IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fan/ecaqec/vhtml10.3280-ecag3-2020oa11042.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Insights in overcoming the non-adoption of voluntary agricultural ghg mitigation measures in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Lucie Adenaeuer
  • James Breen
  • Anne Hayden

Abstract

Agricultural Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions in Ireland are projected to increase up to 21 Mt CO2eq by 2030 mainly driven by increased dairy cow numbers and increased nitrogen fertiliser use. In response to the growing public awareness of the GHG emissions? environmental impact, the Irish government published the Climate Action Plan in 2019, which identifies the agricultural sector?s leading role in reducing GHG emission and increasing carbon removals to achieve the national GHG emission targets by 2030. Marginal Abatement Cost Curves (MACCs) on Irish GHG emissions have projected the total technically feasible mitigation potential for the Irish agriculture, forestry and land use (AFOLU) sector to be sufficient enough to achieve the set targets by 2030. Although these mitigation measures are available and when implemented, would mostly lead to a win-win situation, the voluntary adaptation rate by farmers is low. This study addresses the most significant determinants of voluntary adoption of mitigation measures by systematically examining existing literature on how and to what extent non-price determinants affectthe voluntary adoption rate of technically feasible mitigation measures in the Irish afolu sector. The main identified nonprice determining factors were the degree of farmers? awareness regarding man-made GHG emissions, receiving agrienvironmental advice, implementation costs, profitability and size of farms, land quality and the type of farm enterprise. Integrating the gained results in the former macc analysis enabled us to adopt the implementation rates of the cost-efficient afolu mitigation measures accordingly. The non-price determinants impact the voluntary uptake rate of AFOLU mitigation measures to the extent that the adjusted total Irish AFOLU abatement potential is 47% lower than technically feasible. Considering that 51.6% of the total estimated AFOLU abatement potential in 2030 is offset through Irish forestry, which at current afforestation rate will turn into a net carbon source by 2035, a significant gap occurs to any potential Irish and EU GHG reduction targets. To substantially help bring the nexus between agricultural development and GHG emission targets in Ireland closer together, policy measures, that differentiate between the different type of AFOLU mitigation measures, need to be implemented to enhance the uptake rate of cost-beneficial and cost-effective measures. This would have the potential to reduce the level of agricultural GHG emissions by 2030 in a way that it would converge towards possible EU and Irish GHG emission reduction targets.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucie Adenaeuer & James Breen & Anne Hayden, 2020. "Insights in overcoming the non-adoption of voluntary agricultural ghg mitigation measures in Ireland," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 22(3), pages 1-26.
    • Handle: RePEc:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag3-2020oa11042
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/Scheda_Rivista.aspx?IDArticolo=67858&Tipo=ArticoloPDF
    Download Restriction: Single articles can be downloaded buying download credits, for info: https://www.francoangeli.it/DownloadCredit
    ---><---

    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. Jean Joseph Minviel & Laure Latruffe, 2017. "Effect of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: a meta-analysis of empirical results," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(2), pages 213-226, January.
    2. Alice Hamilton-Webb & Louise Manning & Rhiannon Naylor & John Conway, 2017. "The relationship between risk experience and risk response: a study of farmers and climate change," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(11), pages 1379-1393, November.
    3. Amir K. Abadi Ghadim & David J. Pannell & Michael P. Burton, 2005. "Risk, uncertainty, and learning in adoption of a crop innovation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(1), pages 1-9, July.
    4. Duesberg, Stefanie & Upton, Vincent & O'Connor, Deirdre & Dhubháin, Áine Ní, 2014. "Factors influencing Irish farmers' afforestation intention," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 13-20.
    5. Tzemi, Domna & Breen, James Patrick, 2019. "Socio-economic factors affecting the adoption of GHG emission abatement practices; the case of spring slurry spreading," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 8(1), August.
    6. Buckley, Cathal & Howley, Peter & Jordan, Phil, 2015. "The role of differing farming motivations on the adoption of nutrient management practices," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 4(4), July.
    7. J. Arbuckle & Linda Prokopy & Tonya Haigh & Jon Hobbs & Tricia Knoot & Cody Knutson & Adam Loy & Amber Mase & Jean McGuire & Lois Morton & John Tyndall & Melissa Widhalm, 2013. "Climate change beliefs, concerns, and attitudes toward adaptation and mitigation among farmers in the Midwestern United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 117(4), pages 943-950, April.
    8. Emily Gray & Lucie Adenäuer & Dorothee Flaig & Frank van Tongeren, 2017. "Evaluation of the relevance of border protection for agriculture in Switzerland," OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 109, OECD Publishing.
    9. Howley, Peter & Buckley, Cathal & O Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary, 2015. "Explaining the economic ‘irrationality’ of farmers' land use behaviour: The role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 186-193.
    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. Andrzej Parzonko & Anna Justyna Parzonko & Piotr Bórawski, 2024. "Economic Competitiveness of Dairy Farms from the Top Milk-Producing Countries in the EU: Assessment in 2014–2021," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-17, January.

    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. Daxini, Amar & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Buckley, Cathal & Barnes, Andrew P., 2018. "Factors influencing farmers' intentions to adopt nutrient management planning: accounting for heterogeneity," 166th Seminar, August 30-31, 2018, Galway, West of Ireland 276183, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273494, Agricultural Economics Society.
    3. Daxini, Amar & O'Donoghue, Cathal & Ryan, Mary & Barnes, Andrew & Buckley, Cathal & Daly, Karen, 2018. "Which factors influence farmers’ intentions to adopt nutrient management planning?," 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 273498, Agricultural Economics Society.
    4. McCormack, Michele, 2023. "Farmer Willingness to Adopt Mitigation Measures for Water Quality Improvements," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334532, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    5. Greiner, Romy & Miller, Owen & Patterson, Louisa, 2008. "The role of grazier motivations and risk attitudes in the adoption of grazing best management practices," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6002, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. repec:hal:journl:hal-04670841 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Adom, Philip Kofi & Adams, Samuel, 2020. "Decomposition of technical efficiency in agricultural production in Africa into transient and persistent technical efficiency under heterogeneous technologies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    9. Senthold Asseng & David Pannell, 2013. "Adapting dryland agriculture to climate change: Farming implications and research and development needs in Western Australia," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 167-181, May.
    10. Mark K. McBeth & Donna L. Lybecker & James W. Stoutenborough, 2016. "Do stakeholders analyze their audience? The communication switch and stakeholder personal versus public communication choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 49(4), pages 421-444, December.
    11. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    12. Dakpo, K Hervé & Latruffe, Laure & Desjeux, Yann, 2024. "Valuing Output Losses and Potential Pesticide Reduction in French Wine Production: Integrating Agronomic Principles in Production Frontier," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 344050, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Beatrice Dingha & Leah Sandler & Arnab Bhowmik & Clement Akotsen-Mensah & Louis Jackai & Kevin Gibson & Ronald Turco, 2019. "Industrial Hemp Knowledge and Interest among North Carolina Organic Farmers in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Beltran, Jesusa C. & Pannell, David J. & Doole, Graeme J. & White, Benedict, 2011. "Factors that affect the use of herbicides in Philippine rice farming systems," Working Papers 108769, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    15. Fang, Lan & Quan, Yurong & Mao, Hui & Chen, Shaojian, 2022. "The Information Communication Technology and Off-farm Employment of Rural Laborers: An Analysis Based on the Micro Data of China Family Panel Studies," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322088, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Kotsiri, Sofia & Rejesus, Roderick M. & Marra, Michele C. & Velandia, Margarita M., 2011. "Farmers' Perceptions about Spatial Yield Variability and Precision Farming Technology Adoption: An Empirical Study of Cotton Production in 12 Southeastern States," 2011 Annual Meeting, February 5-8, 2011, Corpus Christi, Texas 98689, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    17. Ryan, Mary & O’Donoghue, Cathal & Hynes, Stephen, 2018. "Heterogeneous economic and behavioural drivers of the Farm afforestation decision," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 63-74.
    18. Kondylis, Florence & Mueller, Valerie, 2012. "Seeing is Believing? Evidence from a Demonstration Plot Experiment in Mozambique:," MSSP working papers 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    19. 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.
    20. Okumah, Murat & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Chapman, Pippa J. & Novo, Paula & Cassidy, Rachel & Lyon, Christopher & Higgins, Alex & Doody, Donnacha, 2021. "The role of experiential learning in the adoption of best land management practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    21. Theodoros Skevas & Ray Massey & Jasper Grashuis, 2022. "Farmer adoption and intensity of use of extreme weather adaptation and mitigation strategies: evidence from a sample of Missouri farmers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), 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:fan:ecaqec:v:html10.3280/ecag3-2020oa11042. 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: Stefania Rosato (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.francoangeli.it/riviste/sommario.aspx?IDRivista=214 .

    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.