[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v220y2024ics0921800924000557.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs

Author

Listed:
  • Granado-Díaz, Rubén
  • Villanueva, Anastasio J.
  • Colombo, Sergio
Abstract
Land managers' preferences towards practice- and outcome-based payments for environmental services are analysed using a labelled choice experiment applied to a Mediterranean oak savannah (dehesa or montado) as a case study. Results indicate that land managers prefer outcome- to practice-based payments, equivalent in terms of environmental targets, most probably because they are opposed to the restrictive practices included as requirements in the latter. This preference strongly depends on the environmental policy objective, with land managers being more willing to participate when the outcome-based payment targets carbon sequestration rather than biodiversity. Willingness to accept (WTA) significantly increases when the payment involves a remote-sensing monitoring system, but only for practice-based payments, hinting at differing views of the monitoring system depending on the scheme type. However, a complementary analysis focusing on acreage decision shows non-significant WTA values for the use of remote-sensing monitoring systems in practice-based payments when the requirement of the area enrolled is relaxed. This suggests that land managers may be trading off monitoring intensity against the probability of defaulting. Significant preference heterogeneity is observed, mostly explained by farms' structural and management characteristics. Results point to strong potential for the use of outcome-based payments with remote-sensing monitoring systems in oak savannahs.

Suggested Citation

  • Granado-Díaz, Rubén & Villanueva, Anastasio J. & Colombo, Sergio, 2024. "Land manager preferences for outcome-based payments for environmental services in oak savannahs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000557
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924000557
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108158?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben White & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Should We Pay for Ecosystem Service Outputs, Inputs or Both?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 765-787, April.
    2. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. McGinlay, J. & Gowing, D.J.G & Budds, J., 2017. "The threat of abandonment in socio-ecological landscapes: Farmers’ motivations and perspectives on high nature value grassland conservation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 39-49.
    4. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Olschewski, Roland, 2019. "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," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 200-215.
    5. Santos, Rui & Clemente, Pedro & Brouwer, Roy & Antunes, Paula & Pinto, Rute, 2015. "Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 159-167.
    6. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Klaus Glenk & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena, 2017. "Protest Responses and Willingness to Accept: Ecosystem Services Providers’ Preferences towards Incentive-Based Schemes," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 68(3), pages 801-821, September.
    7. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    8. Thiermann, Insa & Silvius, Brechtje & Splinter, Melody & Dries, Liesbeth, 2023. "Making bird numbers count: Would Dutch farmers accept a result-based meadow bird conservation scheme?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    9. Rubén Granado-Díaz & José A Gómez-Limón & Macario Rodríguez-Entrena & Anastasio J Villanueva, 2020. "Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches [Spatial preference heterogeneity in forest recreation]," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 47(2), pages 752-784.
    10. Rose, John M. & Hensher, David A. & Caussade, Sebastian & Ortúzar, Juan de Dios & Jou, Rong-Chang, 2009. "Identifying differences in willingness to pay due to dimensionality in stated choice experiments: a cross country analysis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 21-29.
    11. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    12. Vainio, Annukka & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Hyvönen, Terho & Pyysiäinen, Jarkko & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "The legitimacy of result-oriented and action-oriented agri-environmental schemes: A comparison of farmers’ and citizens’ perceptions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    13. Richard Carson & Theodore Groves, 2007. "Incentive and informational properties of preference questions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 37(1), pages 181-210, May.
    14. Campos, Pablo & Álvarez, Alejandro & Mesa, Bruno & Oviedo, José L. & Ovando, Paola & Caparrós, Alejandro, 2020. "Total income and ecosystem service sustainability index: Accounting applications to holm oak dehesa case study in Andalusia-Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    15. Hensher,David A. & Rose,John M. & Greene,William H., 2015. "Applied Choice Analysis," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107465923, September.
    16. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, September.
    17. Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Rose, John M., 2011. "Experimental design influences on stated choice outputs: An empirical study in air travel choice," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 63-79, January.
    18. Niskanen, Olli & Tienhaara, Annika & Haltia, Emmi & Pouta, Eija, 2021. "Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    19. Collins, Jill P. & Vossler, Christian A., 2009. "Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 226-235, September.
    20. Willaarts, Bárbara A. & Volk, Martin & Aguilera, Pedro A., 2012. "Assessing the ecosystem services supplied by freshwater flows in Mediterranean agroecosystems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 21-31.
    21. Zabel, Astrid & Roe, Brian, 2009. "Optimal design of pro-conservation incentives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 126-134, November.
    22. Lloyd-Smith, Patrick & Adamowicz, Wiktor, 2018. "Can stated measures of willingness-to-accept be valid? Evidence from laboratory experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 133-149.
    23. Emmanuelle Quillérou & Rob Fraser & Iain Fraser, 2011. "Farmer Compensation and its Consequences for Environmental Benefit Provision in the Higher Level Stewardship Scheme," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 330-339, June.
    24. José L Oviedo & Pablo Campos & Alejandro Caparrós, 2022. "Contingent valuation of landowner demand for forest amenities: application in Andalusia, Spain," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 49(3), pages 615-643.
    25. Andrew Daly & Stephane Hess & Kenneth Train, 2012. "Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 19-31, January.
    26. Hess, Stephane & Train, Kenneth E. & Polak, John W., 2006. "On the use of a Modified Latin Hypercube Sampling (MLHS) method in the estimation of a Mixed Logit Model for vehicle choice," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 147-163, February.
    27. Hess, Stephane & Palma, David, 2019. "Apollo: A flexible, powerful and customisable freeware package for choice model estimation and application," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 1-1.
    28. 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.
    29. Parra-López, Carlos & Sayadi, Samir & Garcia-Garcia, Guillermo & Ben Abdallah, Saker & Carmona-Torres, Carmen, 2023. "Prioritising conservation actions towards the sustainability of the dehesa by integrating the demands of society," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    30. Massfeller, Anna & Meraner, Manuela & Hüttel, Silke & Uehleke, Reinhard, 2022. "Farmers' acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    31. Derissen, Sandra & Quaas, Martin F., 2013. "Combining performance-based and action-based payments to provide environmental goods under uncertainty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 77-84.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Anastasio J. Villanueva & Rubén Granado‐Díaz & Sergio Colombo, 2024. "Comparing practice‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental schemes controlled by remote sensing: An application to olive groves in Spain," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(2), pages 524-545, June.
    2. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    3. Thiermann, Insa & Silvius, Brechtje & Splinter, Melody & Dries, Liesbeth, 2023. "Making bird numbers count: Would Dutch farmers accept a result-based meadow bird conservation scheme?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).
    4. Katsuya Tanaka & Nicholas Hanley & Laure Kuhfuss, 2022. "Farmers’ preferences toward an outcome‐based payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 720-738, September.
    5. Christoph Schulze & Katarzyna Zagórska & Kati Häfner & Olimpia Markiewicz & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Bettina Matzdorf, 2024. "Using farmers' ex ante preferences to design agri‐environmental contracts: A systematic review," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 44-83, February.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Farmers’ preferences over alternative AECS designs. Do the ecological conditions influence the willingness to accept result-based contracts?," 97th Annual Conference, March 27-29, 2023, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 334508, Agricultural Economics Society - AES.
    7. Simpson, Katherine & Armsworth, Paul R. & Dallimer, Martin & Nthambi, Mary & de Vries, Frans P. & Hanley, Nick, 2023. "Improving the ecological and economic performance of agri-environment schemes: Payment by modelled results versus payment for actions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    8. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Post-Print halshs-02136103, HAL.
    9. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Granado-Díaz, Rubén, 2023. "Assessing the demand for hydrological drought insurance in irrigated agriculture," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    10. Isler, Cassiano Augusto & Blumenfeld, Marcelo & Caldeira, Gabriel Pereira & Roberts, Clive, 2024. "Long-Distance railway mode choice in Brazil: Evidence from a discrete choice experiment," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    11. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Ziv, Guy & Chapman, Pippa J. & Holden, Joseph & Cardwell, Michael & Fyfe, Duncan, 2023. "A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    12. Lopez-Becerra, E.I. & Alcon, F., 2021. "Social desirability bias in the environmental economic valuation: An inferred valuation approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    13. Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen, 2018. "A More Flexible Model or Simply More Effort? On the Use of Correlated Random Parameters in Applied Choice Studies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 419-429.
    14. Nicolas Jacquemet & Stephane Luchini & Jason Shogren & Verity Watson, 2019. "Discrete Choice under Oaths," Working Papers halshs-02136103, HAL.
    15. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    16. Oehlmann, Malte & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Mariel, Petr & Weller, Priska, 2017. "Uncovering context-induced status quo effects in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 59-73.
    17. Matteo Olivieri & Maria Andreoli & Daniele Vergamini & Fabio Bartolini, 2021. "Innovative Contract Solutions for the Provision of Agri-Environmental Climatic Public Goods: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-22, June.
    18. Robert J. Johnston & Tom Ndebele & David A. Newburn, 2023. "Modeling transaction costs in household adoption of landscape conservation practices," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 341-367, January.
    19. Alix Le Goff & Guillaume Monchambert & Charles Raux, 2020. "Values of Time for Carpool Commuting with HOV lanes: A Discrete Choice Experiment in France," Working Papers halshs-02988756, HAL.
    20. Ahtiainen, Heini & Pouta, Eija & Zawadzki, Wojciech & Tienhaara, Annika, 2023. "Cost vector effects in discrete choice experiments with positive status quo cost," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).

    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:eee:ecolec:v:220:y:2024:i:c:s0921800924000557. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.