Cited by 100Socioeconomics of Resources and ConservationConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementAgricultural Economics and Policy

Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?

Page, Girija, Bellotti, Bill·2015·Science of The Total Environment

Abstract

Optimal participation in market-based instruments such as PES (payment for ecosystem services) schemes is a necessary precondition for achieving large scale cost-effective conservation goals from agricultural landscapes. However farmers' willingness to participate in voluntary conservation programmes is influenced by psychological, financial and social factors and these need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this research farmers' values towards on-farm ecosystem services, motivations and perceived impediments to participation in conservation programmes are identified in two local land services regions in Australia using surveys. Results indicated that irrespective of demographics such as age, gender, years farmed, area owned and annual gross farm income, farmers valued ecosystem services important for future sustainability. Non-financial motivations had significant associations with farmer's perceptions regarding attitudes and values towards the environment and participation in conservation-related programmes. Farmer factors such as lack of awareness and unavailability of adequate information were correlated with non-participation in conservation-based programmes. In the current political context, government uncertainty regarding schemes especially around carbon sequestration and reduction was the most frequently cited impediment that could deter participation. Future research that explores willingness of farmers towards participation in various types of PES programmes developed around carbon reduction, water quality provision and biodiversity conservation, and, duration of the contract and payment levels that are attractive to the farmers will provide insights for developing farmer-friendly PES schemes in the region.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.029

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 100

Authors
Page, G., & Bellotti, B.
Affiliations
Western Sydney University (AU)
Corresponding author
Page, Girija
Venue
Science of The Total Environment
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
515-516
Pages
12-19
ISSN
0048-9697 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2063188292
Cited by
100
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 2
FWCI
26.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Science of The Total Environment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Vincent Fairfax Family Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Policy
Keywords
payment for ecosystem services, farmer participation, farmer motivation, non-monetary motivation, environmental attitudes, biodiversity conservation, agricultural landscapes

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