Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective.

By K. Falconer. 2000

377 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: General Agricultural and Biological Sciences, Soil Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e038b556ecc6899967f81290732c2af0a5ff18df

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

In Soil Science

Citations in the corpus

Transaction costs of community‐based forest management: empirical evidence from Tanzania (2006, background): “…some EU member states concluded that a significant level of transaction costs was associated with participation in these schemes, which at present are borne to a nontrivial degree by participants themselves, although the magnitudes, relative importance and perceptions vary widely (Falconer, 2000).”
Converting or not converting to organic farming in Austria:Farmer types and their rationale (2005, background): “Indeed, there is a growing recognition of the complex interplay between external and internal factors (Falconer, 2000).”
What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: Results from a qualitative meta-analysis (2015, background): “Research into why farmers choose to participate in AESs should be a key tool for agrienvironmental policy development (Wilson and Hart, 2000; Falconer, 2000; Guillem and Barnes, 2013).”
Perceptions and responses to climate policy risks among California farmers (2013, background): “Failure to consider climate policy risk responses overlooks key drivers of climate change attitudes and an opportunity for policymakers to gain policy support and participation on mitigation and adaptation initiatives (Falconer, 2000).”
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).”
The influence of social capital on environmental policy instruments (2009, background): “Bruckmeier and Teherani-Kronner 1992 , Falconer 2000 , Adger 2003 , Olsson et al .”
Social Capital and Farmers' Willingness to Adopt Countryside Stewardship Schemes (2003, positive): “While Falconer (2000) points to the potentially heavy transaction costs for both the state and farmers, and to the importance of the longer-term value of farmer networks and capacity building for agri-environmental management, there has been no specific reference to social capital as an important…”
Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs (2009, background): “Last, but not least, some transaction costs associated with AES participation can be independent of the enrolled area; according to Falconer (2000) the costs of gathering information on contracts and the costs of filling contract forms are partly fixed at the farm level.”