Bringing the neighbors in: A choice experiment on the influence of coordination and social norms on farmers’ willingness to accept agro-environmental schemes across Europe
Introduction
Adjusting intensive agriculture to natural resource conservation goals has become a major concern and challenge in Europe. Although farm activities have been the driver of much of the biodiversity loss in European landscapes, agriculture itself has also been understood as part of the solution (Batáry et al., 2015; Queiroz et al., 2014). This partially owes to the long history of farming activities and the cultural association of farmland with natural landscapes on the continent (Stoate et al., 2009).
Agri-environmental schemes (AES) are, with protected areas and compulsory regulations, one of the main governmental tools for conservation in EU countries, Switzerland and Norway (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). Like some compulsory regulations, AES target agricultural landscapes and promote the provision of ecosystem services via extensive agricultural management practices. Contrary to other tools, AES are voluntary and include economic compensation to farmers. Funds devoted to AES are substantial; they currently account for about 7% (i.e. nearly 20 billion EUR) of total EU funding for the Common Agricultural Policy programming period 2014–2020, which is approximately 20% of the expenditure for rural development and twice the cost of managing Natura 2000 protected areas (Früh-Müller et al., 2018).
The impact of AES, however, has been only modest. About half of the schemes aiming to enhance biodiversity, for example, lack positive effects (Batáry et al., 2015; Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). This has raised questions about the cost-effectiveness of the schemes, as well as concerns about the existence of a trade-off between the ecological effectiveness of conservation schemes and the opportunity costs of participating in the schemes for farmers (Henle et al., 2008; Sabatier et al., 2014).
A European response to the trade-off between ecological effectiveness and opportunity costs has been the promotion of spatial coordination among farmers in the implementation of AES. Farmer coordination can help to overcome participation thresholds, facilitate agglomeration effects and targeting, and contribute to learning, economies of scale, innovation and sense of belonging among farmers (Carmona-Torres et al., 2011; Franks, 2011; Mills et al., 2008; Prager, 2013, 2015; Uetake, 2013). However, coordination also entails costs and risks such as transaction costs, constraints on individual decision making, and compliance issues, all of which discourage farmers from committing and hinder the efficiency of the collaborative ventures (Amblard, 2012; Ayer, 1997; Enengel et al., 2011; Ferranto et al., 2013; Stallman, 2011; Villanueva et al., 2015b). This paper focuses on assessing those costs as well as exploring the potentially countervailing influence of so called “neighbor effects”.
A response to the limitations of economic reasoning to explain farmer behavior has been the focus on “neighbor effects”, or the exposure of farmers to what is socially appropriate and what others think about them and their decisions (Beedell and Rehman, 2000; Burton, 2004; Chen et al., 2009; Jaeck and Lifran, 2009; Sheeder and Lynne, 2011; Kuhfuss et al., 2016; Chabé-Ferret et al., 2018; Le Coent et al., 2018). Our study analyses whether these neighbor effects can reduce trade-offs between ecological effectiveness and opportunity costs in the design of AES, and explores the relative weight of said effects compared to economic factors. With some notable exceptions, little empirical experimental research has been done in that direction (Chen et al., 2009; Jaeck and Lifran, 2009; Banerjee and Hanley, 2015; Kuhfuss et al., 2015a,b, 2016, Chabé-Ferret et al., 2018).
An alternative to increase the ecological impact of AES without increasing the number of farmers involved is increasing the amount of land enrolled. The greening reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was an important step forward in this direction. Farmers are now obliged to set aside 5% of their farms as Ecological Focus Areas if they want to benefit from agricultural subsidies. The measure, however, has fallen short of expectations due to a number of exceptions to the rule. These exceptions were motivated by the strong resistance of farmers to bear the opportunity costs of the measure, and reflect an ongoing debate about whether the 5% commitment is both economically feasible and ecologically effective (Rutz et al., 2014). Additionally, increasing the land enrolled also involves more spending. This paper explores the response of farmers to changes in the amount of land required for conservation as a test of the importance of opportunity costs in farmer’s decisions, as well as a reference to assess the impact of neighbor effects and coordination.
After an overview of the theory motivating the study, and the methods, we present the results of a choice experiment (CE) conducted in Switzerland, Spain and Germany, and discuss main findings with regard to the amelioration of the trade-off between ecological effectiveness of conservation measures and the opportunity costs for farmers.
Section snippets
AES uptake theory
Explanations about AES uptake abound. However, there are few if any universal variables that regularly explain the adoption of conservation agriculture across past analyses (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). Variables can be classified into groups based on different criteria (de Graaff et al., 2008; Prager et al., 2012). This paper builds on the distinction between economic explanations on the one hand, and explanations that rely on cognitive aspects and social norms on the other (Christensen et
Material and methods
To assess the impact of coordination requirements and other attributes on farmer’s participation, we used a CE survey. The CE method builds on Lancaster’s theory of consumer choice (Lancaster, 1966), according to which individuals’ choices depend on the attributes of certain goods and their interest in maximizing the utility gained from those attributes. The statistical analysis of the data collected through CEs is based on random utility theory (RUT) (McFadden, 1973). According to RUT,
Results
The mail survey response rates varied significantly across countries. The rate was 30% in Spain (n = 37, Monegros and Sastago counties) and about 10% in Germany (n = 34, Uckermark district) and Switzerland (n = 163, Cantons Aargau and Zurich). Setting appointments with farmers at the Spanish and German sites was more difficult than expected and the in-person survey did not notably increase sample size. Given the satisfactory response rates obtained via mail we decided to use only mail surveys.
Discussion
Our results inspire several discussion points. First, the negative impact of the “share of farm” attribute is consistent with previous findings about the reluctance of farmers to give up agricultural production for conservation, and illustrates well-known tensions between agricultural intensification and conservation (Espinosa‐Goded et al., 2010; Schulz et al., 2014; Villanueva et al., 2015b). This is particularly relevant given recent recommendations to increase the agricultural land set aside
Conclusion
This paper sheds light on the challenges and opportunities of overcoming the trade-off between the ecological effectiveness of AES in Europe and the opportunity costs for farmers to participate in those programs (Batáry et al., 2015; Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003). On the one hand, the study assesses the cost of coordinating farmers for the implementation of the measures, as a complement or alternative to increasing the amount of land set aside for said conservation. On the other hand, the paper
Funding
The research has been conducted as part of the project BASIL (Landscape-scale biodiversity and the balancing of provisioning, regulating and supporting ecosystem services) under the Joint BiodivERsA/FACCE JPI 2013-2014 Call.
It has been funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation(Project number: 40FA40-158393) as part of the National Research Programme "Soil as a Resource" (NRP 68).
Acknowledgements
We thank farmers and district offices from Uckermark, Zurich, Aargau and Bujaraloz for their invaluable collaboration in the data collection process. We also want to thank the unconditional support of Karin Pirhofer-Walzl and Larissa Schaub, and the feedback from other members of the BASIL (Landscape-scale biodiversity and the balancing of provisioning, regulating and supporting ecosystem services) project, as well as scholars from WSL.
References (109)
- et al.
Agri-environmental policies for biodiversity when the spatial pattern of the reserve matters
Ecol. Econ.
(2013) - et al.
Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour
J. Rural Stud.
(2000) Reconceptualising the ‘behavioural approach’ in agricultural studies: a socio-psychological perspective
J. Rural Stud.
(2004)- et al.
Collective action for multi-scale environmental management: achieving landscape policy objectives through cooperation of local resource managers
Landsc. Urban Plan.
(2011) - et al.
Determinants of farmers’ willingness to participate in subsidy schemes for pesticide-free buffer zones—a choice experiment study
Ecol. Econ.
(2011) - et al.
Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services
Ecol. Econ.
(2007) - et al.
Dummy coding vs effects coding for categorical variables: clarifications and extensions
J. Choice Model.
(2016) - et al.
Factors influencing adoption and continued use of long-term soil and water conservation measures in five developing countries
Appl. Geogr.
(2008) - et al.
Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet
Social Science Research
(2009) - et al.
An agglomeration payment for cost-effective biodiversity conservation in spatially structured landscapes
Resour. Energy Econ.
(2010)
Benefits, efforts and risks of participants in landscape co-management: an analytical framework and results from two case studies in Austria
J. Environ. Manage.
Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective
J. Rural Stud.
Incentivising collaborative conservation: lessons from existing environmental Stewardship Scheme options
Land Use Policy
Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services
Land Use Policy
Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services
Ecol. Econ.
Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe–a review
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research
Food Policy
Privatization of agricultural extension services in the EU: towards a lack of adequate knowledge for small-scale farms?
Food Policy
Adoption of conservation agriculture in Europe: lessons of the KASSA project
Land Use Policy
What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: results from a qualitative meta-analysis
Environ. Sci. Policy
Compensation payments for habitat heterogeneity: existence, efficiency, and fairness considerations
Ecol. Econ.
Spatial incentives to coordinate contiguous habitat
Ecol. Econ.
Agglomeration bonus: an incentive mechanism to reunite fragmented habitat for biodiversity conservation
Ecol. Econ.
Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments
Land Use Policy
Territorial management contracts as a tool to enhance the sustainability of sloping and mountainous olive orchards: evidence from a case study in Southern Spain
Land Use Policy
Heterogeneity and the trade-off between ecological and productive functions of agro-landscapes: a model of cattle–bird interactions in a grassland agroecosystem
Agric. Syst.
Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal
Ecol. Econ.
Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures—a case study from north-eastern Germany
Land Use Policy
Soil conservation in Swiss agriculture—approaching abstract and symbolic meanings in farmers’ life-worlds
Land Use Policy
Ecosystem services in agriculture: determining suitability for provision by collective management
Ecol. Econ.
Determinants affecting farmers’ willingness to cooperate to control pests
Ecol. Econ.
Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe–a review
J. Environ. Manage.
Considering the source: commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England
J. Environ. Manage.
The potential of collective action for the control of nonpoint source pollution in European rural areas
Paper Presented at the Design and Dynamics of Institutions for Collective Action Conference
Rural Extension Services. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 2976
Agricultural extension: good intentions and hard realities
World Bank Res. Obs.
Consolidated report on farm surveys
ITAES WP8 Final Report (Rapport N° ITAES WP8 DR17 P1)
Grass roots collective action: agricultural opportunities
J. Agric. Resour. Econ.
What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models
Psychosomatic medicine
The effects of peer group information and group size on spatial coordination in agri-environment schemes: a laboratory experimental study of the Agglomeration Bonus
17th Annual BIOECON Conference Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Sustainability
The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management
Conserv. Biol.
Effects coding in discrete choice experiments
Health Econ.
Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification
J. Environ. Plan. Manag.
Can We Nudge Farmers into Saving Water? Evidence from a Randomized Experiment
Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
European briefing: the transition to environmental agriculture in Europe: learning processes and knowledge networks
Eur. Plan. Stud.
Challenges in Creating Local Agri-environmental Cooperation Action Amongst Farmers and Other Stakeholders
Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: a northern italian perspective
J. Agric. Econ.
What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach
J. Agric. Econ.
Cited by (61)
Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs
2024, Ecological EconomicsEvaluating incentives to encourage native afforestation on private lands in Aotearoa–New Zealand
2024, Landscape and Urban PlanningCulture and agricultural biodiversity conservation
2023, Food PolicyExploring the distribution of organic farming: Findings from certified rice in Taiwan
2023, Ecological Economics