IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i24p10534-d463217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Results of Implementing Less-Favoured Area Subsidies in the 2014–2020 Time Frame: Are the Measures of Environmental Concern Complementary?

Author

Listed:
  • Jana Poláková

    (Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic)

  • Josef Soukup

    (Department of Agroecology and Crop Production, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 16500 Prague, Czech Republic)

Abstract

This article collated and interpreted data on land-based measures and capital investments support in Central Europe. Data collection is essential, due to more EU funds being distributed after 2020. Most evaluations focus on outcomes of agri-environmental measures within the most populous Member States. Unlike previous work, empirical data was hereby assessed on the public support of three measures of environmental concern to farmers (less favored area measure, capital investments, and agri-environmental measures). The study examined whether public goods are complementary. A prevailing focus was on spending for the farms in less favored areas, now renamed Areas of Natural Constraint (ANC). Cluster analysis was employed for seven countries out of 105 rural development programs (RDPs). The Countries include Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. The average share of the wider ANC measures was 0.31 of the total public funds. Within Central Europe, Hungary sets aside the smallest share (0.17), whereas the Czech Republic and Austria introduced a slightly larger share (0.51). All RDPs identified Capital Investments in physical assets as one of the significant measures. The study found that public goods for biodiversity and landscapes were entailed in the ANC measures, although the extent of measure complementarity across all regions will require further investigation. Finally, unresolved questions about expenditure are highlighted.

Suggested Citation

  • Jana Poláková & Josef Soukup, 2020. "Results of Implementing Less-Favoured Area Subsidies in the 2014–2020 Time Frame: Are the Measures of Environmental Concern Complementary?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10534-:d:463217
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10534/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/24/10534/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    2. Jürgen Meyerhoff & Ulf Liebe, 2009. "Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 85(3), pages 515-528.
    3. George P. Zanias, 2002. "The Distribution of CAP Benefits among Member States and the Impact of a Partial Re‐nationalisation: A Note," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 108-112, March.
    4. Mathijs, Erik & Swinnen, Johan F M, 1998. "The Economics of Agricultural Decollectivization in East Central Europe and the Former Soviet Union," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 1-26, October.
    5. Fahrmann, Barbara & Grajewski, Regina, 2011. "How expensive is the implementation of rural development programmes? Empirical results of implementation costs and their consideration in cost-effectiveness analyses," 122nd Seminar, February 17-18, 2011, Ancona, Italy 99588, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Andrea Pufahl & Christoph R. Weiss, 2009. "Evaluating the effects of farm programmes: results from propensity score matching," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 36(1), pages 79-101, March.
    7. Paul J. Ferraro & R. David Simpson, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Conservation Payments," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 339-353.
    8. Jerzy Michalek & Pavel Ciaian & d’Artis Kancs, 2014. "Capitalization of the Single Payment Scheme into Land Value: Generalized Propensity Score Evidence from the European Union," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 260-289.
    9. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    10. Ruben N. Lubowski & Andrew J. Plantinga & Robert N. Stavins, 2008. "What Drives Land-Use Change in the United States? A National Analysis of Landowner Decisions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 529-550.
    11. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    12. Nick Hanley & Hilary Kirkpatrick & David Oglethorpe & Ian Simpson, 1998. "Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modelling moorland conservation in Scotland," Chapters, in: John M. Antle & Joseph N. Lekakis & George P. Zanias (ed.), Agriculture, Trade and the Environment, chapter 8, pages 154-169, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Lukas Zagata, 2010. "How organic farmers view their own practice: results from the Czech Republic," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 27(3), pages 277-290, September.
    14. Dienes, Christian, 2015. "Actions and intentions to pay for climate change mitigation: Environmental concern and the role of economic factors," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 122-129.
    15. Czap, Natalia V. & Czap, Hans J., 2010. "An experimental investigation of revealed environmental concern," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(10), pages 2033-2041, August.
    16. Matthew Gorton & Elodie Douarin & Sophia Davidova & Laure Latruffe, 2006. "Attitudes to farming and agricultural policy in the context of 2003 CAP reform: A comparison of farmers in selected established and new Member States," Post-Print hal-02283469, HAL.
    17. Heinz Welsch & Jan Kühling, 2017. "Pan-European patterns of environmental concern: the role of proximity and international integration," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 7(4), pages 473-489, December.
    18. Mark Granovetter, 2005. "The Impact of Social Structure on Economic Outcomes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(1), pages 33-50, Winter.
    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. Štefan Bojnec & Kristina Knific, 2021. "Farm Household Income Diversification as a Survival Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, June.

    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. Eigner, Amanda E. & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2019. "Applied spatial approach of modelling field size changes based on a consideration of farm and landscape interrelations," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    3. Philippe Coent, 2023. "Payment for environmental services related to aquifers: a review of specific issues and existing programmes," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 273-310, December.
    4. Katherine Falconer & Pierre Dupraz & Martin Whitby, 2001. "An Investigation of Policy Administrative Costs Using Panel Data for the English Environmentally Sensitive Areas," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(1), pages 83-103, January.
    5. Claassen, Roger & Savage, Jeff & Loesch, Chuck & Breneman, Vince & Williams, Ryan & Mulvaney, Bill & Fairbanks, Tammy, 2017. "Additionality in Grassland Easements to Provide Migratory Bird Habitat in the Northern Plains," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 42(3), September.
    6. Claassen, Roger & Duquette, Eric & Horowitz, John & Kohei, Ueda, 2014. "Additionality in U.S. Agricultural Conservation and Regulatory Offset Programs," Economic Research Report 180414, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. Oliver Schöttker & Frank Wätzold, 2022. "Climate Change and the Cost-Effective Governance Mode for Biodiversity Conservation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(2), pages 409-436, June.
    8. Woodward, Richard T. & Newburn, David A. & Mezzatesta, Mariano, 2016. "Additionality and reverse crowding out for pollution offsets in water quality trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 224-231.
    9. Börner, Jan & Baylis, Kathy & Corbera, Esteve & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss & Honey-Rosés, Jordi & Persson, U. Martin & Wunder, Sven, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Payments for Environmental Services," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 359-374.
    10. 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.
    11. Calvet, Coralie & Le Coent, Philippe & Napoleone, Claude & Quétier, Fabien, 2019. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offset outcomes through agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from an empirical study in Southern France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 113-125.
    12. Leonhardt, Heidi & Braito, Michael & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2021. "Who participates in agri-environmental schemes? A mixed-methods approach to investigate the role of farmer archetypes in scheme uptake and participation level," FORLand Working Papers 27 (2021), Humboldt University Berlin, DFG Research Unit 2569 FORLand "Agricultural Land Markets – Efficiency and Regulation".
    13. Buchholz, Matthias & Danne, Michael & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "An experimental analysis of German farmers’ decisions to buy or rent farmland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Marita Laukkanen & Céline Nauges, 2014. "Evaluating Greening Farm Policies: A Structural Model for Assessing Agri-environmental Subsidies," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 458-481.
    15. Zoltán Bakucs & Imre Fertő & Zsófia Benedek, 2019. "Success or Waste of Taxpayer Money? Impact Assessment of Rural Development Programs in Hungary," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-23, April.
    16. Baldoni, Edoardo & Ciaian, Pavel, 2023. "The capitalization of CAP subsidies into land prices in the EU," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    17. Riccardo D’Alberto & Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2018. "AES Impact Evaluation With Integrated Farm Data: Combining Statistical Matching and Propensity Score Matching," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-24, November.
    18. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    19. Petrick, Martin, 2008. "Theoretical and methodological topics in the institutional economics of European agriculture. With applications to farm organisation and rural credit arrangements," Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Transition Economies, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), volume 45, number 92318, September.
    20. Michalek, Jerzy, 2022. "Environmental and farm impacts of the EU RDP agri-environmental measures: Evidence from Slovak regions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:24:p:10534-:d:463217. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.