian P Koh & Navjot S Sodhi, 2017. "Global economic trade-offs between wild nature and tropical agriculture," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-22, July.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Natura 2000 areas (N2000); Common Agricultural Policy (CAP); Agri-environment program; agriculture; biodiversity;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • P16 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Capitalist Institutions; Welfare State
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification
    • Z18 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Public Policy

    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:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:1:p:348-366. 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: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    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.