Just Accepted Manuscripts
Special Issue 14th AIEAA Conference

Factors Influencing Farmers’ WTA Innovative Carbon Farming Contracts For Environmental Improvements

pdf accepted
suppl mat
  • Georges Assaker,
  • Daniele Vergamini,
  • Francesco Riccioli,
  • Fabio Bartolini
Georges Assaker
University of Ferrara
Bio
Daniele Vergamini
University of Pisa
Bio
Francesco Riccioli
University of Pisa
Bio
Fabio Bartolini
Bio
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18771

Published 2026-07-29

Keywords

  • Carbon Farming,
  • Choice Experiment,
  • Agri-Environmental and Climate Schemes,
  • Willingness to Accept,
  • Innovative Contracts

How to Cite

Assaker, G., Vergamini, D., Riccioli, F., & Bartolini, F. (2026). Factors Influencing Farmers’ WTA Innovative Carbon Farming Contracts For Environmental Improvements. Bio-Based and Applied Economics. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-18771

Copyright (c) 2026 Georges Assaker, Daniele Vergamini, Francesco Riccioli, Fabio Bartolini

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Carbon Farming (CF) practices represent a promising pathway to enhance carbon storage in vulnerable agricultural areas. This study addresses the knowledge gap in the design and acceptability of Agri-Environmental and Climate Schemes (AECS) by examining how tailored CF contracts can promote sustainable practices. Focusing on Liguria, Italy, it explores farmers’ preferences for hypothetical CF measures and the factors shaping their willingness to accept. A Discrete Choice Experiment with 93 farmers, analyzed through a Conditional Logit Model, shows that farmers prioritize individual over collective participation and favor action-based contracts, followed by hybrid and results-based schemes, with higher compensation demanded for the latter. Followed by a Latent Class Model, two classes were identified; the first favors individual engagement with higher compensation, while the second places greater weight on prescription levels. Findings underline the need for AECS that reflect diverse preferences, integrate results-based elements with collective action, and ensure adequate compensation for support.

pdf accepted
suppl mat

References

  1. Alló, M., Loureiro, M. L., & Iglesias, E. (2015). Farmers’ preferences and social capital regarding agri‐environmental schemes to protect birds. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(3), 672–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-9552.12104
  2. Andersen, E., Gaebel, C., Kelemen, E., Megyesi, B., & Sharif, L. (2023). Green paper on new policies for novel contract options. In project-contracts20.eu. https://www.project-contracts20.eu/practice-policy-briefs/
  3. Ansell, D., Freudenberger, D., Munro, N., & Gibbons, P. (2016). The cost-effectiveness of agri-environment schemes for biodiversity conservation: A quantitative review. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 225, 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.04.008
  4. Authors. (2021). [Title omitted for blind review]
  5. Birol, E., Villalba, E. R., & Smale, M. (2008). Farmer preferences formilpadiversity and genetically modified maize in Mexico: a latent class approach. Environment and Development Economics, 14(4), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1355770x08004944 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X08004944
  6. Boxall, P. C., & Adamowicz, W. L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility Models: A Latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics, 23(4), 421–446. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021351721619 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021351721619
  7. Bradfield, T., Harmanny, K. S., Hennessy, T., & Schulp, C. J. E. (2024). Factors influencing the perceived economic benefits of innovative Agri-Environmental contracts. Environmental Management, 74(4), 790–807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02027-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-024-02027-8
  8. Brandolini, P., Cevasco, A., Capolongo, D., Pepe, G., Lovergine, F., & Del Monte, M. (2016). Response of Terraced Slopes to a Very Intense Rainfall Event and Relationships with Land Abandonment: A Case Study from Cinque Terre (Italy). Land Degradation and Development, 29(3), 630–642. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2672 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2672
  9. Authors. (2018). [Title omitted for blind review]
  10. Authors. (2024). [Title omitted for blind review]
  11. Demeyer, A., Roels, J., Krol, M., Heiningen, N., De Koeijer, J., Kürsten, E., Lambrecht, E., Paulsen, H. M., Sletsjøe, M., & Van Wezel, L. (2022). Valorisation of local carbon farming practices: Presentation of the show cases in the Carbon Farming Project - Interreg North Sea Region Carbon Farming EU. https://northsearegion.eu/media/21485/2022-0701-final-rapport-carbon-farming-web.pdf
  12. Ducos, G., Dupraz, P., & Bonnieux, F. (2009). Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958248 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958248
  13. Eichhorn, T., Schaller, L., Hamunen, K., & Runge, T. (2023). Exploring macro-environmental factors influencing adoption of result-based and collective agri-environmental measures: a PESTLE approach based on stakeholder statements. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 13(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14489 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-14489
  14. Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., & Dupraz, P. (2012). Identifying additional barriers in the adoption of agri-environmental schemes: The role of fixed costs. Land Use Policy, 31, 526–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.08.016
  15. Espinosa‐Goded, M., Barreiro‐Hurlé, J., & Ruto, E. (2010). What do farmers want from Agri‐Environmental Scheme Design? a choice experiment approach. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 61(2), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00244.x
  16. European Commission. (2021). Reviewing the Contribution of the Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry Sector to the Green Deal - Workshop IV Report: Carbon Farming in the CAP Strategic Plans. https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-07/20210525_workshop_iv_report_en.pdf
  17. European Parlement. (2022). SECOND PILLAR OF THE CAP: RURAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY. In Fact Sheets on the European Union. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/erpl-app- public/factsheets/pdf/en/FTU_3.2.6.pdf
  18. Evans, M. C. (2018). Effective incentives for reforestation: lessons from Australia’s carbon farming policies. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 32, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.002
  19. Franks, J. R. (2011). The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54(5), 637–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.526380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2010.526380
  20. Gibbons, J. M., Nicholson, E., Milner‐Gulland, E. J., & Jones, J. P. G. (2011). Should payments for biodiversity conservation be based on action or results? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(5), 1218–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02022.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.02022.x
  21. Gwelo, A. S. (2019). PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS TO OVERCOME MULTICOLLINEARITY PROBLEM. Oradea Journal of Business and Economics, 4(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.47535/1991ojbe062 DOI: https://doi.org/10.47535/1991ojbe062
  22. Hanley, N., Mourato, S., & Wright, R. E. (2001). Choice Modelling Approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuatioin? Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 435–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00145
  23. Hauber, A. B., González, J. M., Groothuis-Oudshoorn, C. G., Prior, T., Marshall, D. A., Cunningham, C., IJzerman, M. J., & Bridges, J. F. (2016). Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: A report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value in Health, 19(4), 300–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2016.04.004
  24. Kanchanaroek, Y., & Aslam, U. (2018). Policy schemes for the transition to sustainable agriculture—Farmer preferences and spatial heterogeneity in northern Thailand. Land Use Policy, 78, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.026
  25. Authors. (2023). [Title omitted for blind review]
  26. Kuklys, W. (2002). Stated choice methods: analysis and application, Jordan J. Louviere, David A. Hensher and Joffre D. Swait, Cambridge University Press, ISBN: 0‐521‐78830‐7. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 17(6), 701–704. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.701
  27. Authors. (2024). [Title omitted for blind review]
  28. Lankoski, J. (2022). Practical Design Principles for High Performing Agri-environmental Schemes: From Actions to Outcomes. Part 2. Multi-country choice experiments with farmers. In OECD (No. JT03499398). OECD. https://one.oecd.org/document/COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2021)13/FINAL/en/pdf
  29. Macintosh, A. (2013). The Carbon Farming Initiative: removing the obstacles to its success. Carbon Management, 4(2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4155/cmt.13.9
  30. Massfeller, A., Meraner, M., Hüttel, S., & Uehleke, R. (2022). Farmers’ acceptance of results-based agri-environmental schemes: A German perspective. Land Use Policy, 120, 106281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106281 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106281
  31. Matzdorf, B., & Lorenz, J. (2009). How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures?—An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy, 27(2), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.07.011
  32. McDonald, H., Frelih-Larsen, A., Lóránt, A., Duin, L., Pyndt Andersen, S., Costa, G., and Bradley, H. 2021, Carbon farming – Making agriculture fit for 2030, Study for the committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), Policy Department for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European Parliament, Luxembourg. Retrieved from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/supporting- analyses/sa-highlights
  33. McFadden, D. (1974) Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior. In: Zarembka, P., Ed., Economic Theory and Mathematical Economics, Academic Press, New York, NY, 105-142.
  34. Niskanen, O., Tienhaara, A., Haltia, E., & Pouta, E. (2020). Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences towards results-based environmental policies. Land Use Policy, 102, 105227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105227 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105227
  35. Authors. (2021). [Title omitted for blind review]
  36. Pérez-Troncoso, D. (2020). A step-by-step guide to design, implement, and analyze a discrete choice experiment. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2009.11235
  37. Raina, N., Zavalloni, M., Targetti, S., D’Alberto, R., Raggi, M., & Viaggi, D. (2021). A systematic review of attributes used in choice experiments for agri-environmental contracts. Bio-based and Applied Economics, 10(2), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-9678 DOI: https://doi.org/10.36253/bae-9678
  38. Rellini, I., Scopesi, C., Olivari, S., Firpo, M., & Maerker, M. (2019). Assessment of soil erosion risk in a typical Mediterranean environment using a high resolution RUSLE approach (Portofino promontory, NW-Italy). Journal of Maps, 15(2), 356–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1599452 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1599452
  39. Richards, A. E., Andersen, A. N., Schatz, J., Eager, R., Dawes, T. Z., Hadden, K., Scheepers, K., & Van Der Geest, M. (2012). Savanna burning, greenhouse gas emissions and indigenous livelihoods: Introducing the Tiwi Carbon Study. Austral Ecology, 37(6), 712–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02395.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02395.x
  40. Rodríguez‐Entrena, M., Villanueva, A. J., & Gómez‐Limón, J. A. (2018). Unraveling determinants of inferred and stated attribute nonattendance: Effects on farmers’ willingness to accept to join agri‐environmental schemes. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie, 67(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12169 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12169
  41. Ruto, E., & Garrod, G. (2009). Investigating farmers’ preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(5), 631–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958172 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560902958172
  42. Sallustio, L., Pettenella, D., Merlini, P., Romano, R., Salvati, L., Marchetti, M., & Corona, P. (2018). Assessing the economic marginality of agricultural lands in Italy to support land use planning. Land Use Policy, 76, 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.033 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.02.033
  43. Smith, P., Martino, D., Cai, Z., Gwary, D., Janzen, H., Kumar, P., McCarl, B., Ogle, S., O’Mara, F., Rice, C., Scholes, B., Sirotenko, O., Howden, M., McAllister, T., Pan, G., Romanenkov, V., Schneider, U., Towprayoon, S., Wattenbach, M., & Smith, J. (2007). Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 363(1492), 789–813. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2184
  44. Swait, J. (1994). A structural equation model of latent segmentation and product choice for cross-sectional revealed preference choice data. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 1(2), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6989(94)90002-7
  45. Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://eml.berkeley.edu/books/train1201.pdf
  46. Tyllianakis, E., & Martin-Ortega, J. (2021). Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys.” Land Use Policy, 109, 105620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105620
  47. Tyllianakis, E., Martin-Ortega, J., Ziv, G., Chapman, P. J., Holden, J., Cardwell, M., & Fyfe, D. (2023). A window into land managers’ preferences for new forms of agri-environmental schemes: Evidence from a post-Brexit analysis. Land Use Policy, 129, 106627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106627 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2023.106627
  48. Uthes, S., & Matzdorf, B. (2012). Studies on Agri-environmental Measures: A Survey of the literature. Environmental Management, 51(1), 251–266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9959-6
  49. Vanclay, F., & Lawrence, G. (1994). Farmer rationality and the adoption of environmentally sound practices; A critique of the assumptions of traditional agricultural extension. European Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, 1(1), 59–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249485300061 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13892249485300061
  50. Authors. (2024). [Title omitted for blind review]
  51. Authors. (2020). [Title omitted for blind review]
  52. Weber, S. (2019). A Step-by-Step procedure to implement discrete choice experiments in Qualtrics. Social Science Computer Review, 39(5), 903–921. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319885317 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319885317
  53. Whittingham, M. J. (2011). The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery? Journal of Applied Ecology, 48(3), 509–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01987.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01987.x
  54. Wuepper, D., & Huber, R. (2021). Comparing effectiveness and return on investment of action‐ and results‐based agri‐environmental payments in Switzerland. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 104(5), 1585–1604. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12284 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajae.12284

Most read articles by the same author(s)