Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes

By Evy Mettepenningen, A. Verspecht, G. Van Huylenbroeck. 2009

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b8eee708d1700d2fb7618ce88517ad5f449e8742

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Agricultural and Biological Sciences

1. A. Coggan
2. Stuart Whitten
3. N. Hanley
4. Jeffrey Bennett

In Soil Science

1. A. Coggan
2. Stuart Whitten
3. E. Buitelaar
4. Jeffrey Bennett

Citations in the corpus

• How should we incentivize private landowners to ‘produce’ more biodiversity? (2012, background): “McCann and Easter (1999) and Mettepenningen et al. (2009, 2011) estimate the transactions costs for water pollution reducing programs in the Minnesota River in the US and for farmers and public agencies for AES participation in different parts of the EU.”
• Evaluating farmers’ likely participation in a payment programme for water quality protection in the UK uplands (2013, background): “The CL model postulates an indirect utility function (Unj), which represents the satisfaction that a farmer (n) associates with one of the particular programmes offered (j) as the summation of separate components of utility delivered by each of K attributes xkj contained within that programme, toget”
• Influences of transaction costs in environmental policy (2010, background): “…body of literature that report ex post measures of transaction costs of environmental policy (McCann and Easter, 2000; Howitt, 1994; Falconer et al., 2001; Falconer, 2000; Falconer and Saunders, 2002; Vatn et al., 2002; Rorstad et al., 2007; Kuperan et al., 2008; Mettepenningen et al., 2009).”
• Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: Who bears what and why? (2013, background): “There is a growing literature reporting the extent of transaction costs incurred by administrators of environmental policy and private parties who engage with the environmental policy as well as analyses as to why transaction costs occurred (Falconer, 2000, 2002; Falconer et al., 2001; Garrick et al”