Advertisement

Conservation and Rural Environmental Protection Schemes

  • Stephen HynesEmail author
  • Niall Farrelly
  • Eithne Murphy
  • Cathal O’Donoghue
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

One of the main effects of intensification of agriculture in the last half century has been the reduction in the area of the various semi-natural habitats associated with traditional, mixed farming (Vickery et al. 2004). In general, since the land cover type and productivity of a specific location determine intensity of farming practices, the greatest habitat losses have occurred in lowland, fertile areas dominated by arable farming. However, as the RSPB (2001) point out, the decline in habitat quality has also been a major factor in marginal agricultural areas. Solutions to these problems of habitat loss have, in general, involved, firstly, the agricultural landscape being targeted for remedial work and secondly, the motivation of landowners by policymakers to change any farm practices that are detrimental to the rural environment. Incentives have been provided through a range of policy measures including agri-environment and wildlife management schemes.

Keywords

Habitat Type Land Cover Type Discrete Choice Experiment Habitat Conservation Habitat Data 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Berendse F, Chamberlain D, Kleijn D, Schekkerman H (2004) Declining biodiversity in agricultural landscapes and the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes. Ambio 3:499–502Google Scholar
  2. Bullock C, Styles D (2006) Towards sustainability in the national development plan 2007–2013. In: Proceedings of the Comhar conference. Davenport Hotel, Dublin, 4–6 Oct 2006Google Scholar
  3. Campbell D (2007) Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58(3):467–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Christie M, Hanley N, Warren J, Murphy K, Wright R, Hyde T (2006) Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Ecol Econ 58(2):304–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clergue B, Amiaud B, Pervanchon F, Lasserre-Joulin F, Plantureux S (2005) Biodiversity: function and assessment in agricultural areas: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 25:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Connolly L, Kinsella A, Quinlan G, Moran B (2005) National farm survey 2003: analysis of REPS/non-REPS farms. Teagasc, DublinGoogle Scholar
  7. Crabtree J, Thorburn A, Chalmers N, Roberts D, Wynn, G, Barron N, Macmillan D, Barraclough F (1999) Socio-economic and agricultural impacts of the environmentally sensitive areas scheme in Scotland. Report to the Scottish Executive, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  8. Cunningham M (2005) A comparison of public lands and farmlands for grassland bird conservation. Prof Geog 57:51–65Google Scholar
  9. DAF (Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development) (1999) Evaluation of the rural environment protection scheme, DublinGoogle Scholar
  10. DEFRA (2002) Working with the grain of nature: a biodiversity strategy for England. Defra, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dupraz P, Vermersch D, Henry de Fraham B, Delvaux L (2003) The environmental supply of farm households: a flexible WTA model. Environ Resour Econ 25:171–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emerson H, Gillmor D (1999) The rural environment protection scheme of the Republic of Ireland. Land Use Policy 16:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. EPA (2004) State of the environment report 2004. EPA, WexfordGoogle Scholar
  14. European Court of Auditors (2005) The verification of agri-environment expenditure. European Court of Auditors special report no. 3Google Scholar
  15. Falconer K, Dupraz P, Whitby M (2001) An investigation of policy administrative costs using panel data for the English environmentally sensitive areas. J Agric Econ 52(1):83–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finn J (2003) The agri-environmental measure of the rural development regulation (1257/99): an overview of policy issues. Ir J Agri-Environ Res 3:1–16Google Scholar
  17. Garrod G, Willis K (1999) Methodological issues in valuing the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas. J Rural Stud 15(1):111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green R, Cornell S, Scharlemann J, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamell M (2001) Policy aspects of the agriculture: environment relationship. Tearmann 1:1–10Google Scholar
  20. Hanley N, Whitby M, Simpson I (1999) Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 16:67–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hodge I, McNally S (1998) Evaluating the environmentally sensitive areas: the value of rural environments and policy relevance. J Rural Stud 14:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hynes S, Garvey E (2009) Modelling farmers’ participation in an agri-environmental scheme using panel data: an application to the rural environmental protection scheme in Ireland. J Agri Econ 60(3):546–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hynes S, Kinsella A, Farrelly N (2007) A decade on: the effect of the rural environment protection scheme on national farming practices in Ireland. In: Agricultural research forum proceedings, Tullamore, 12 Mar 2007Google Scholar
  24. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Loftus M, Bulfin M, Farrelly N, Fealy R, Green S, Meehan R, Radford T (2002) The Irish forest soils project and its potential contribution to the assessment of biodiversity. Biol Environ Proc R Ir Acad 102(3):151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Long J, Freese J (2003) Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  27. McEvoy O (1999) Impact of REPS: analysis from the National Farm Survey. Teagasc report, Rural Economic Research Centre, DublinGoogle Scholar
  28. National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) (2005) All-Ireland species action plans for the Irish Hare, the Corncrake, the Pollan and Irish Lady’s Tresses (www.npws.ie)
  29. Peach W, Lovett L, Wotton S, Jeffs C (2001) Countryside stewardship delivers cirl buntings in Devon, UK. Biol Conserv 101:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Primdahl J, Peco B, Schramek J, Andersen E, Oñate J (2003) Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. J Environ Manage 67:129–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rice G (2003) Progress on REPS mid-term review. Paper presented at the national REPS conference “REPS in a Changing Environment”, 4 Nov 2003Google Scholar
  32. RSPB (2001) Futurescapes: large-scale habitat restoration for wildlife and people. RSPB, BedfordshireGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanslembrouck I, Van Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W (2002) Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J Agri Econ 53(3):1477–9552Google Scholar
  34. Vickery J, Bradbury R, Henderson I, Eaton M, Grice P (2004) The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biol Conserv 119:19–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weibull A, Östman Ö, Granqvist Å (2003) Species richness in agro-ecosystems: the effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers Conserv 12:1335–1355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wossink G, van Wenum H (2003) Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation. Eur Rev Agric Econ 30:461–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Hynes
    • 1
    Email author
  • Niall Farrelly
    • 2
  • Eithne Murphy
    • 3
  • Cathal O’Donoghue
    • 4
  1. 1.Socio-Economic Marine Research UnitNational University of Ireland GalwayGalway Co.GalwayIreland
  2. 2.Forestry Development UnitTeagasc AthenryCo, GalwayIreland
  3. 3.Discipline of EconomicsNational University of IrelandGalway Co, GalwayIreland
  4. 4.Rural Economy and Development ProgrammeTeagascAthenryIreland

Personalised recommendations