IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v177y2024i8d10.1007_s10584-024-03787-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Agricultural soils in climate change mitigation: comparing action-based and results-based programmes for carbon sequestration

Author

Listed:
  • Julia B. Block

    (Georg-August-University Göttingen)

  • Daniel Hermann

    (Institute for Food- and Resource Economics, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University Bonn)

  • Oliver Mußhoff

    (Georg-August-University Göttingen)

Abstract

Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere is a major challenge for today’s society. A great source of potential for greenhouse gas sequestration is beneath our feet: agricultural soil. By accumulating soil organic carbon in soil, farmers can sequester carbon dioxide and simultaneously reach soils more resilient to extreme weather events. To encourage farmers to build up humus and thus sequester carbon, some humus programmes have been developed by non-governmental organisations. In this regard, action-based reward systems are on their way to challenging the established results-based approaches. Against this background, we analyse how action-based and results-based approaches, as well as other crucial features of humus programmes, affect farmers’ willingness to participate in a humus programme. We conducted a Discrete-Choice-Experiment and analysed it using a mixed logit model. The results show that farmers have a statistically significant preference for action-based humus programmes, shorter programme durations, higher incentives, and an annual and government-funded payment. More specifically, farmer participation is twice as likely if humus formation is rewarded for action rather than results. The willingness-to-accept calculation indicates that a results-based humus programme would cost the funding agency about €20 more per ton of carbon dioxide sequestered in the soil. Above all, humus programmes with an action-based approach and annual payments would increase farmers’ willingness to participate. Our results contribute to the development of targeted humus programmes and policies to increase carbon sequestration in agricultural soils.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia B. Block & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Mußhoff, 2024. "Agricultural soils in climate change mitigation: comparing action-based and results-based programmes for carbon sequestration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 177(8), pages 1-21, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03787-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-024-03787-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-024-03787-2
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-024-03787-2?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. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Ermittlung der Teilnahmebereitschaft an Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen und der dafür notwendigen Ausgleichszahlungen mit Hilfe eines Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Lyubov Kurkalova & Catherine Kling & Jinhua Zhao, 2006. "Green Subsidies in Agriculture: Estimating the Adoption Costs of Conservation Tillage from Observed Behavior," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 54(2), pages 247-267, June.
    3. Anthony Louis D'Agostino & Wolfram Schlenker, 2016. "Recent weather fluctuations and agricultural yields: implications for climate change," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 47(S1), pages 159-171, November.
    4. Charles F. Parker & Christer Karlsson, 2010. "Climate Change and the European Union's Leadership Moment: An Inconvenient Truth?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 923-943, September.
    5. Nick Hanley & Susana Mourato & Robert E. Wright, 2001. "Choice Modelling Approaches: A Superior Alternative for Environmental Valuatioin?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 435-462, July.
    6. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Ermittlung der Teilnahmebereitschaft an Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen und der dafür notwendigen Ausgleichszahlungen mit Hilfe eines Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(4).
    7. Shannan K. Sweet & Jonathon P. Schuldt & Johannes Lehmann & Deborah A. Bossio & Dominic Woolf, 2021. "Perceptions of naturalness predict US public support for Soil Carbon Storage as a climate solution," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-15, May.
    8. repec:bla:jcmkts:v:48:y:2010:i::p:923-943 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Martin A. Bolinder & Felicity Crotty & Annemie Elsen & Magdalena Frac & Tamás Kismányoky & Jerzy Lipiec & Mia Tits & Zoltán Tóth & Thomas Kätterer, 2020. "The effect of crop residues, cover crops, manures and nitrogen fertilization on soil organic carbon changes in agroecosystems: a synthesis of reviews," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 929-952, August.
    10. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    11. Läpple, Doris & Rensburg, Tom Van, 2011. "Adoption of organic farming: Are there differences between early and late adoption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(7), pages 1406-1414, May.
    12. Defrancesco, Edi & Gatto, Paola & Mozzato, Daniele, 2018. "To leave or not to leave? Understanding determinants of farmers’ choices to remain in or abandon agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 460-470.
    13. Paulus, Anne & Hagemann, Nina & Baaken, Marieke C. & Roilo, Stephanie & Alarcón-Segura, Viviana & Cord, Anna F. & Beckmann, Michael, 2022. "Landscape context and farm characteristics are key to farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    14. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    15. Mack, Gabriele & Ritzel, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2020. "Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    16. Isabel Vanslembrouck & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Wim Verbeke, 2002. "Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri‐environmental Measures," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3), pages 489-511, November.
    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. François J Dessart & Jesús Barreiro-Hurlé & René van Bavel, 2019. "Behavioural factors affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: a policy-oriented review," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 417-471.
    2. Marek Zieliński & Jan Jadczyszyn & Jolanta Sobierajewska, 2023. "Predispositions and challenges of agriculture from areas particularly facing natural or other specific constraints in Poland in the context of providing environmental public goods under EU policy," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 69(8), pages 309-320.
    3. Daniele Mozzato & Paola Gatto & Edi Defrancesco & Lucia Bortolini & Francesco Pirotti & Elena Pisani & Luigi Sartori, 2018. "The Role of Factors Affecting the Adoption of Environmentally Friendly Farming Practices: Can Geographical Context and Time Explain the Differences Emerging from Literature?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    4. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-17, November.
    5. Christian A. Vossler & Maurice Doyon & Daniel Rondeau, 2012. "Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(4), pages 145-171, November.
    6. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Societal attitudes in ovo gender determination as an alternative to chick culling," DARE Discussion Papers 1906, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    7. Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2018. "Producers' valuation of animal welfare practices: Does herd size matter?," DARE Discussion Papers 1801, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    8. Brown, Calum & Kovács, Eszter & Herzon, Irina & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Albizua, Amaia & Galanaki, Antonia & Grammatikopoulou, Ioanna & McCracken, Davy & Olsson, Johanna Alkan & Zinngrebe, Yves, 2021. "Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    9. Reithmayer, Corrinna & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2019. "Look at that! - The effect pictures have on consumer preferences for in ovo gender determination as an alternative to culling male chicks," DARE Discussion Papers 1907, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    10. Seroa da Motta, Ronaldo & Ortiz, Ramon Arigoni, 2018. "Costs and Perceptions Conditioning Willingness to Accept Payments for Ecosystem Services in a Brazilian Case," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 333-342.
    11. Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Ruto, Eric, 2009. "Modeling Farmers Prefences For Agrienvironmental Scheme Design: A Spanish Case Study," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 50328, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2015. "Nudging farmers to sign agri-environmental contracts: the effects of a collective bonus," Working Papers hal-01148581, HAL.
    13. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Weituschat, Chiara Sophia & Pascucci, Stefano & Materia, Valentina Cristiana & Caracciolo, Francesco, 2023. "Can contract farming support sustainable intensification in agri-food value chains?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    15. Danne, M. & Musshoff, O. & Schulte, M., 2019. "Analysing the importance of glyphosate as part of agricultural strategies: A discrete choice experiment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 189-207.
    16. Canessa, Carolin & Ait-Sidhoum, Amer & Wunder, Sven & Sauer, Johannes, 2024. "What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    17. Qingyin Cai & Yulian Ding & Calum Tuvey & Yuehua Zhang, 2021. "The influence of past experience on farmers’ preferences for hog insurance products: a natural experiment and choice experiment in China," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 46(3), pages 399-421, July.
    18. Sauthoff, Saramena & Danne, Michael & Mußhoff, Oliver, 2017. "To switch or not to switch? – Understanding German consumers’ willingness to pay for green electricity tariff attributes," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260771, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    19. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Nudging farmers to enrol land into agri-environmental schemes: the role of a collective bonus," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 43(4), pages 609-636.
    20. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, Journal of International Agricultural Trade and Development, vol. 62(4).

    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:spr:climat:v:177:y:2024:i:8:d:10.1007_s10584-024-03787-2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.