LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Hejnowicz, A.P.; Rudd, M.A.; White, P.C.L. (2016)
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Journal: Land Use Policy
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: 1107, 3305, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Geography, Planning and Development, 2309, Forestry, 2308, Nature and Landscape Conservation
Most stakeholder-based research concerning agri-environmental schemes (AES) derives from work engaging with farmers and land managers. Consequently, the voices and opinions of other actors involved in AES tends to be unrepresented in the wider literature. One group of actors that seem particularly overlooked in this respect are private (independent) farm advisors (i.e., the consultants contracted by farmers and land managers to advise-on AES and agronomic matters). To begin to rectify this knowledge gap we developed an exploratory online survey to explore private farm advisor perspectives in the UK; specifically, the situation in England and advisors' experience of Natural England's Environmental Stewardship programme. A total of 251 Natural England registered farm advisors (29.9%) completed our survey. The majority of these had knowledge and expertise in relation to two (31.5%) or three (42.2%) Environmental Stewardship schemes, with proficiency in ELS (93.4%) and HLS (82.8%) being the most common. On average, advisors had 9.6 ± 5.6 yrs of experience and operated (75.3%) in a single region of England. Although our results concentrated upon a relatively simple set of initial topics of inquiry, the survey revealed a number of interesting findings. Firstly; for example, that in the opinion of the advisors working with farmers applying for Environmental Stewardship schemes, the 'knowledge-exchange encounter' occurring between themselves, their clients and Natural England is fundamental to the environmental effectiveness of these schemes as well as their farm business compatibility. Secondly, respondents suggested that beneath this 'encounter' lie tensions arising from the competing agendas and objectives of the different actors involved which can affect the content of agreements; for instance, farmer selection of management options versus Natural England's target environmental objectives. Farm advisors suggested that they had to negotiate this balance whilst also serving the needs of their clients. Thirdly, respondents raised issues concerning the complicated nature of scheme arrangements, both from their own and farmers' perspectives, as well as the adequacy of payments to cover input costs and matters regarding contractual compliance, all of which theyproposed affected farmer participation. Looking ahead, we believe that future AES should account for all of these issues in their design to aid long-term farmer participation, effective agreement implementation and beneficial environmental management.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Allen, B., Hart, K., 2013. Meeting the EU's environmental challenges through the CAP-how do the reforms measure up? In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 9-22.
    • Baker, D.J., Freeman, S.N., Grice, P.V., Siriwardena, G.M., 2012. Landscape-scale responses of birds to agri-environment management: a test of the English Environmental Stewardship scheme. J. Appl. Ecol. 49, 871-882.
    • Balmford, A., Green, R., Phalan, B., 2012. What conservationists need to know about farming. Proc. Biol. Sci. 279, 2714-2724.
    • Barreiro-Hurlé, J., Espinosa-Goded, M., Dupraz, P., 2010. Does intensity of change matter?: Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 53, 891-905.
    • Beckmann, V., Eggers, J., Mettepenningen, E., 2009. Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 52, 689-716.
    • Billeter, R., Liira, J., Bailey, D., Bugter, R., Arens, P., Augenstein, I., et al., 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J. Appl. Ecol. 45, 141-150.
    • Blainey, L., 2013. Less management prescription, more outcome focus-making environmental stewardship more effective (MESME) trialling project. Natural England Research Reports No. 047. Natural England. (pp. 1-152).
    • Boatman, N., Jones, N., Garthwaite, D., Bishop, J., Pietravalle, S., Harrington, P., Parry, H., 2007. Evaluation of the operation of environmental stewardship. Final Report, Defra Project No.MA01028 Central Science Laboratory. (pp. 1-9).
    • Boatman, N., Ramwell, C., Parry, H., Bishop, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., Dwyer, J., 2008. A review of environmental benefits supplied by agri-environment schemes. Land Use Policy Group, 1-275.
    • Boatman, N.D., Jones, N.E., Gaskell, P., Dwyer, J.C., 2010. Monitoring of agri-environment schemes in the UK. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 9-18.
    • Boatman, N.D., 2013. Evaluating the impacts of limiting free choice in management option selection by Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) applicants. Natural England Commissioned Reports No. 117. pp 89.
    • Borner, J., Wunder, S., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., Tito, M.R., Pereira, L., Nascimento, N., 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1272-1282.
    • Burton, R.J.F., Paragahawewa, U.H., 2011. Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. J. Rural Stud. 27, 95-104.
    • Burton, R.J.F., Schwarz, G., 2013. Result-oriented agri-environmental schemes in Europe and their potential for promoting behavioural change. Land Use Policy 30, 628-641.
    • CCRI, 2012. Attitudes to uplands entry level stewardship. Natural England Commissioned Reports No. 091. (pp. 1-139).
    • Chaplin, S.P., Radley, G.P., 2010. Where next for agri-environment schemes, evolution or revolution? In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 333-340.
    • Clothier, L., 2013. Campaign for the farmed environment: entry level stewardship option uptake. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Research Report No. 32. (pp. 1-13).
    • Cooper T., Hart K., Baldock D., 2009. Provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union, Report prepared for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, Institute for European Environment Policy, London, 1-396.
    • Courtney, P., Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Chaplin, S., 2013. Investigating the incidental benefits of Environmental Stewardship schemes in England. Land Use Policy 31, 26-37.
    • Critchley, C.N.R., Mole, A.C., Towers, J., Collins, A.L., 2013. Assessing the potential value of riparian buffer strips for biodiversity. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 101-108.
    • Cross, M., Franks, J.R., 2007. Farmer's and advisor's attitudes towards the environmental stewardship scheme. J. Farm Manage. 13, 47-68.
    • Danielsen, F., Adrian, T., Brofeldt, S., 2013. Community monitoring for REDD+: international promises and field realities. Ecol.Soc 18, 41.
    • Davey, C., Vickery, J., Boatman, N., Chamberlain, D., Parry, H., Siriwardena, G., 2010a. Regional variation in the efficacy of Entry Level Stewardship in England. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 139, 121-128.
    • Davey, C.M., Vickery, J.A., Boatman, N.D., Chamberlain, D.E., Parry, H.R., Siriwardena, G.M., 2010b. Assessing the impact of Entry Level Stewardship on lowland farmland birds in England. Ibis 152, 459-474.
    • Deal, R.L., Cochran, B., LaRocco, G., 2012. Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forest land value and enhance sustainable forest management. For. Policy Econ. 17, 69-76.
    • Defra and Natural England, 2008. Environmental Stewardship Review of Progress. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, pp. 1-167.
    • Defra, 2013. Consultation on the Implementation of CAP Reform in England: Summary of Responses and Government Response. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, pp. 1-102.
    • Defra, 2014. The New Common Agricultural Policy Schemes in England: October 2014 Update. Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, pp. 1-36.
    • Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., Trestini, S., 2008. Factors affecting farmers participation in agri-environmental measures: a northern Italian perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 59, 114-131.
    • Dilman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., 2009. Internet, mail and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    • Dobbs, T.L., Pretty, J., 2008. Case study of agri-environmental payments: the United Kingdom. Ecol. Econ 65, 765-775.
    • Ducos, G., Dupraz, P., Bonnieux, F., 2009. Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 52, 669-687.
    • Dunn, J.C., Hartwell, V., Morris, A.J., 2013. Multi-taxa benefits of a targeted single-species agri-environment option. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 137-144.
    • EEA, 2010. The European Environment State and Outlook 2010 Synthesis. Publications Office of the European Union, Copenhagen, pp. 1-228, Available from (http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis).
    • Emery, S.B., Franks, J.R., 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.
    • European Commission, 2005. Agri-environment Measures: Overview on General Principles, Types of Measures, and Application. European Commission, Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development1-24, Available from (http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/reports/agrienv/rep en.pdf).
    • European Commission, 2014. Overview of CAP Reform 2014-2020. Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief No. 5. (pp. 1-10), Available from (http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/policy-perspectives/policy-briefs/05 en.pdf).
    • European Court of Auditors, 2011. Is Agri-environment Support Well Designed and Managed? Special Report No. 7. (pp. 1-82), Available from (http://www.eca. europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR11 07/SR11 07 EN.PDF).
    • FAO, 2003. World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030. Earthscan Publications Ltd., pp. 1-444.
    • FAO, 2012. The State of Food and Agriculture 2012. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, pp. 1-182, Available from (http://www.fao.org/docrep/ 017/i3028e/i3028e.pdf).
    • FAO, 2014. The State of Food and Agriculture: Innovation in Family Farming. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, pp. 1-161, Available from (http://www. fao.org/3/a-i4040e.pdf).
    • FERA, 2012. Ecosystem services from environmental stewardship that benefit agricultural production. Natural England Commissioned Reports No. 102. Food and Environment Research Agency and Natural England. (pp. 1-157).
    • FERA, 2013. Monitoring the Impacts of Entry Level Stewardship. Natural England Commissioned Reports No. 133. Food and Environment Research Agency and Natural England. (pp. 1-280).
    • FERA, 2013b. Evidence Requirements to Support the Design of New Agri-environment Schemes-BD5011. Food and Environment Research Agency, pp. 1-201.
    • Falconer, K., 2000. Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J. Rural Stud. 16, 379-394.
    • Farmar-Bowers, Q., Lane, R., 2009. Understanding farmers' strategic decision-making processes and the implications for biodiversity conservation policy. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 1135-1144.
    • Ferraro, P.J., 2008. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 65, 810-821.
    • Field, R., Morris, A., Grice, P., Cooke, A., 2010. Evaluating the English higher level stewardship scheme for farmland birds. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 59-68.
    • Fraser, R., 2009. Land heterogeneity, agricultural income forgone and environmental benefit: an assessment of incentive compatibility problems in environmental stewardship schemes. J. Agric. Econ. 60, 190-201.
    • Fuentes-Montemayor, E., Goulson, D., Park, K.J., 2011. The effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for the conservation of farmland moths: assessing the importance of a landscape-scale management approach. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 532-542.
    • Garrod, G., Ruto, E., Willis, K., Powe, N., 2012. Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of Environmental Stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecol. Econ. 76, 104-111.
    • Garrod, G., 2009. Greening the CAP: how improved design and implementation of agri-environment schemes can enhance the delivery of environmental benefits. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 52, 581-574.
    • Ghazoul, J., Butler, R.A., Mateo-Vega, J., Koh, L.P., 2010. REDD: a reckoning of environment and development implications. Trends Ecol. Evol. 25, 396-402.
    • Gibbs, H.K., Ruesch, A.S., Achard, F., Clayton, M.K., Holmgren, P., Ramankutty, N., Foley, J.A., 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980 and 1990. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 107, 16732-16737.
    • Gibbs, C., 2010. The campaign for the farmed environment −a joined up future for agri-environment schemes? In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 327-332.
    • Godfray, H.C.J., Garnett, T., 2014. Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369.
    • Goodwin, C.G., Hugh, N.M.C., Holland, J.M., Leather, S.R., 2013. The influence of environmental stewardship (ES) summer foraging habitat on the territory selection of yellowhammer, Emberiza citronella. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 277-282.
    • Grau, R., Kuemmerle, T., Macchi, L., 2013. Beyond land sparing versus land sharing: environmental heterogeneity, globalization and the balance between agricultural production and nature conservation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5, 477-483.
    • Gruar, D.J., Morris, A.J., Dillion, I.A., 2013. Evaluating the efficacy of winter seed provision by different agri-environment scheme options. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 259-264.
    • Hart, K., 2010. Different approaches to agri-environment schemes in the EU-27. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 3-7.
    • Hejnowicz, A.P., Raffaelli, D.G., Rudd, M.A., White, P.C.L., 2014. Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework. Ecosyst. Serv. 9, 83-97.
    • Hejnowicz, A.P., Kennedy, H., Rudd, M.A., Huxham, M.R., 2015. Harnessing the climate mitigation, conservation and poverty alleviation potential of seagrasses: prospects for developing blue carbon initiatives and payment for ecosystem service programmes. Front. Mar. Sci. 2, 32, http://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fmars.2015.00032.
    • Henle, K., Alard, D., Clitherow, J., Cobb, P., Firbank, L., Kull, T., 2008. Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe-a review. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 124, 60-71.
    • Hinsley, S.A., Novakowski, M., Heard, M., Bellamy, P.E., Broughton, R.K., Hulmes, S., Peyton, J., Pywell, R.F., 2010. Performance and effectiveness of winter bird food patches established under environmental stewardship: results from the Hillesden experiment. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 151-158.
    • Hodge, I., Reader, M., 2010. The introduction of entry level stewardship in England: extension or dilution in agri-environment policy? Land Use Policy 27, 270-282.
    • Huber-Stearns, H.R., Goldstein, J.H., Duke, E.A., 2013. Intermediary roles and payments for ecosystem services: a typology and programs feasibility application in Panama. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 104-116.
    • Ingram, J., Gaskell, P., Mills, J., Short, C., 2013. Incorporating agri-environment schemes into farm development pathways: a temporal analysis of farmer motivations. Land Use Policy 31, 267-279.
    • Ingram, J., 2008a. Are farmers in England equipped to meet the knowledge challenge of sustainable soil management? An analysis of farmer and advisor views. J. Environ. Manage. 86, 214-228.
    • Ingram, J., 2008b. Agronomist-farmer knowledge encounters: an analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agric. Hum. Values 25, 405-418.
    • Jones, N.E., Boatman, N.D., Gathwaite, D., 2010. Implementation of environmental stewardship options −additionality and compliance. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 271-278.
    • Jones, G.D., Boatman, N.B., Crowe, A., 2013. Does advice work? Assessing the effectiveness of ETIP. In: environmental management on farmland. Asp. Appl. Biol. 118, 171-177.
    • Juntti, M., Potter, C., 2002. Interpreting and reinterpreting communication, trust and knowledge in the implementation process. Sociol. Ruralis 42, 215-232.
    • Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W.J., 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes on conserving and promoting biodiversity? J. App. Ecol. 40, 947-970.
    • Kleijn, D., Rundlöf, M., Scheper, J., Smith, H.G., Tscharntke, T., 2011. Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol. Evol. 26, 474-481.
    • Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., 2011. Global land use change economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 3465-3472.
    • Lastra-Bravo, X., Hubbard, C., Garrod, G., Tolón-Becerra, A., 2015. What drives famrers' participation in EU agri-environmental schemes? Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ. Sci. Policy 54, 1-9.
    • Lefebrve, M., Espinosa, M., Gomez y Paloma, S., Paracchini, M.L., Piorr, A., Zasada, I., 2015. Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 58, 2088-2112.
    • Legrand, T., Froger, G., Le Coq, J.F., 2013. Institutional performance of payments for environmental services: an analysis of the Costa Rican program. For. Policy Econ. 37, 115-123.
    • Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Kanemoto, K., Foran, B., Lobefaro, L., Geschke, A., 2012. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109-112.
    • Lin, H., Nakamura, M., 2012. Payments for watershed services: directing incentives for improve lake basin governance. Lakes Reserv.: Res. Manag. 17, 191-206.
    • Lobley, M., Saratsi, E., Winter, M., 2010. Training and advice for agri-environmental management. BOU Proceedings-Lowland Farmland Birds III, 1-5.
    • Martin-Ortega, J., Ojea, E., Roux, C., 2013. Payments for water ecosystem services in Latin America: a literature review and conceptual model. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 122-132.
    • McCormack, C., 2012. Greening the common agricultural policy. BES Bull. 43 (3), 5-7.
    • McKenzie, A.J., Emery, S.B., Franks, J.R., Whittingham, M.J., 2013. Landscape-scale conservation: collaborative agri-environment schemes could benefit both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but will farmers be willing to participate? J. Appl. Ecol. 50, 1274-1280.
    • Mettepenningen, E., Verspecht, A., Van Huylenbroeck, G., 2009. Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. J. Environ. Plan. Manage 52, 649-667.
    • Mills Busa, J.H., 2013. Deforestation beyond borders: addressing the disparity between production and consumption of global resources. Conserv. Lett. 6, 192-199.
    • Mills, J., 2012. Exploring the social benefits of agri-environment schemes in England. J. Rural Stud. 28, 612-621.
    • Mills, J., Gaskell, P., Short, C., Boatman, N., Winter, M., 2013. Farmer attitudes and evaluation of outcomes to on-farm environmental management, Report to Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. CCRI, Gloucester, (pp. 1-222).
    • Morris, C., Potter, C., 1995. ecruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the U. K. J. of Rural Studies 11, 51-63.
    • Morris, A.J., Bailey, C.M., Dillon, I.A., Gruar, D.J., Westbury, D.B., 2010. Improving floristically enhanced field margin for wildlife. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 353-357.
    • Mountford, J.O., Cooke, A.I., Radley, G.P., 2013. Higher level stewardship (HLS)-developing a standard method for evaluation of agreements against objectives. In: agri-environment schemes - what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 27-33.
    • Natural England, 2012a. Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. Environmental Stewardship Handbook, fourth edition (NE349). Natural England, pp. 1-180.
    • Natural England, 2012b. Organic Entry Level Stewardship Scheme. Environmental Stewardship Handbook, fourth edition (NE351). Natural England, pp. 1-194.
    • Natural England, 2012c. Higher Level Stewardship Scheme. Environmental Stewardship Handbook, fourth edition (NE350). Natural England, pp. 1-120.
    • Natural England, 2013. Scheme Development Bulletin Edition 3, August 2013. Natural England, pp. 1-8.
    • Natural England, 2014. Scheme Development Bulletin Edition 5, March 2014. Natural England., pp. 1-12.
    • OECD, 2008. Environmental Performance of Agriculture in OECD Countries Since 1990. OECD, Paris, France, pp. 1-9.
    • OECD/FAO, 2011. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020. OECD Publishing and FAO, pp. 1-196.
    • Pascual, U., Muradian, R., Rodríguez, L.C., Duraiappah, A., 2010. Exploring the links between equity and efficiency in payments for environmental services: a conceptual approach. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1237-1244.
    • Pe'er, G., Dicks, L.V., Visconti, P., Arlettaz, R., Báldi, A., Benton, T.G., et al., 2014. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 344, 1090-1092.
    • Peyton, J., Heard, M.S., Pywell, R.F., 2013. Testing the benefits of new agri-environment options for pollinating insects. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 291-296.
    • Pike, T., 2008. Understanding behaviours in a farming context. Defra Agricultural Change and Environment Observatory Discussion Paper.
    • Pike, T., 2013. Farmer engagement: an essential policy tool for delivering environmental management on farmland. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 187-191.
    • Poppy, G.M., Jepson, P.C., Pickett, J.A., Birkett, M.A., 2014. Achieving food and environmental security: new approaches to close the gap. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 369.
    • Porras, I., Aylward, B., Dengel, J., 2013. Sustainable markets monitoring payments for watershed service schemes in developing countries. London, Int. Inst. Environ. Dev., 1-36.
    • Pretty, J., Sutherland, W.J., Ashby, J., Auburn, J., Baulcombe, D., Bell, M., et al., 2010. The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 8, 219-236.
    • Quillérou, E., Fraser, R., Fraser, I., 2011. Farmer compensation and its consequences for environmental benefit provision in the higher level stewardship scheme. J. Agric. Econ. 62, 330-339.
    • Quinton, J.N., Govers, G., Van Oost, K., Bardgett, R.D., 2010. The impact of agricultural soil erosion on biogeochemical cycling. Nat. Geosci. 3, 311-314.
    • Radley, G.P., 2013. Lessons for the design of future agri-environment schemes. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 1-8.
    • Ramwell, C.T., Boatman, N.D., 2010. Assessing the impact of environmental stewardship on the protection of water resources. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 175-180.
    • Rollett, A., Haines-Young, R., Potschin, M., Kumar, P., 2008. Delivering environmental services through agri-environment programmes: a scoping study, Report to the Land Use Policy Group, Peterborough, England.
    • Ruto, E., Garrod, G., 2009. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 52, 631-647.
    • Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 6, 16-30.
    • Schroeder, L., Isselstein, J., Chaplin, S., Peel, S., 2013. Agri-environment schemes: farmers' acceptance and perception of potential payment by results in grassland-a case study in England. Land Use Policy 32, 134-144.
    • Siebert, R., Toogood, M., Knierim, A., 2006. Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Ruralis 46, 318-340.
    • Siriwardena, G.M., 2010. The importance of spatial and temporal scale for agri-environment scheme delivery. Ibis 152, 515-529.
    • Smits, M.-J., Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P., 2008. Governing agri-environmental schemes: lessons to be learned from the new institutional-economics approach. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 26, 627-643.
    • Still, K.S., Byfield, A.J., 2010. Is environmental stewardship working for rare and threatened plants? In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 279-286.
    • Sutherland, L.-A., Mills, J., Ingram, J., Burton, R.J.F., Dwyer, J., Blackstock, K., 2013. Considering the source: commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England. J. Environ. Manage. 118, 96-105.
    • Thuy, P.T., Campbell, R.M., Garnett, S., Aslin, H., Hoang, M.H., 2010. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environ. Conserv. 37, 64-72.
    • Tscharntke, T., Klein, A.M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Thies, C., 2005. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 8, 857-874.
    • Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., Whitbread, A., 2012. Global food security: biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification. Biol. Conserv. 151, 53-59.
    • Tucker, R., 2010. Preserving the balance. In: agri-environment schemes-what have they achieved and where do we go from here? Asp. Appl. Biol. 100, 1-2.
    • Udagawa, C., Hodge, I., Reader, M., 2014. Farm level costs of agri-environment measures: the impact of entry level stewardship on cereal farm incomes. J. Agric. Econ. 65, 212-233.
    • Van Herzele, A., Gobin, A., Van Gossum, P., Acosta, L., Waas, T., Dendoncker, N., Henry de Frahan, B., 2013. Effort for money? Farmers' rationale for participation in agri-environment measures with different implementation complexity. J. Environ. Manage. 131, 110-120.
    • Vesterager, J.P., Lindegaard, K., 2012. The role of farm advisors in multifunctional landscapes: a comparative study of three Danish areas, 1995 and 2008. Landsc. Res. 37, 673-702.
    • Wünscher, T., Engel, S., Wunder, S., 2008. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 65, 822-833.
    • Whittingham, M.J., 2007. Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not? J. Appl. Ecol. 44, 1-5.
    • Whittingham, M.J., 2011. The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 509-513.
    • Wilson, G.A., Hart, K., 2000. Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivation for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ. Plann. A 32, 2161-2185.
    • Wilson, G.A., Hart, K., 2001. Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking? Sociologia Ruralis 41, 254-274.
    • Winter, M., 1997. New policies and new skills: agricultural change and technology transfer. Sociologia Ruralis 37, 363-381.
    • Wunder, S., Engel, S., Pagiola, S., 2008. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 65, 834-852.
    • WWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme), 2014. The united Nations World Water Development Report 2014: Water and Energy. UNESCO, Paris1-230.
    • Zanten, B.T.van., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., et al., 2014. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 309-325.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article