|11.00 – 11.15||Payments for ecological compensation areas: Benefits for biodiversity and multifunctionality related to environmental conditions and farming systems
Presenter: Solen Le Clec’h, Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University and Research
Agri-environmental schemes are one of the policy instruments introduced in Europe to lead to ecological improvements on farms and surrounding areas for biodiversity conservation, and ecosystem services. We examined the potential benefits for biodiversity and multifunctionality of two types of ecological compensation areas (ECA), i.e., action-oriented (ECA1) vs. result-oriented (ECA2) agri-environmental schemes, compared to intensively managed grasslands in the canton of Solothurn, Switzerland. We first assessed the different environmental conditions in which the six grassland types (ECA1, ECA2, intensive, managed as meadows or pastures) differ. Then we estimated the multifunctionality of ECAs, based on their spatial location. Finally, based on census data, we assessed how different farming systems, incl. organic versus conventional farming differs in their uptake of ECAs per farm. Our results show that grasslands under ECA 1 and 2 were located on lands that are not the most suitable for agricultural production. The environmental conditions of the grassland types differ in those intensive grasslands were located at sites most suitable for intensification, while action-oriented (ECA1) were located at less suitable and result-oriented ECAs at even worse locations in terms elevation, distance to farm etc.). The potential multifunctionality was also higher in ECAs, as most of the value of most of the four ecosystem services considered was higher in ECAs than in intensive grasslands. Organic farms contained much higher proportions of ECAs than conventional farms. Other differences can be observed between organic and conventional farms in terms of management characteristics. The outcomes of our study help to understand the landscape-level outcomes of the uptake of three agri-environmental schemes, i.e., action- vs. result-oriented ECAs and organic farming, and their interplay. Results will further help to understand which sites biodiversity and multifunctionality are (potentially) being supported as based on farmers decisions and the environmental setting.
|11.15 – 11.30||General Question and Answer|
|11.30 – 11.45||From value perception to behavioral intention: Study of Chinese smallholder’s pro-environmental farming practices
Presenter: Fan Li, Development Economics Group, Wageningen University and Research
Internal motivation is a crucial factor determining an individual’s behavior, this is particularly relevant to smallholders’ adoption of the pro-environmental agricultural practices in rural China. However, there has been rather limited evidence about smallholders’ behavioral intention formation, especially focusing on farmers’ pro-environmental practices. Using a large-scale in-depth interview data from a sample of 549 rural farmers in Shandong province in China, we developed an integrated socio-psychological model, which interlinked the value-belief-norm (VBN) theory and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) into a coherent framework, and we further tested the model by using the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The results can be summarized into three bullet points: (a) the integrated model (compare to either VBN or the TPB model) shows a substantial improvement in explaining smallholder’s behavioral intention; b)farmer’s value perception of (farm) environment plays a fundamental role in forming their behavioral intention; c) the TPB theory exhibit better performance than VBN theory; however, the TPB theory is rather incomplete, in a sense that farmers’ subjective norms, behavior attitudes, and their perceived behavioral control (core elements in the TPB theory) are shaped by their value perceptions. This result indicates that to foster smallholders’ internal motivation in adopting pro-environmental agricultural practices, policymakers should particularly take into account farmers’ value perception of the environment.
|11.45 – 12.00||General Question and Answer|