Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 attitudes and perceptions of locals and the interactions between agricultural practices and ecosystem service delivery vary with their contexts.
“as the attitudes and perceptions of locals and the interactions between agricultural practices and ES delivery all vary with their contexts [59].”
From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [59]
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
- ORCID
- Bellotti, Bill
- 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