IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04869177.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How integrating nature-based solutions into farmers' strategies can play on inefficient use of polluting inputs

Author

Listed:
  • Jérôme Faure

    (CEBC - Centre d'Études Biologiques de Chizé - UMR 7372 - ULR - La Rochelle Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Esther Devilliers

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - AgroParisTech - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) - Université de Haute-Alsace (UHA) Mulhouse - Colmar - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

Abstract

This article examines how integrating nature-based solutions into agricultural strategies can address the inefficient use of polluting technological solutions. A theoretical microeconomic model, based on subjective expected utility, is developed and empirically tested on rapeseed cultivation. The study highlights the overuse of polluting technological solutions and the underuse of nature-based solutions, driven by inaccurate perceptions of input productivity. The article provides recommendations for public policies aimed at correcting these perceptions and optimizing the use of inputs by balancing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for both nature-based and polluting technological solutions. The findings suggest that policies focused on correcting misperceptions about polluting technological solutions are more effective than those focused on nature-based solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jérôme Faure & Esther Devilliers, 2023. "How integrating nature-based solutions into farmers' strategies can play on inefficient use of polluting inputs," Post-Print hal-04869177, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04869177
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.science/hal-04869177v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.science/hal-04869177v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John M. Antle & Susan M. Capalbo, 2001. "Econometric-Process Models for Integrated Assessment of Agricultural Production Systems," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(2), pages 389-401.
    2. Joost M.E. Pennings & Philip Garcia, 2001. "Measuring Producers' Risk Preferences: A Global Risk-Attitude Construct," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 993-1009.
    3. Niklas Möhring & Martina Bozzola & Stefan Hirsch & Robert Finger, 2020. "Are pesticides risk decreasing? The relevance of pesticide indicator choice in empirical analysis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(3), pages 429-444, May.
    4. Alfons Lansink & Elvira Silva, 2004. "Non-Parametric Production Analysis of Pesticides Use in the Netherlands," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 49-65, January.
    5. Hardaker, J. Brian & Lien, Gudbrand, 2010. "Probabilities for decision analysis in agriculture and rural resource economics: The need for a paradigm change," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(6), pages 345-350, July.
    6. Salomé Kahindo & Stéphane Blancard, 2022. "Reducing pesticide use through optimal reallocation at different spatial scales: The case of French arable farming," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 648-666, July.
    7. Jean-Paul Chavas & Robert G. Chambers & Rulon D. Pope, 2010. "Production Economics and Farm Management: a Century of Contributions," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 92(2), pages 356-375.
    8. Esther Duflo & Michael Kremer & Jonathan Robinson, 2011. "Nudging Farmers to Use Fertilizer: Theory and Experimental Evidence from Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(6), pages 2350-2390, October.
    9. Guan Zhengfei & Alfons Oude Lansink & Ada Wossink & Ruud Huirne, 2005. "Damage control inputs: a comparison of conventional and organic farming systems," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 167-189, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Roberta Raffaelli, 2013. "Risk Aversion, Subjective Beliefs, and Farmer Risk Management Strategies," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 384-389.
    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. Robert Huber & Hang Xiong & Kevin Keller & Robert Finger, 2022. "Bridging behavioural factors and standard bio‐economic modelling in an agent‐based modelling framework," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 35-63, February.
    2. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    3. Komarek, Adam M. & De Pinto, Alessandro & Smith, Vincent H., 2020. "A review of types of risks in agriculture: What we know and what we need to know," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    4. Marius Eisele & Christian Troost & Thomas Berger, 2021. "How Bayesian Are Farmers When Making Climate Adaptation Decisions? A Computer Laboratory Experiment for Parameterising Models of Expectation Formation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 805-828, September.
    5. 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).
    6. Reynaud, Arnaud & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2024. "Re-calibrating beliefs about peers: Direct impacts and cross-learning effects in agriculture," TSE Working Papers 24-1517, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    7. Mack, G. & Finger, R. & Ammann, J. & El Benni, N., 2023. "Modelling policies towards pesticide-free agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    8. Nadia A. Streletskaya & Samuel D. Bell & Maik Kecinski & Tongzhe Li & Simanti Banerjee & Leah H. Palm‐Forster & David Pannell, 2020. "Agricultural Adoption and Behavioral Economics: Bridging the Gap," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 54-66, March.
    9. Céline Nauges & Douadia Bougherara & Estelle Koussoubé, 2022. "Fertilizer use and risk: New evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Post-Print hal-04971769, HAL.
    10. Ladina Knapp & David Wuepper & Robert Finger, 2021. "Preferences, personality, aspirations, and farmer behavior," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 901-913, November.
    11. Salomé Kahindo & Stéphane Blancard, 2022. "Reducing pesticide use through optimal reallocation at different spatial scales: The case of French arable farming," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(4), pages 648-666, July.
    12. Möhring, Niklas & Finger, Robert, 2022. "Pesticide-free but not organic: Adoption of a large-scale wheat production standard in Switzerland," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Chai, Yuan & J. Pannell, David & G. Pardey, Philip, 2023. "Nudging farmers to reduce water pollution from nitrogen fertilizer," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    14. Ihli, Hanna Julia & Chiputwa, Brian & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Do Changing Probabilities or Payoffs in Lottery-Choice Experiments Affect Risk Preference Outcomes? Evidence from Rural Uganda," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 41(2), May.
    15. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaib & Marie Boyet, 2018. "Marketing contracts and risk management for cereal producers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(3), pages 616-630, June.
    16. Zhou, Jiajun & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2024. "Shadow prices of agrochemicals in the Chinese farming sector," 2024 Annual Meeting, July 28-30, New Orleans, LA 343528, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Doan Nainggolan & Faizal Rahmanto Moeis & Mette Termansen, 2023. "Does risk preference influence farm level adaptation strategies? – Survey evidence from Denmark," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(7), pages 1-23, October.
    18. 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.
    19. Traxler, Emilia & Li, Tongzhe, 2020. "Agricultural Best Management Practices, A summary of adoption behaviour," Working Papers 305271, University of Guelph, Institute for the Advanced Study of Food and Agricultural Policy.
    20. Faure, Jérôme & Mouysset, Lauriane, 2025. "Natural insurance as a green alternative for farmers? Empirical evidence for semi-natural habitats and methodological bias," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Input efficiency; Perception; Ecosystem service; Nature-based solutions; Subjective expected utility;
    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-04869177. 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.