Cited by 77Agricultural Innovations and PracticesSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationSoil erosion and sediment transport

Economic Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Land Management Technologies: An Analysis of WOCAT's Global Data

Giger, Markus, Liniger, Hanspeter, Sauter, Caspar, Schwilch, Gudrun·2018·Land Degradation & Development

Abstract

Perceived profitability is a key factor in explaining farmers' decision to adopt or not adopt sustainable land management (SLM) technologies. Despite this importance, relatively little is known about the economics of SLM. This paper contributes to the literature by analysing data on costs and perceived cost/benefit ratios of SLM technologies. Data are taken from the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies technology database and cover 363 case studies conducted in a variety of countries between 1990 and 2012. Based on an in‐depth descriptive analysis, we determine what costs accrue to local stakeholders and assess perceived short‐term and long‐term cost/benefit ratios. Our results show that a large majority of the technologies in our sample are perceived as being profitable: 73% were perceived to have a positive or at least neutral cost/benefit ratio in the short term, while 97% were perceived to have a positive or very positive cost/benefit ratio in the long term. An additional empirical analysis confirms that economic factors are key determinants of land users' decisions to adopt or not adopt SLM technologies. We conclude that a wide range of existing SLM practices generate considerable benefits not only for land users, but for other stakeholders as well. High initial investment costs associated with some practices may, however, constitute a barrier to their adoption; short‐term support for land users can help to promote these practices where appropriate.…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ldr.2429

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most of the SLM technologies analyzed became profitable within three to ten years after continued application.

    “Giger et al.'s (126) analysis of the costs and benefits of individual SLM technologies showed that most of the SLM technologies analyzed became profitable within three to ten years after continued application.”

    From Restoring Degraded Lands (2021) · cites this paper as [126]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Restoring Degraded Lands

    Arneth, A., Olsson, L., Cowie, A., Erb, K.-H., Hurlbert, M., Kurz, W. A., Mirzabaev, A., & Rounsevell, M. D. A. (2021) · Annual Review of Environment and Resources · doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809 · Cited by 106 · see citing works

    “’s (126) analysis of the costs and benefits of individual SLM technologies showed that most of the SLM technologies analyzed became profitable within three to ten years after continued application.”
    Background

Authors
Giger, M., Liniger, H., Sauter, C., & Schwilch, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Bern (CH)
  • University of Neuchâtel (CH)
Corresponding author
Giger, Markus
Venue
Land Degradation & Development
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10-07
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
962-974
ISSN
  • 1085-3278 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-145X
OpenAlex
W1482749419
Cited by
77
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8
FWCI
16.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Land Degradation and Development (publishedVersion)
  • BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
  • International Fund for Agricultural Development
  • Direktion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil erosion and sediment transport
Keywords
sustainable land management, technology adoption, cost-benefit analysis, perceived profitability, WOCAT, conservation technology, initial investment cost, barriers to adoption, stakeholder benefits, agricultural economics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review