IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa13p1084.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Understanding the participation in agri-environmental schemes: evidence from Tuscany Region

Author

Listed:
  • Fabio Bartolini
  • Gianluca Brunori
  • Laura Fastelli
  • Massimo Rovai

Abstract

Since introduction with accompanying measures of MacSharry Reform, Agri-Environmental Schemes (AESs) represents the main agricultural policy instrument which address environmental objectives in Common Agricultural Policy. In spite of twenty years application and its high share of RDP budget, several evaluation reports and scientific literature have measured a low environmental impacts compared with the expectations. Economic literature has identified in low target level of schemes, low participation rates, spatial distribution heterogeneity and asymmetric information between farmers and public administration the main reasons for such AESs lower impact. AESs are compensation payments, aimed to encourage farmers to adopt agricultural practices/prescriptions which affect positively environment. The agri-environmental payments are designed in order to cover (on the average) income foregone, and operational and transaction cost increase due to AESs farm implementation. Agricultural economic literature has highlighted positive effects of incentive mechanisms in increasing farmers' participation. Such literature has identified farm, farmers and household characteristics which determine an expected compliance cost lower than compensation payments, and then are determinant of participation. The agricultural economics literature has also highlighted how uncertainty in market and climatic condition is one of the main driver of adoption of AESs. Due to farmers' risk aversion, farmers prefer to receive lower but with certain payments (i.e. payments by landscape measure or twenty years set-aside) instead of uncertain income (even if is higher). A growing literature has investigated the role of transaction costs and social capital as determinants of AESs participation. Such literature branch has identified elements of trust and networking, as main motivational factors which affect AESs participation. The objective of the paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of determinants of agri-environmental adoption. The objective is pursued combining results of farm level adoption analysis with spatial analysis of participation rate. The first analysis is undertaken applying farmers' behavior choice model, in order to identified the main farm, farmer and household (micro) characteristics which positively or negatively affect the probability to participate in Tuscany AESs. Data are obtained by Tuscany 2010 Census. The second model is undertaken applying spatial analysis (ESDA and spatial econometrics) in order to identifies alternative spatial patterns and to investigate meso determinants of participation to AESs. Data are obtained by ARTEA (regional RDP payments agency) and are referred to the entire RDP 2007-2013. Preliminary results shown that both micro and meso characteristics strongly affect participation to AESs. In fact, farm and household structure, quality of advice services and territory endogeneity, significantly affect AESs adoption. Altogether results allow to better understand the participation mechanism. Results will support an improvement of selection mechanism which is aimed to better target AESs measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Fabio Bartolini & Gianluca Brunori & Laura Fastelli & Massimo Rovai, 2013. "Understanding the participation in agri-environmental schemes: evidence from Tuscany Region," ERSA conference papers ersa13p1084, European Regional Science Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p1084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa13/ERSA2013_paper_01084.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Espinosa‐Goded & Jesús Barreiro‐Hurlé & Eric Ruto, 2010. "What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(2), pages 259-273, June.
    2. Evy Mettepenningen & Ann Verspecht & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. "Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 649-667.
    3. Eva Schmidtner & Christian Lippert & Barbara Engler & Anna Maria Häring & Jaochim Aurbacher & Stephan Dabbert, 2012. "Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter?," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 39(4), pages 661-683, September.
    4. Bartolini, Fabio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2012. "A spatial analysis of participation in RDP measures: a case study in Emilia Romagna Region," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124103, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    5. Bartolini, Fabio & Andreoli, Maria & Brunori, Gianluca, 2013. "Explaining the determinants of on-farm diversification: The case Study of Tuscany Region," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149903, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    6. Aude Ridier, 2012. "Farm Level Supply of Short Rotation Woody Crops: Economic Assessment in the Long-Term for Household Farming Systems," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(3), pages 357-375, September.
    7. Giannoccaro, Giacomo & Bartolini, Fabio & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2013. "Assessing the CAP influence on European farmers’ preferences towards the adoption of renewable energy production," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149914, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    8. Giovanopoulou, Eirini & Nastis, Stefanos A. & Papanagiotou, Evagelos, 2011. "Modeling farmer participation in agri-environmental nitrate pollution reducing schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2175-2180, September.
    9. 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.
    10. Geraldine Ducos & Pierre Dupraz & Francois Bonnieux, 2009. "Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 669-687.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Justin Dijk & Erik Ansink & Daan van Soest, 2017. "Buyouts and Agglomeration Bonuses in Wildlife Corridor Auctions," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 17-036/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.

    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. Fabio Bartolini & Daniele Vergamini, 2019. "Understanding the Spatial Agglomeration of Participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes: The Case of the Tuscany Region," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    2. 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.
    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. 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).
    5. Kuhfuss, Laure & Jacquet, Florence & Preget, Raphaële & Thoyer, Sophie, 2012. "Le dispositif des MAEt pour l’enjeu eau : une fausse bonne idée ?," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 93(04), pages 395-422, December.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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).
    9. 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.
    10. Graversgaard, Morten & Jacobsen, Brian H. & Hoffmann, Carl Christian & Dalgaard, Tommy & Odgaard, Mette Vestergaard & Kjaergaard, Charlotte & Powell, Neil & Strand, John A. & Feuerbach, Peter & Tonder, 2021. "Policies for wetlands implementation in Denmark and Sweden – historical lessons and emerging issues," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    11. Melindi-Ghidi, Paolo & Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Fabbri, Giorgio, 2020. "Using environmental knowledge brokers to promote deep green agri-environment measures," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Früh-Müller, Andrea & Bach, Martin & Breuer, Lutz & Hotes, Stefan & Koellner, Thomas & Krippes, Christian & Wolters, Volkmar, 2019. "The use of agri-environmental measures to address environmental pressures in Germany: Spatial mismatches and options for improvement," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 347-362.
    13. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. Coggan, Anthea & Whitten, Stuart M. & Bennett, Jeff, 2010. "Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1777-1784, July.
    17. 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.
    18. Eory, Vera, 2015. "Evaluating the use of marginal abatement cost curves applied to greenhouse gas abatement in agriculture," Working Papers 199777, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    19. Coggan, Anthea & Buitelaar, Edwin & Whitten, Stuart & Bennett, Jeff, 2013. "Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 222-231.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Agri-environmental schemes; Determinants; Econometrics model; Spatial econometrics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q18 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Agricultural Policy; Food Policy; Animal Welfare Policy
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa13p1084. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.