Abstract
Given the interaction between agriculture, as a major land use and the environment, there has been increasing concern about environmental outcomes and agriculture. One of the policy levers that has been used has been the development of voluntary agri-environmental schemes (AES), where financial incentives are provided for farmers to farm in environmentally sustainable ways. In this chapter, we develop a behavioural choice model to understand farmer behaviour in relation to scheme participation. Drawing upon the literature developed within the behavioural labour supply microsimulation literature, where actual choice information in relation to structural drivers such as income and labour, together with simulated counterfactual data, are combined in the estimation of a choice model that captures the behavioural parameters of a utility function. Also in this chapter, we utilise the income generation model described in Chapter 7 to simulate farm market income, costs, subsidies and labour for the counterfactual or non-chosen choice. So, for example, we observe the data for actual participants and so we simulate the characteristics for non-participation and vice versa for actual non-participants. These data are combined as choice specific attributes in the estimation of a utility function containing the preference parameters for the choice. The restricted model shows that Irish farmers behave rationally, maximising utility from consumption through farm income and AES payments. Results from the unrestricted model show that farmers’ utility-maximising behaviour with regard to the AES participation decision is complex, changing regionally and over time. Participation functions of viable and non-viable farmers differ in many ways.
Co-authored with Ger Johnston and Stephen Hynes.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aaberge, R., & Colombino, U. (2014). Labour supply models. In Handbook of microsimulation modelling (pp. 167–221). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Arovuori, K. (2011). Explaining finnish farmers’ policy responses with environmental attitudes. European association of agricultural economists 2011. International Congress, August 30–September 2, 2011–2012.
Bateman, I., Carson, R., Day, B., Hanemann, M., Hanley, N., Hett, T., et al. (2002). Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: A manual. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Bateman, I. J., Willis, K., & Garrod, G. (1994). Consistency between contingent valuation estimates—A comparison of two studies of UK national parks. Regional Studies, 28, 74–457.
Becker, G. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385–409.
Beharry-Borg, N., Smart, J., Termansen, M., & Hubacek, K. (2013). Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands. Regional Enviromental Change, 13(3), 633–647.
Blundell, R., & Macurdy, T. (1999). Labor supply: A review of alternative approaches. In O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (Vol. 5, pp. 1559–1698). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Chang, H., & Boisvert, R. (2009). Are farmers’ decisions to work off the farm related to their decision to participate in the conservation reserve program. Applied Economics, 41, 71–85.
Creedy, J., & Guyonne, K. (2005). Discrete hours labour supply modelling: Specification, estimation and simulation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(5), 697–734.
Damianos, D., & Giannakopoulos, N. (2002). Farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes in Greece. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 261–273.
Defrancesco, E., Gatto, P., Runge, F., & Trestini, S. (2008). Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A Northern Italian perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 59(1), 114–131.
Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurle, J., & Ruto, E. (2010). What do farmers want from agri-environmental scheme design? A choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 259–273.
Falconer, K. (2000). Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. Journal of rural studies, 16(3), 379–394.
Ferraro, P. (2008). Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 65, 810–821.
Finn, J., Bartolini, F., Bourke, D., Kurz, I., & Viaggi, D. (2009). Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts’ judgements and multicriteria analysis. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 717–737.
Hanley, N., Wright, R., & Alvarez-Farizo, B. (2006). Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: An application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management, 78, 183–193.
Hynes, S., & Garvey, E. (2009). Modelling farmers’ participation in an agri-environmental scheme using panel data. An application to the rural environment protection scheme in Ireland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(3), 546–562.
Hynes, S., Farrelly, N., Murphy, E., & O’Donoghue, C. (2008). Modelling habitat conservation and participation in agri-environmental schemes: A spatial microsimulation approach. Ecological Economics, 66(2), 258–269.
Lynch, L., & Lovell, S. J. (2003). Local land markets and agricultural preservation programs. In C. Moss & A. Schmitz (Eds.), Government policy and farmland markets: The maintenance of farmer wealth (pp. 285–302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Murphy, G., Hynes, S., Murphy, E., & O’Donoghue, C. (2014a). An investigation into the type of farmer who chose to participate in rural environment protection scheme (REPS) and the role of institutional change in influencing scheme effectiveness. Land Use Policy, 39, 199–210. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.015.
Murphy, G., Hynes, S., O’Donoghue, C., & Murphy, E. (2014b). An investigation into the type of farmer who chose to participate in reps and the role of institutional change in influencing scheme effectiveness. Land Use Policy, 39, 199–210.
Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Soest, A. (1995). Structural models of family labor supply: A discrete choice approach. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 63–88.
Weber, J., & Key, N. (2012). How much do decoupled payments affect production? An instrumental variable approach with panel data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 94(1), 52–66.
Wilson, G. A. (1997). Factors influencing farmer participation in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme. Journal of Environmental Management, 50, 67–93. doi: 10.1006/jema.1996.0095.
Wynn, G., Crabtree, B., & Potts, J. (2001). Modelling farmer entry into the environmentally sensitive area schemes in Scotland. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 52(1), 65–82.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
O’Donoghue, C. (2017). Behavioural Microsimulation Modelling: Agri-Environmental Schemes. In: Farm-Level Microsimulation Modelling. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63979-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63979-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-63978-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-63979-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)