IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i18p7881-d1474752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial Differentiation in the Use of Rural Development Programme Funds for the Environment in Poland for the Periods 2007–2013 and 2014–2020

Author

Listed:
  • Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka

    (Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznan, Poland)

  • Arkadiusz Sadowski

    (Faculty of Economics, Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Poznan, Poland)

  • Marek Wigier

    (Institute of Agricultural and Food Economics—National Research Institute, 00-002 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to assess the changes in agricultural producers’ use of funds allocated for environmental measures under the 2007–2013 RDP (Rural Development Program) and 2014–2020 RDP in Poland. The extent to which environmental CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) funds are used was examined on a geographic basis, so as to take account of socioeconomic and environmental characteristics of districts. Correlation analysis and a cartographic method were used. The study found growing differences in how the funds are used between territorial units. The analysis of correlation provided grounds for concluding that a relationship exists between the share of environmental funds used in total RDP payments and environmental conditions, mostly including the share of permanent pasture in the structure of agricultural land (0.515 in 2014–2020). Conversely, no relationship was discovered between the level of wealth and the local agrarian structure (0.249 and 0.327 in 2014–2020). The analysis of differences between territorial units revealed that in some geographic areas that had the potential for being granted environmental funds, the farmers decided not to apply for them. Based on the above, it was concluded that the potential beneficiaries’ activity in that respect is largely impacted not only by their environmental awareness and attitude but also by historical events.

Suggested Citation

  • Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka & Arkadiusz Sadowski & Marek Wigier, 2024. "Spatial Differentiation in the Use of Rural Development Programme Funds for the Environment in Poland for the Periods 2007–2013 and 2014–2020," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:18:p:7881-:d:1474752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/7881/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/18/7881/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Allanson, 2008. "On the Characterisation and Measurement of the Redistributive Effect of Agricultural Policy," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 169-187, February.
    2. Indhira Santos, 2008. "Evaluating EU structural policy," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 30(2), pages 195-208, December.
    3. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    4. John Bachtler & Grzegorz Gorzelak, 2007. "Reforming Eu Cohesion Policy," Policy Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 309-326.
    5. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    6. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    7. David Tilman & Kenneth G. Cassman & Pamela A. Matson & Rosamond Naylor & Stephen Polasky, 2002. "Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices," Nature, Nature, vol. 418(6898), pages 671-677, August.
    8. Roberto Esposti, 2007. "Regional Growth and Policies in the European Union: Does the Common Agricultural Policy Have a Counter-Treatment Effect?," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 116-134.
    9. John Bradley, 2006. "Evaluating the impact of European Union Cohesion policy in less-developed countries and regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 189-200.
    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. Ewa Kiryluk-Dryjska & Agnieszka Baer-Nawrocka, 2021. "Regional Differences in Benefits from the EU Common Agricultural Policy in Poland and Their Policy Implications," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, March.
    2. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    3. Trautman, Dawn & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Unterschultz, James R., 2012. "Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs," Project Report Series 139638, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. Baba, S.H. & Wani, S.A., 2018. "Ecosystem Management Approach for Agricultural Growth in Mountains: Farmers Perception of Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services in Kashmir-India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277556, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Lin, Yi-Hsing & Hong, Chun-Fu & Lee, Chun-Hung & Chen, Chih-Cheng, 2020. "Integrating Aspects of Ecosystem Dimensions into Sorghum and Wheat Production Areas in Kinmen, Taiwan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Liu, Wenjing & Wang, Jingsheng & Li, Chao & Chen, Baoxiong & Sun, Yufang, 2019. "Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 293-305.
    7. Mercedes Beltrán-Esteve & Andrés J. Picazo-Tadeo & Ernest Reig-Martínez, 2012. "What makes a citrus farmer go organic? Empirical evidence from Spanish citrus farming," Working Papers 1205, Department of Applied Economics II, Universidad de Valencia.
    8. Kirchner, Mathias & Schmidt, Johannes & Kindermann, Georg & Kulmer, Veronika & Mitter, Hermine & Prettenthaler, Franz & Rüdisser, Johannes & Schauppenlehner, Thomas & Schönhart, Martin & Strauss, Fran, 2015. "Ecosystem services and economic development in Austrian agricultural landscapes — The impact of policy and climate change scenarios on trade-offs and synergies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 161-174.
    9. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    10. Sara Palomo-Campesino & José A. González & Marina García-Llorente, 2018. "Exploring the Connections between Agroecological Practices and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    11. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    12. Elisa Morri & Riccardo Santolini, 2021. "Ecosystem Services Valuation for the Sustainable Land Use Management by Nature-Based Solution (NbS) in the Common Agricultural Policy Actions: A Case Study on the Foglia River Basin (Marche Region, It," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Shah, Syed Mahboob & Liu, Gengyuan & Yang, Qing & Casazza, Marco & Agostinho, Feni & Giannetti, Biagio F., 2021. "Sustainability assessment of agriculture production systems in Pakistan: A provincial-scale energy-based evaluation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 455(C).
    14. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    15. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    16. Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Identifying obstacles to the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115992, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    18. Lucia Rocchi & Antonio Boggia & Luisa Paolotti, 2020. "Sustainable Agricultural Systems: A Bibliometrics Analysis of Ecological Modernization Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-16, November.
    19. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    20. Elisa Oteros-Rozas & Federica Ravera & Marina García-Llorente, 2019. "How Does Agroecology Contribute to the Transitions towards Social-Ecological Sustainability?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-13, August.

    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:16:y:2024:i:18:p:7881-:d:1474752. 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.