IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04523614.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Payments for environmental services with ecological thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a sponsorship bonus

Author

Listed:
  • Fanny Le Gloux

    (SMART - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Rennes Angers - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • Carole Ropars-Collet

    (SMART - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Rennes Angers - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • Alice Issanchou

    (SMART - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Rennes Angers - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

  • Pierre Dupraz

    (SMART - Structures et Marché Agricoles, Ressources et Territoires - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Rennes Angers - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement)

Abstract

Designing incentives for agri-environmental public good provision with threshold effects calls for payment mechanisms favouring critical mass participation and continuity of commitments at the landscape scale. We conducted a choice experiment to test the acceptability of a bonus in a scheme for improving river water quality in France. We introduce a sponsorship bonus each time the farmer convinces a peer into entering the scheme, which can be combined with a collective result bonus per hectare if the river reaches a higher step on the water quality scale. We consider the involvement of local financers could increase the willingness to pay beyond opportunity costs and income foregone and propose higher levels of payment than agri-environmental schemes. Results suggest a sponsorship bonus on its own is cost-effective. We characterize respondents' heterogeneity and identify three groups based on choice patterns: (i) "pro-environment individualists", (ii) "management change averse" farmers, and (iii) "pro-incentive" farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanny Le Gloux & Carole Ropars-Collet & Alice Issanchou & Pierre Dupraz, 2024. "Payments for environmental services with ecological thresholds: farmers’ preferences for a sponsorship bonus," Post-Print hal-04523614, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04523614
    DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2024.2303738
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04523614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04523614/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/09640568.2024.2303738?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. Le Coent, Philippe & Préget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2017. "Compensating Environmental Losses Versus Creating Environmental Gains: Implications for Biodiversity Offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 120-129.
    2. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    3. 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.
    4. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    5. Grolleau, Gilles & McCann, Laura M.J., 2012. "Designing watershed programs to pay farmers for water quality services: Case studies of Munich and New York City," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 87-94.
    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. Jeremy Franks, 2011. "The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(5), pages 637-660.
    8. Pierre Dupraz & Maria Espinosa Goded & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle, 2013. "Identifying additional barriers in the adoption of agri-environmental schemes: the role of fixed costs," Post-Print hal-01208850, HAL.
    9. Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Gunnar Breustedt, 2019. "Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(3), pages 495-528.
    10. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    11. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    12. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    13. A.J. Villanueva & M. Rodríguez-Entrena & M. Arriaza & J.A. Gómez-Limón, 2017. "Heterogeneity of farmers' preferences towards agri-environmental schemes across different agricultural subsystems," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 684-707, April.
    14. Anne-Charlotte Vaissière & Léa Tardieu & Fabien Quétier & Sébastien Roussel, 2018. "Preferences for biodiversity offset contracts on arable land: a choice experiment study with farmers," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 45(4), pages 553-582.
    15. Dupraz, Pierre & Pech, Michel, 2007. "Effets des mesures agro-environnementales," INRAE Sciences Sociales, Institut national de recherche pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (INRAE), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2), vol. 2007, pages 1-6, September.
    16. Matteo Zavalloni & Meri Raggi & Davide Viaggi, 2019. "Agri-environmental Policies and Public Goods: An Assessment of Coalition Incentives and Minimum Participation Rules," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(4), pages 1023-1040, April.
    17. Pierre Dupraz & Karine Latouche & Nadine Turpin, 2009. "Threshold effect and co-ordination of agri-environmental efforts," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 613-630.
    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. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Bougherara, Douadia & Lapierre, Margaux & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2021. "Do farmers prefer increasing, decreasing, or stable payments in Agri-environmental schemes?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    3. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    4. Marie Asma Ben-Othmen & Mariia Ostapchuk, 2023. "How diverse are farmers’ preferences for large-scale grassland ecological restoration? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 341-375, December.
    5. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Sergei Schaub & Jaboury Ghazoul & Robert Huber & Wei Zhang & Adelaide Sander & Charles Rees & Simanti Banerjee & Robert Finger, 2023. "The role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' participation in voluntary agri‐environmental schemes: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 617-660, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Huber, Robert & Zabel, Astrid & Schleiffer, Mirjam & Vroege, Willemijn & Brändle, Julia M. & Finger, Robert, 2021. "Conservation Costs Drive Enrolment in Agglomeration Bonus Scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    10. Sponagel, Christian & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Piepho, Hans-Peter & Bahrs, Enno, 2021. "Farmers’ preferences for nature conservation compensation measures with a focus on eco-accounts according to the German Nature Conservation Act," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2021. "Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    12. Lapierre, Margaux & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Bougherara, Douadia & Préget, Raphaële & Sauquet, Alexandre, 2023. "Designing agri-environmental schemes to cope with uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    13. Mamine, Fateh & Fares, M'hand & Minviel, Jean Joseph, 2020. "Contract Design for Adoption of Agrienvironmental Practices: A Meta-analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    14. Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Gómez-Limón, José A., 2022. "Willingness to accept for rewilding farmland in environmentally sensitive areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    15. Romy Greiner, 2023. "Examining Participation in and Supply of Private Land for Voluntary Conservation in Australia’s Tropical Savannas: A Discrete-Continuous Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, June.
    16. 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.
    17. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    18. 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).
    19. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    20. Hecker, Lutz Philip & Sturm, Astrid & Querhammer, Lisa & Wätzold, Frank, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of state-dependent versus state-independent agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Water quality; Choice experiment; Collective action; Mixed logit model; Latent class model;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:journl:hal-04523614. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.