What do agri-environmental measures actually promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development program

  • F. Bartolini Department of Agricultural Economics and Engineering (DEIAgra). University of Bologna.
  • V. Gallerani Department of Agricultural Economics and Engineering (DEIAgra). University of Bologna.
  • D. Viaggi Department of Agricultural Economics and Engineering (DEIAgra). University of Bologna.
Keywords: agri-environmental schemes, environmental policy objectives, expert opinion, weights


This paper provides an analysis of the importance implicitly attached by local stakeholders to different environmental objectives in agri-environmental schemes in Europe. For at least 20 years, increasing the sustainability of agriculture has been a major policy concern in Europe. However, the relative importance of specific objectives of agri-environmental schemes is rarely quantified, and this strongly affects the ability to assess the actual effectiveness of such schemes. This paper adopts a methodology based on the use of the concept of «weight» as a quantitative measure of the importance of each objective. The objectives have been identified using a hierarchical grid of indicators based on the EU framework for the mandatory evaluation of agri-environmental schemes. The quantification of weights was based on a questionnaire submitted to more than 70 stakeholders in 10 case study regions in different EU countries. The results highlight different regional profiles, denoting strategies with very different objective-related agri-environmental scheme specialisations, with some programs focusing on specific individual environmental issues such as landscape and biodiversity, and others focusing on several environmental objectives. Such results emphasise the need to integrate academic and institutional evaluation exercises in the measurement of the policy priorities, hence enabling to provide robust evaluations of policy effectiveness.


Download data is not yet available.


Alfaro-Fernández A, Córdoba-Sellés C, Tornos T, Cebrián MC, Font MI, 2011. First report of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Pittosporum tobira in Spain. Plant Dis 95: 75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-07-10-0491

Al-Musa AM, Lockhart B, 1990. Occurrence of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Jordan. J Phytopathol 128: 283-287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.1990.tb04275.x

Aramburu J, Galipienso L, Tornos T, Matas M, 2006. First report of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in mainland Spain. Plant Pathol 55: 565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01419.x

Babaie GH, Izadpanah K, 2003. Vector transmission of Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Iran. J Phytopathol 151: 679-682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0434.2003.00788.x

Della Giustina W, Javoy M, Bansept P, Morel E, Balasse H, Goussard N, Passard C, 2000. Les cidadelles du genre Anacertagallia vectrice du virus responsable de la maladie de la peau de crapaud du concombre. PHM Rev Hort 420: 40-43.

De Stradis A, Parrella G, Vovlas C, Ragozzino A, 2008. Vein yellowing of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis caused by Eggplant mottled dwarf virus in Southern Italy. J Plant Pathol 90: 359-361.

Lockhart BEL, 1987. Evidence for identity of plant rhabdoviruses causing vein-yellowing disease of tomato and Hibiscus rosa-sinensis. Plant Dis 71: 731-733. http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PD-71-0731

Aczél J., Alsina C., 1986. On synthesis of judgments. Socio Econ Plan Sci 20, 333-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0038-0121(86)90044-3

Babcock B.A., Lakshminarayan P.G., Wu J., Zilberman, D., 1997. Targeting tools for the purchase of environmental amenities. Land Economics 73, 325-339. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3147171

Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Samoggia A., Viaggid., 2005. Methodology for multicriteria analysis of agrienvironmentalschemes. ITAES project, document number: WP10-P6-D11.

Bartolini F., Gallerani V., Viaggi D., 2007. Consolidated report on multicriteria analysis of agri-environmental schemes. ITAES project, document number: WP10-P6-D21.

Bonnieux F., Brougherara D., Desjeux J., Dupraz P., Latouche K., Paoli J.C., Tafani C., 2005. Consolidated report on case studies. ITAES project, document number: WP3-P1-D3.

Borcherding K., Eppel T., Von Winterfeldt D., 1991. Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility. Manage Sci 37, 1603-1619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.12.1603

Choe C., Fraser I., 1999. Compliance monitoring and agrienvironmental policy. J Agr Econ 50, 468-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00894.x

Duke J.M., Aull-Hyde R., 2002. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecol Econ 42, 131-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00053-8

Easley R.F., Valacich J.S., Venkataramanan M.A., 2000. Capturing group preferences in a multicriteria decision. Eur J Oper Res 125, 73-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00196-4

EC, 2000. Common indicators for monitoring rural development programming 2000-2006. VI/12004/00 COM (2000). European Commission.

EC, 2005. Agri-environment measures. Overview on general principles, types of measures, and application. European Commission.

EC, 2006. Rural Development in the European Union. Statistical and economic information. Report 2006. European Commission.

EC, 2008. Eurobarometer, Public Opinion in the European Union. European Commission.

Finn J.A., Bartolini F., Bourke D., Kurz I., Viaggi D., 2009. Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis. J Environ Plan Manage 52, 717-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958438

Fraser I., Fraser R., 2006. Targeting monitoring resources to enhance the effectiveness of the CAP. Eurochoice 4, 22-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2005.00013.x

Gass S.I., Rapcsàk T., 1998. A note on synthesizing group decisions. Decis Support Syst 22, 59-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(96)00061-9

Girardin P., Bockstaller C., Van Der Werf H., 2000. Assessment of potential impacts of agricultural practices on the environmental: the AGRO*ECO method. Environ Impact Asses 20, 227-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00036-0

Gómez-Limón J.A., Atance I., 2004. Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support. J Policy Model 26, 1045-1071. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpolmod.2004.07.005

Gren I.M., 2004. Uniform or discriminating payments for environmental production on arable land under asymmetric information. Eur Rev Agric Econ 31, 61-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/erae/31.1.61

Hanley N., Whitby M., Simpson I., 1999. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16, 67-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-8377(98)00041-6

Hayashi K., 2000. Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives. Eur J Oper Res 122, 486-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00249-0

Herzog F., 2005. Agri-environment schemes as landscape experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108, 175-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.001

Howlett M., Ramesh M., 1995. Studying public policy: policy cycle and policy subsystems. Oxford Univ Press, Oxford, UK. 244 pp.

Kleijn D, Sutherland W., 2003. How effective are European agri-environmental schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40, 947-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x

Latacz-Lohman U., 2001. A policy decision-making framework for devising optimal implementation strategies for good agricultural and environmental policy practices. OECD document n° com/agr/ca/env/epoc(2000)56/final, Paris, France.

Moxey A., White B., Ozanne A, 1999. Efficient contract design for agri-environmental policy. J Agr Econ 50, 187-202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.1999.tb00807.x

OECD, 2009. Inventory of policy measures addressing environmental issues in agriculture. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [online]. Available in http://www2.oecd.org/agr-envdbo/index.asp.

Olson D.L., Moshkovichh.M., Schellenberger R., Mechitov A.I., 1995. Consistency and accuracy in decision aids: experiments with four multiattribute systems. Decision Sci 26,723-748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1995.tb01573.x

Oreade-Breche, 2005. Evaluation des measures agro-environnementales [online]. Available in http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/reports/measures/fulltext.pdf.

Pearce D. 2005. What constitutes a good agri-environmental evaluation? In: Evaluating agri-environmental policies. Design, practice and results. OECD Publishing, Paris, France. pp. 71-97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264010116-6-en

Pöyhönen M., Hämäläinen R.P., 2001. On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods. Eur J Oper Res 129, 569-585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00467-1

Primdahl J., Peco B., Schramek J., Andersen E., Oñate J.J., 2003. Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. J Environ Manage 67, 129-138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(02)00192-5

Roy B., Mousseau V., 1998. A theoretical framework for analysing the notion of relative importance of criteria. J Mul Crit Dec Anal 5, 145-159. 3.0.CO;2-5" target="_blank">http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199606)5:2<145::AID-MCDA99>3.0.CO;2-5

Saaty T.L. 1980. The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, NY, USA.

Schoemaker P.J.H., Waid C.C., 1982. An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility model. Manage Sci 28, 182-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.2.182

Smith K., Weinberg M., 2004. Measuring the success of conservation programs. Amber Waves 2, 14-21.

Stewart T.J., 1992. A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20, 569-586. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(92)90003-P

Tsiporkova E., Boeva V., 2006. Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and multi-expert decision making environment. Inform Sciences 176, 2673-2697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2005.11.010

Van Der Horst D., 2007. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J Environ Manage 85, 1076-1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.11.034 PMid:17350157

Vatn A., 2001. Transaction costs and multifunctionality. Contributed paper at the OECD. Workshop on Multifunctionality, Paris, 2-3 July. 23 pp.

Weber M., Borcherding K., 1993. Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res 67, 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-H

Weiss C., 1998. Evaluation. Prentice Hall, NJ, USA. 372 pp.

White B., 2002. Designing agri-environmental policy with hidden information and hidden action: a note. J Agr Econ 53, 353-360.

Wünscher T., Engel S., Wunder S., 2008 Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65, 822-833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014

Xabadia A., Goetz R., Zilberman D., 2008. The gains from differentiated policies to control stock pollution when producers are heterogeneous. Am J Agr Econ 90, 1059-1073

How to Cite
Bartolini, F., Gallerani, V., & Viaggi, D. (1). What do agri-environmental measures actually promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development program. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(1), 7-21. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/20110901-223-10
Agricultural economics