Behavioural Microsimulation Modelling: Agri-Environmental Schemes

  • Cathal O’DonoghueEmail author


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.


  1. Aaberge, R., & Colombino, U. (2014). Labour supply models. In Handbook of microsimulation modelling (pp. 167–221). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker, G. (1993). Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101(3), 385–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Creedy, J., & Guyonne, K. (2005). Discrete hours labour supply modelling: Specification, estimation and simulation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(5), 697–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Damianos, D., & Giannakopoulos, N. (2002). Farmers’ participation in agri-environmental schemes in Greece. British Food Journal, 104(3/4/5), 261–273.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falconer, K. (2000). Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. Journal of rural studies, 16(3), 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferraro, P. (2008). Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecological Economics, 65, 810–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Train, K. (2003). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Soest, A. (1995). Structural models of family labor supply: A discrete choice approach. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rural Economy and Development ProgrammeAthenryIreland

Personalised recommendations