Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors Determining Citizen’s Attitudes Towards Agri-Environmental Property Rights

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to contribute further insights into individuals’ agri-environmental attitudes. In particular, the empirical analysis focuses on how citizens think agri-environmental property rights should be assigned. This has been done by surveying how individuals consider the environmental policy should promote the implementation of a group of agri-environmental measures, allowing us to examine the determinants of individuals’ opinions about this matter. Results indicate that higher level of income and education support the implementation of obligatory agri-environmental measures with no financial support (property rights should rest on society) except for measures to improve public access to land for leisure activities and ecological farming which are seen more of the voluntary kind (property rights should rest on farmers). Additionally, rural residency has strong significant effect on agri-environmental attitudes as rural residents are more likely to support the implementation of voluntary (with/without financial support) agri-environmental measures. On the whole, this research proves to be a valuable tool to identify factors determining individuals’ attitudes towards agri-environmental property rights which can certainly help policymakers to provide customized, better response to social demands on this matter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andreoni J (1990) Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving?. Econ J 100(401): 464–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin EJ, Deary IJ, Gibson GJ, McGregor MJ, Dent JB (1996) Attitudes and values of Scottish farmers: ‘yeoman’ and ‘entrepreneur’ as factors, not distinct types. Rural Sociol 61: 464–474

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DW (1996). The environmental implications of agriculture. Staff Paper 401, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  • Bromley DW (1997) Constitutional political economy: property claims in a dynamic world. Contemp Econ Policy 15(4): 43–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley DW, Hodge I (1990) Private property rights and presumptive policy entitlements: reconsidering the premises of rural policy. Eur Rev Agric Econ 17(2): 197–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buller H, Wilson GA, Höll A (2000) Agri-environmental policy in the European Union. Aldershot, Ashgate

    Google Scholar 

  • Burbank M (1995) How do contextual effects work? Developing a theoretical model. In: Eagles M (eds) Spatial and contextual models in political research. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Christman J (1994) The myth of property. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr S (1988). Conservation of farm: conflicting attitudes, social pressures and behaviour. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Open University

  • Clark AE (1997) Job satisfaction and gender: why are women so happy at work?. Labour Econ 4(4): 341–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JR, Jones A, Potter CA, Lobley M (1997) Conceptualising the evolution of European Unions’ agri-environmental policy: a discourse approach. Environ Plan 29: 1869–1885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa FP, Rehman T (1999) Exploring the link between farmers’ objectives and the phenomenon of pasture degradation in the beef production systems of Central Brazil. Agric Syst 61(1): 135–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell SP (2003) Influence of sociodemographics and environmental attitudes on general responsible environmental behaviour among recreational boaters. Environ Behav 35(3): 347–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener E. Lucas R. E (1999) Personality and subjective well-being. In: Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (eds) Well-being: the foundations of Hedonic Psychology. Russell sage Foundation, New York, Chap. 11

  • EEA, European Environment Agency (2004) High nature value farmland. Characteristics trends and policy challenges. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • EEA, European Environment Agency (2006) Integration of environment into EU agriculture policy—the IRENA indicator-based assessment report, EEA Report No 2/2006, European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell A (2002). Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2002-019/3.

  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell A, Frijters P (2004) How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness?. Econ J 114: 641–659

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W (1990) Econometric analysis. MacMillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hungerford HR, Volk TL (1990) Changing learner behaviour through environmental education. J Environ Educ 21(3): 8–21

    Google Scholar 

  • IESA, Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados de Andalucía, (2006) Opinión Pública, Agricultura y Sociedad Rural en Andalucía’ (Agrobarómetro 2005), Informe Síntesis. Informes y Monografías E-0304. IESA-CSIC, Córdoba

  • Ilbery BW, Bowler IR (1998) From agricultural productivism to post-productivism. In: Ilbery BW (eds) The geography of rural change. Longman, Harlow, pp 57–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Diener E, Schwarz N (1999) Foundations of hedonic psychology: scientific perspectives on enjoyment and suffering. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Knierim A, Siebert R (2004) The BIOfACT German report on WP3. Institute of Socioeconomics, ZALF, Müncheberg

    Google Scholar 

  • McEvoy J III (1972) The American concern with the environment. In: Burch WR Jr, Cheek NH Jr, Taylor L (eds) Social behavior, natural resources, and the environment. Harper and Row, New York, pp 214–236

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire JR (1992) An examination of environmental attitudes among college students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park

  • Morris C, Potter C (1995) Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. J Rural Stud 11(1): 51–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyano E, Garrido F (1996) Spain: social players in the implementation of agri-environmental policy. In: Whitby M (eds) The European environment and CAP reform: policies and prospects for conservation. Wallingford, CAB International, pp 87–96

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (1998) Agriculture and the environment: issues and policies. OECD, París

  • Oñate JJ, Malo JE, Suárez F, Peco B (1998) Regional and environmental aspects in the implementation of Spanish agri-environmental schemes. J Environ Manage 52(3):227–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz D, Ceña F (2002) Efectos de la política agroambiental de la Unión Europea en el mundo rural. Información Económica Española 803:105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ortiz D, Van Estruch V (2004) The role of agri-environmental measures in the definition of property rights. In: Huylenbroeck G, Verbeke W, Lauwers L (eds) Role of institutions in rural policies and agricultural markets. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 335–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Passino EM, Lounsbury JW (1976) Sex differences in opposition to and support for construction of a proposed nuclear power plant. In: Ward LM, Coren S, Gruft A, Collins JB (eds) The behavioral basis of design, book 1. Stroudsburg, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, pp 180–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Primdahl J, Peco B, Schramek J, Andersend E, Oñate JJ (2003) Environmental effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. J Environ Manage 67(1): 129–138

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon S (1992) Prairie patrimony. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott D, Willits FK, (1991) Environmental concern of Pennsylvania citizens: data from a statewide survey. Technical Report A.E. and R.S. 219, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, Pennsylvania State University

  • Tawney RH (1948) The adquisitive society. Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tremblay KR, Dunlap RE (1978) Rural–urban residence and concern with environmental quality: a replication and extension. Rural Sociology 43: 474–91

    Google Scholar 

  • Liere KD, Dunlap RE (1980) The social bases of environmental concern: a review of hypotheses, explanations and empirical evidence. Public Opin Q 44(2): 181–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag Bernard MS (1991) Ordinal and Cardinal Utility. An integration of the two demensions of the Welfare Concept. J Econometrics 50: 69–89(1980)

  • Vera-Toscano E, Ateca V, Serrano R (2006) Building financial satisfaction. Soc Indic Res 77: 211–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitby M (1996) The European environment and CAP reform: policies and prospects for conservation. CAB International, Wallingford

  • Whitby M (2000) Challenges and options for the UK agri-environment. J Agric Econ 51(3): 17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Willock J, Deary IJ, Edwards-Jones G, Gibson GJ, McGregor MJ, Sutherland A, Dent JB, Morgan O, Grieve R (1999) The role of attitudes and objectives in farmer decision-making: business and environmentally-oriented behaviour in Scotland. J Agric Econ 50(2): 286–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA (1996) Farmers environmental attitudes and ESA participation. Geoforum 27(2): 115–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA, Hart K (2001) Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: towards conservation-oriented thinking?. Sociol Ruralis 41(2): 254–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (1997) Five years after Rio: innovations in environmental policy, environmentally sustainable development studies and monographs series no.18 (June). World Bank, Washington

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados, Consejo Superiorde Investigaciones Científicas (IESA-CSIC), Campo Santo de losMártires, 7, 14004, Cordoba, Spain

    Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Eduardo Moyano & Fernando Garrido

  2. Dpto. de Economía Agraria, E.T.S.II.AA. Palencia.Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain

    José A. Gómez-Limón

Authors
  1. Esperanza Vera-Toscano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José A. Gómez-Limón
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eduardo Moyano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernando Garrido
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esperanza Vera-Toscano.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vera-Toscano, E., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Moyano, E. et al. Factors Determining Citizen’s Attitudes Towards Agri-Environmental Property Rights. Environ Resource Econ 41, 541–561 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9209-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-008-9209-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation