IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/inrasl/211000.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Fixed costs involved in crop pattern changes and agri-environmental schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Espinosa-Goded, Maria
  • Dupraz, Pierre
  • Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesùs

Abstract

Agri-environmental schemes are the main policy instrument currently available in the European Union to promote environmentally friendly farming practices. Nevertheless, the adoption rate of these measures is still limited. This paper develops a profit maximizer theoretical framework to explain the farmer’s sign-up decision and the area to put under an agri-environmental measure characterised by a change in the crop pattern. The application concerns an agri-environmental measure awarding the introduction of alfalfa in cereal farms in Natura 2000 designated areas of Aragon (Spain). The econometric specification accounts for both the upper censoring of the enrolled area, constrained by the available eligible area, and the self-selection of contractors according to the extra-profit of their enrolment. To test the absence of fixed costs of enrolment, a simple tobit with a lower and an upper bound, that corresponds to the non fixed costs situation, is compared to the censored model with selection. Estimated specifications based on the enrolled area do not provided normally distributed residues and are not suitable to carry out the likelihood ratio test. Estimated specifications based on the share of enrolled area in the eligible area provide normally distributed residues. The likelihood ratio test rejects the absence of fixed costs. Technical factors as well as social capital variables are taken into consideration as determinants of technical and transaction costs. Estimation results show that there is an adoption barrier derived from the know-how affecting the fixed compliance costs of introducing the new crop. In addition, there is an adoption barrier derived from transaction costs which are reduced in the presence of social networks. These results suggest that a non linear payment mechanism or auctions might be suitable to ensure a better coverage of Natura 2000 eligible areas by the contracts, with a limited increase in related public expenditures.

Suggested Citation

  • Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre & Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesùs, 2009. "Fixed costs involved in crop pattern changes and agri-environmental schemes," Working Papers 211000, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:inrasl:211000
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.211000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/211000/files/WP%20SMART-LERECO%2009-15.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.211000?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre, 2008. "Does Intensity Of Change Matter? Factors Affecting Adoption In Two Agri-Environmental Schemes," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6458, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Thilo Glebe & Klaus Salhofer, 2007. "EU agri‐environmental programs and the “restaurant table effect”," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 37(2‐3), pages 211-218, September.
    3. Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & Maria Espinosa-Goded & Pierre Dupraz, 2010. "Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(7), pages 891-905.
    4. Joseph Cooper & Giovanni Signorello, 2008. "Farmer Premiums for the Voluntary Adoption of Conservation Plans," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 1-14.
    5. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Carel Van der Hamsvoort, 1997. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 79(2), pages 407-418.
    6. 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.
    7. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz, 2007. "The asset specificity issue in the private provision of environmental services: Evidence from agro-environmental contracts," Post-Print hal-01931632, HAL.
    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. 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.
    2. Unay-Gailhard, İlkay & Bojnec, Štefan, 2015. "Farm size and participation in agri-environmental measures: Farm-level evidence from Slovenia," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 46, pages 273-282.
    3. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre, 2008. "Re-considering Agri-Environmental Schemes premiums: the impact of fixed costs in sign-up decisions," 2008 International Congress, August 26-29, 2008, Ghent, Belgium 43606, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. Philippe Le Coent & Coralie Calvet, 2016. "Challenges of achieving biodiversity offsetting through agri-environmental schemes: evidence from an empirical study," Working Papers 16-10, LAMETA, Universtiy of Montpellier.
    5. 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.
    6. Barreiro-Hurlé, Jesús & Espinosa-Goded, Maria & Dupraz, Pierre, 2008. "Does Intensity Of Change Matter? Factors Affecting Adoption In Two Agri-Environmental Schemes," 107th Seminar, January 30-February 1, 2008, Sevilla, Spain 6458, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Anne GASSIAT & Sylvain ROUSSET & Frèdèric ZAHM, 2011. "Improving water quality with a territorial agro-environmental policy? Insights from the new generation AES in South-West France," ERSA conference papers ersa10p1569, European Regional Science Association.
    8. Woldegebrial Zeweld & Guido Van Huylenbroeck & Girmay Tesfay & Hossein Azadi & Stijn Speelman, 2018. "Impacts of Socio-Psychological Factors on Actual Adoption of Sustainable Land Management Practices in Dryland and Water Stressed Areas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-23, August.
    9. 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.
    10. Ha, Arthur & O'Neill, Terry & Strappazzon, Loris & Stoneham, Gary, 2003. "Bush Tender Participation in First Bidding Round: What are the Characteristics of Rural Landholders who Participated?," 2003 Conference (47th), February 12-14, 2003, Fremantle, Australia 57882, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    11. Stine Broch & Suzanne Vedel, 2012. "Using Choice Experiments to Investigate the Policy Relevance of Heterogeneity in Farmer Agri-Environmental Contract Preferences," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(4), pages 561-581, April.
    12. Laure Kuhfuss & Florence Jacquet & Raphaële Preget & Sophie Thoyer, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 93(4), pages 395-422.
    13. Bertoni, Danilo & Olper, Alessandro, 2012. "The Political Economy Of Agri-Environmental Measures: An Empirical Assessment At The Eu Regional Level," APSTRACT: Applied Studies in Agribusiness and Commerce, AGRIMBA, vol. 6(3-4), pages 1-12, November.
    14. Vogt, Nora & Bizer, Kilian, 2013. "Lock-in effects in competitive bidding schemes for payments for ecosystem services: Revisiting the fundamental transformation," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 158, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    15. Cardona Santos, Elsa & Storm, Hugo & Rasch, Sebastian, 2021. "The cost-effectiveness of conservation auctions in the presence of asset specificity: An agent-based model," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    17. 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).
    18. Hansen, Kristiana & Frahan, Bruno Henry de, 2011. "Evaluation of Agro-Environmental Policy through a Calibrated Simulation Farm Model," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114577, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. 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).
    20. Whitten, Stuart M. & Reeson, Andrew & Windle, Jill & Rolfe, John, 2013. "Designing conservation tenders to support landholder participation: A framework and case study assessment," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 82-92.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environmental Economics and Policy;

    JEL classification:

    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets
    • Q15 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Land Ownership and Tenure; Land Reform; Land Use; Irrigation; Agriculture and Environment
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy
    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D24 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Production; Cost; Capital; Capital, Total Factor, and Multifactor Productivity; Capacity
    • C24 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models; Threshold Regression Models
    • C34 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Truncated and Censored Models; Switching Regression Models

    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:ags:inrasl:211000. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inrapfr.html .

    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.