Assessment of greening and collective participation in the context of agri-environmental schemes: The case of Andalusian irrigated olive groves
Abstract
Agri-environmental schemes (AES) in irrigated olive groves (IOG) in southern Spain were assessed based on farmers’ preferences toward these schemes. A choice experiment was used in this ex-ante assessment, with the inclusion of some innovative elements, such as collective participation and ecological focus areas (EFA). The results showed that farmers’ mean willingness to accept (WTA) participation in collective rather than individual AES was €124.5/ha. Their mean WTA for an additional 1% of EFA was €64.6/ha, while regarding the use of other agri-environmental practices, they showed a WTA of €6.3/ha and €114.7/ha for an additional 1% in the use of cover crops (CC) in olive grove areas and restrictive management of CC, respectively. These estimates were strongly influenced by farmers’ expectations and socio-economic characteristics, as well as farm management. We obtained that farmers’ expectations of no farm takeover reduce WTA for collective participation, whereas agricultural training and having at least a secondary-school education reduce farmers’ WTA for EFA and restrictive management of the CC, respectively. Conversely, harvesting ground olives increased farmers’ WTA for a high proportion of the area under CC. The analysis of the AES scenarios showed moderately high estimates of total WTA (€101-349/ha), especially when collective participation is required (€225-474/ha). The results supported the argument that there are efficient ways to encourage public goods provision, overcoming trade-offs with private goods provision by identifying the type of joint production.
Downloads
References
Adamowicz W, Boxall P, Williams M, Louviere J, 1998. Stated preference approaches for measuring passive use values: Choice experiments and contingent valuation. Am J Agr Econ 80(1): 64-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3180269
Austin Z, Smart JCR, Yearley S, Irvine RJ, White PCL, 2014. Incentivising the collaborative management of mobile ecological resources. Land Use Policy 36: 485-491. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.09.025
Banerjee S, de Vries FP, Hanley N, van Soest DP, 2014. The impact of information provision on agglomeration bonus performance: An experimental study on local networks. Am J Agr Econ 96(4): 1009-1029. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aau048
Barranco D, Fernández-Escobar R, Rallo L (eds), 2008. El cultivo del olivo. Mundi-Prensa y Junta de Andalucía, Madrid, Spain.
Bartolini F, Gallerani V, Viaggi D, 2011. What do agri-environmental measures actually promote? An investigation on AES objectives for the EU 2000-2006 rural development program. Span J Agric Res 9(1): 7-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/20110901-223-10
Broch SW, Vedel SE, 2012. Using choice experiments to investigate the policy relevance of heterogeneity in farmer agri-environmental contract preferences. Environ Resour Econ 51: 561-581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10640-011-9512-8
Christensen T, Pedersen AB, Nielsen HO, Mørkbak MR, Hasler B, Denver S, 2011. Determinants of farmers' willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones-A choice experiment study. Ecol Econ 70: 1558-1564. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.021
Cooper T, Hart K, Baldock D, 2009. The provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. Inst. for Eur. Environ. Policy, London.
Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Runge F, Trestini S, 2008. Factors affecting farmers' participation in agri-environmental measures: A northern Italian perspective. J Agr Econ 59(1):114-131.
EC, 2010a. The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future. COM(2010) 672 final. European Commission, Brussels.
EC, 2010b. Special Eurobarometer 336. Europeans, agriculture and the common agricultural policy. Summary report. European Commission, Brussels.
EC, 2011a. Common agricultural policy towards 2020. Assessment of alternative policy options. SEC (2011) 1153 final/2. European Commission, Brussels.
EC, 2011b. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy. COM(2011) 625 final/2. European Commission, Brussels.
ECA, 2011. Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? Special report no 7. European Court of Auditors. Publ. Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.
Emery SB, Franks JR, 2012. The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in England: Can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers' concerns with current schemes? J Rural Stud 28: 218-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2012.02.004
Espinosa-Goded M, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Ruto E, 2010. What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. J Agr Econ 61: 259-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x
Falconer K, 2000. Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. J Rural Stud 16: 379-394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(99)00066-2
Franks JR, 2011. The collective provision of environmental goods: A discussion of contractual issues. J Environ Plann Manage 54: 637-660. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.526380
Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, 2011. Evaluación de la sostenibilidad de las explotaciones de olivar en Andalucía. Analistas Económicos de Andalucía, Málaga, Spain.
Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, Villanueva AJ, 2013. Typifying irrigated areas to support policy design and implementation: The case of the Guadalquivir river basin. Irrig Drain 62(3): 322-329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ird.1747
Hanemann WM, 1984. Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. Am J Agr Econ 66: 332-341. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1240800
Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH, 2005. Applied choice analysis: A primer. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610356
Hodge I, 2013. Agri-environment policy in an era of lower government expenditure: CAP reform and conservation payments. J Environ Plann Manage 56: 254-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.664103
Horne P, 2006. Forest owners' acceptance of incentive based policy instruments in forest biodiversity conservation. A choice experiment based approach. Silva Fenn 40(1): 169-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.14214/sf.359
Kuhfuss L, Preget R, Thoyer S, 2014. Préférences individuelles et incitations collectives: quels contrats agroenvironnementaux pour la réduction des herbicides par les viticulteurs?. Rev Etud Agr Environ 95: 111-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.4074/s1966960714011060
Lancaster KJ, 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. J Polit Econ 74(2): 132-157. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/259131
McFadden DL, 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Frontiers in econometrics; Zarembka P (ed). pp: 105-142. Academic Press, NY, USA.
OJEU, 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1307/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing rules for direct payments to farmers under support schemes within the framework of the common agricultural policy and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 637/2008 and Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009. Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels.
Rodríguez-Entrena M, Arriaza M, 2013. Adoption of conservation agriculture in olive groves: Evidences from southern Spain. Land Use Policy 34: 294-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.002
Rodríguez-Entrena M, Barreiro-Hurlé J, Gómez-Limón JA, Espinosa-Goded M, Castro-Rodríguez J, 2012. Evaluating the demand for carbon sequestration in olive grove soils as a strategy toward mitigating climate change. J Environ Manage 112: 368-376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.08.004
Rodríguez-Entrena M, Espinosa-Goded M, Barreiro-Hurlé J, 2014a. The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: Evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves. Ecol Econ 99: 63-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.006
Rodríguez-Entrena M, Arriaza M, Gómez-Limón JA, 2014b. Determining economic and social factors in the adoption of cover crops under mower control in olive groves. Agroecol Sust Food 38(1): 69-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2013.819478
Ruto E, Garrod G, 2009. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: A choice experiment approach. J Environ Plann Manage 52: 631-647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958172
Salazar-Ordoñez M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, Sayadi S, 2013. Agricultural sustainability from a societal view: An analysis of Southern Spanish citizens. J Agr Environ Ethic 26(2): 473-490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10806-011-9371-x
Scarpa R, Thiene M, 2005. Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Econ 81(3): 426-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.81.3.426
Scarpa R, Campbell D, Hutchinson WG, 2007. Benefit estimates for landscape improvements: Sequential Bayesian design and respondents' rationality in a choice experiment. Land Econ 83(4): 617-634. http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/le.83.4.617
Schulz N, Breustedt G, Latacz-Lohmann U, 2014. Assessing farmers' willingness to accept "greening": Insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. J Agr Econ 65: 26-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12044
Siebert R, Toogood M, Knierim A, 2006. Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol Ruralis 46(4): 318-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2006.00420.x
Stoate C, Baldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C, 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe. A review. J Environ Manage 91(1): 22-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005
Street DJ, Burgess L, 2007. The construction of optimal stated choice experiments: Theory and methods. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470148563
Sutherland L, Gabriel D, Hathaway-Jenkins L, Pascual U, Schmutz U, Rigby D, Godwin R, Sait SM, Sakrabani R, Kunin WE, 2012. The 'neighbourhood effect': A multidisciplinary assessment of the case for farmer co-ordination in agri-environmental programmes. Land Use Policy 29: 502-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.09.003
Train K, 2003. Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753930
Uthes S, Matzdorf B, 2013. Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Environ Manage 51: 251-266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6
Vedel SE, Jacobsen JB, Thorsen BJ, 2015. Forest owners' willingness to accept contracts for ecosystem service provision is sensitive to additionality. Ecol Econ 113: 15-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.02.014
Villanueva AJ, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, Nekhay O, 2014. Analysing the provision of agricultural public goods: The case of irrigated olive groves in southern Spain. Land Use Policy 38: 300-313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.018
Villanueva AJ, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, Rodríguez-Entrena M, 2015a. The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers' preferences in Southern Spain. Land Use Policy 46: 142-154. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.009
Villanueva AJ, Rodríguez-Entrena M, Gómez-Limón JA, Arriaza M, 2015b. Matching supply-side and demand-side analyses for the assessment of agri-environmental schemes: The case of irrigated olive groves of southern Spain. 29th Int. Cong. of Agricultural Economists, 8-14 August, Milan (Italy).
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the print and online versions of this journal are the property of the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.
All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. You may read the basic information and the legal text of the licence. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 licence must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the final version of the work produced by the publisher, is not allowed.
