What Do Farmers Want From Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) have had a limited effect on European agriculture due to farmers' reluctance to participate. Information on how farmers react when AES characteristics are modified can be an important input to the design of such policies. This article investigates farmers' preferences for different design options in a specific AES aimed at encouraging nitrogen fixing crops in marginal dry-land areas in Spain. We use a choice experiment survey conducted in two regions (Aragon and Andalusia). The analysis employs an error component random parameter logit model allowing for preference heterogeneity and correlation amongst the non-status quo alternatives. Farmers show a strong preference for maintaining their current management strategies; however, significant savings in cost or increased participation can be obtained by modifying some AES attributes. © 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 The Agricultural Economics Society.

[1]  G. Garrod,et al.  Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach , 2008 .

[2]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias , 1991 .

[3]  Melinda Smale,et al.  Using a Choice Experiment to Estimate Farmers’ Valuation of Agrobiodiversity on Hungarian Small Farms , 2006 .

[4]  Matt Lobley,et al.  AGEING AND SUCCESSION ON FAMILY FARMS: The Impact on Decision-making and Land Use , 1992 .

[5]  Deborah J. Street,et al.  The Construction of Optimal Stated Choice Experiments , 2007 .

[6]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Using choice experiments to assess smallholder farmers' preferences for pig breeding traits in different production systems in North–West Vietnam , 2008 .

[7]  J. Barreiro-Hurlé,et al.  Estrategias para incrementar la participación en programas agroambientales: el papel del capital social , 2011 .

[8]  K. Lancaster.  A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[9]  R. Dhar.  Consumer Preference for a No-Choice Option , 1997 .

[10]  Mark Toogood,et al.  Factors Affecting European Farmers' Participation in Biodiversity Policies , 2006 .

[11]  Pierre Dupraz,et al.  Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs , 2009 .

[12]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya , 2007, Agricultural Economics.

[13]  Kenneth E. Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2016 .

[14]  Eric Ruto,et al.  Valuing Indigenous Cattle Breeds in Kenya: An Empirical Comparison of Stated and Revealed Preference Value Estimates , 2001 .

[15]  M. G. Molina.  SPECIAL SECTION: EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL HISTORY AND ECOLOGICAL ECONOMICS Environmental constraints on agricultural growth in 19th century granada (Southern Spain) , 2002 .

[16]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[17]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity , 2009, Land Economics.

[18]  K. Willis,et al.  Valuing externalities from water supply: Status quo, choice complexity and individual random effects in panel kernel logit analysis of choice experiments , 2007 .

[19]  Elisabetta Strazzera,et al.  Modeling Elicitation effects in contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo Analysis of the bivariate approach , 2005 .

[20]  William Samuelson,et al.  Status quo bias in decision making , 1988 .

[21]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .