Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wossink, G. A. A.
Right arrow Articles by van Wenum, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow Q12 - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, [...]
Right arrow Q16 - R&D; Agricultural Technology; [...]
Right arrow Q24 - Land
Right arrow Q26 - Recreational Aspects of Natural Resources
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

European Review of Agricultural Economics vol. 30 no. 4 © Oxford University Press and Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics 2003; all rights reserved

Biodiversity conservation by farmers: analysis of actual and contingent participation

G. A. A. Wossink

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA, and Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

J. H. van Wenum

LTO Nederland, The Hague, Netherlands

Corresponding author: G. A. A. Wossink, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-8109, USA. E-mail: ada_wossink{at}ncsu.edu

Received December 2001; Revision received August 2003.

Summary

This paper examines actual and contingent participation by Dutch arable farmers in biodiversity conservation programmes. Probit and Tobit modelling were used to analyse the effect of farm and farmer characteristics and farmer attitudes on participation. The optimal bid offer was derived from a referendum contingent valuation (CV) survey for a proposed field margin programme. The results indicate that actual and contingent participation are better explained by the production environment and by familiarity with conservation programmes than by farmer characteristics or field characteristics. Contingent participation was significantly affected by farmers' perceptions of weed risks. The CV experiment suggested that up to 60 per cent participation might be achieved with appropriate bid offers.

Keywords: biodiversity conservation, arable farming, participation, CVM

JEL classification: Q12, Q16, Q24, Q26


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.