What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?

David Arnott, David Chadwick, Ian Harris, Aleksandra Koj, David L. Jones

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote 'greening', 'sustainability' and 'ecosystem services' approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84% of recipients of AES payments receiving <10k pound annually, comprising only 35% of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of similar to 165, management options, accounted for > 75% of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a 'business as usual' approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government's ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the "'Public Goods"' that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)194-208
Number of pages15
JournalLand Use Policy
Volume81
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 2019

Cite this

Arnott, David ; Chadwick, David ; Harris, Ian ; Koj, Aleksandra ; Jones, David L. / What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?. In: Land Use Policy. 2019 ; Vol. 81. pp. 194-208.
@article{432f30e52eb14ce7ac38d3d58ec346e1,
title = "What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?",
abstract = "Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote 'greening', 'sustainability' and 'ecosystem services' approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84{\%} of recipients of AES payments receiving <10k pound annually, comprising only 35{\%} of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of similar to 165, management options, accounted for > 75{\%} of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a 'business as usual' approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government's ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the {"}'Public Goods{"}' that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.",
keywords = "Conservation, Ecosystem services, Glastir, Habitat management, Land use policy, FARMER PARTICIPATION, LAPWING VANELLUS, LAND ABANDONMENT, BIODIVERSITY, CONSERVATION, FARMLAND, POLICY, BRACKEN, STEWARDSHIP, DIVERSITY",
author = "David Arnott and David Chadwick and Ian Harris and Aleksandra Koj and Jones, {David L.}",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039",
language = "English",
volume = "81",
pages = "194--208",
journal = "Land Use Policy",
issn = "0264-8377",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes? / Arnott, David; Chadwick, David; Harris, Ian; Koj, Aleksandra; Jones, David L.

In: Land Use Policy, Vol. 81, 02.2019, p. 194-208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?

AU - Arnott, David

AU - Chadwick, David

AU - Harris, Ian

AU - Koj, Aleksandra

AU - Jones, David L.

PY - 2019/2

Y1 - 2019/2

N2 - Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote 'greening', 'sustainability' and 'ecosystem services' approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84% of recipients of AES payments receiving <10k pound annually, comprising only 35% of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of similar to 165, management options, accounted for > 75% of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a 'business as usual' approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government's ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the "'Public Goods"' that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.

AB - Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote 'greening', 'sustainability' and 'ecosystem services' approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84% of recipients of AES payments receiving <10k pound annually, comprising only 35% of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of similar to 165, management options, accounted for > 75% of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a 'business as usual' approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government's ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the "'Public Goods"' that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.

KW - Conservation

KW - Ecosystem services

KW - Glastir

KW - Habitat management

KW - Land use policy

KW - FARMER PARTICIPATION

KW - LAPWING VANELLUS

KW - LAND ABANDONMENT

KW - BIODIVERSITY

KW - CONSERVATION

KW - FARMLAND

KW - POLICY

KW - BRACKEN

KW - STEWARDSHIP

KW - DIVERSITY

U2 - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039

DO - 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039

M3 - Article

VL - 81

SP - 194

EP - 208

JO - Land Use Policy

JF - Land Use Policy

SN - 0264-8377

ER -