Conference Agenda

In the context of the most recent reform of the European Common Agricultural Policy (2023-2027), new voluntary environment-friendly measures have been introduced. These measures, termed eco-schemes, represent one-year arrangements with limited restrictions. They are therefore considered to be more flexible than the revised and more demanding agri-environment-climate measures (AECM). The introduction of the new eco-schemes, alongside the AECM, raises questions regarding 1) the acceptance of eco-schemes by farmers, and 2) the long-term impact on adoption of AECM. Would farmers prefer to continue with familiar measures or opt for the new, less restrictive, and shorter eco-schemes? This study addressed these questions by conducting discrete choice experiments—a stated preferences method—on a sample of 390 farmers with previous experience with AECM. Results reveal a general aversion to voluntary agri-environmental measures. However, farmers are more inclined to implement the new eco-schemes, rather than the more familiar AECM, especially when the compensation of the latter is conditional on the environmental results. The findings also emphasize the importance of the flexibility of the contract on farmers’ preferences, particularly when dealing with result-based AECM.

We study the role of subnational institutions in forest conservation when areas near roads are prone to deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon. We build a local-institutions index applying a principal component analysis and find that a higher value of the index is significantly correlated with lower deforestation. However, the effect of our index is not sufficiently large to offset the deforesting effect that closeness to roads has, at least not for relatively short distances to road. These results are robust to several specifications of our index (including a linear aggregation) and to the inclusion of a large set of covariates.

Immersive technologies, such as virtual reality (VR), are rapidly reshaping our methods of communication by transforming our perception of the natural world. These immersive experiences within virtual environments are posited to elicit more profound emotional responses and improve pro-environmental outcomes by enhancing our awareness of environmental shifts. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. Collaborating with an international organization, the Interfaith Rain forest Initiative, we assessed the effectiveness of VR technology, compared to conventional 2D methods, in conveying information aimed at promoting forest conservation behaviors. Using a preregistered field experiment conducted in a Brazilian shopping mall, we randomly assigned 604 shoppers to watch either an immersive video clip of the Amazon Forest through VR or a traditional 2D device. Additionally, shoppers were subjected to random interviews conducted after viewing the video or before the experience. Following this, shoppers were asked to perform three actions: donate money to a humanitarian campaign for Amazon indigenous peoples, share a conservation campaign on their social media, and share their willingness to share contact information to receive further updates. Subsequently, we followed up with those who willingly shared their contact information after three months. We find that information messaging, regardless of the mode, significantly augments individuals' propensity to contribute to the Amazonian conservation fund and interact with the social media campaign. VR is only slightly more effective than conventional 2D technology in improving these outcomes in the long term. Our findings raise concerns about the potential of using immersive technologies to improve pro-environmental outcomes.

Action-based agri-environmental schemes (AES), designed to address the adverse effects of agriculture on the environment, encounter low participation from farmers and have a limited environmental impact. Consequently, there is an increasing policy interest in other forms of schemes (e.g., result-based). However, little is known about how the farmers’ potential to provide environmental outcomes, including water quality, climate and biodiversity, influence their preference for AES. This paper investigates the effect of potential environmental and economic outcomes linked to agricultural land on the farmers’ preference for land set-aside schemes. We do this by combining spatially specific agro-ecological models and a discrete-choice experiment. We find that the opportunity cost from land set-aside has a detrimental influence on farmers' decisions to enroll in AES, while it does not affect their preference for provisions of additional hectares of land set aside once enrolled. Conversely, we find that the predicted environmental outcomes of agricultural land play a key role in farmers' willingness to accept in setting aside additional hectares of agricultural land, while they do not influence farmers' decisions to enroll in the scheme. Our findings provide strong evidence for the potential gains from improvements to fixed-payment and action-based schemes, and present important policy considerations as we move forward.