Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers

IF 4.2 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION People and Nature Pub Date : 2023-08-17 DOI:10.1002/pan3.10526
B. Bartkowski, Michael Beckmann, M. Bednář, S. Biffi, C. Domingo‐Marimon, Minučer Mesaroš, Charlotte Schüßler, B. Šarapatka, Sonja Tarčak, T. Václavík, G. Ziv, Felix Wittstock
{"title":"Adoption and potential of agri‐environmental schemes in Europe: Cross‐regional evidence from interviews with farmers","authors":"B. Bartkowski, Michael Beckmann, M. Bednář, S. Biffi, C. Domingo‐Marimon, Minučer Mesaroš, Charlotte Schüßler, B. Šarapatka, Sonja Tarčak, T. Václavík, G. Ziv, Felix Wittstock","doi":"10.1002/pan3.10526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\n\nIn Europe and elsewhere, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons that drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES.\n\nCurrently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio‐culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context‐specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied.\n\nIn this article, we present the results from semi‐structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness.\n\nThe main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non‐additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out.\n\nWe find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes.\n\nRead the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.","PeriodicalId":52850,"journal":{"name":"People and Nature","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"People and Nature","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10526","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Europe and elsewhere, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons that drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES. Currently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio‐culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context‐specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied. In this article, we present the results from semi‐structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness. The main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non‐additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out. We find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲农业环境方案的采用和潜力:来自农民访谈的跨区域证据
在欧洲和其他地方,农业环境计划旨在减少农业对环境的影响。设计有效的方案需要了解促使农民决定是否采用AES的原因。目前,大多数见解来自个人案例研究或基于预定义问题的结构化调查。很少有研究不依赖于对相关行为因素的刻板成见,同时也提供了一个地理和社会文化的广阔视角,可以解决行为研究的文化和制度背景的特殊性。此外,大多数研究都集中在通过决定上,而实施决定及其对AES生态有效性的影响仍然研究不足。在这篇文章中,我们展示了在欧洲五个农业景观中进行的半结构化农民访谈的结果。结果用于揭示采用AES的原因以及AES实施决策对其生态有效性的影响。采用AES在案例研究地区很常见的主要原因是机会成本和支付水平的相互作用,这对AES的生态效益产生了负面影响,因为农民优先考虑边缘土地或采用非额外的AES。在各地区不同的原因中,保有权关系和生态推理的作用尤为突出。我们发现,AES不太可能引发向可持续管理的更广泛转变,但仍有一些改进的潜力,主要是通过提高计划的灵活性、空间目标和生态雄心。阅读期刊博客上这篇文章的免费简明语言摘要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
People and Nature
People and Nature Multiple-
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
9.80%
发文量
103
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
What informs human–nature connection? An exploration of factors in the context of urban park visitors and wildlife Non‐material contributions of nature expressed by former tourists of Mount Kilimanjaro, Tanzania Favourite places for outdoor recreation: Weak correlations between perceived qualities and structural landscape characteristics in Swedish PPGIS study Where wilderness is found: Evidence from 70,000 trip reports Multidimensional mental representations of natural environment among Chinese preadolescents via draw‐and‐write mapping
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1