4.7 Article

Informing decision making in agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation policy: A Best-Worst Scaling survey of expert and farmer opinion in the sheep industry

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & POLICY
卷 29, 期 -, 页码 46-56

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2013.02.003

关键词

Red meat; Lamb production; Carbon footprint; Climate change; Farmer attitudes; Max-diff

资金

  1. EBLEX
  2. Hybu Cig Cymru

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Policy decision making for agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation is hindered by scientific uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Successful on-farm adoption of measures is contingent upon farmer perception of the relative practicality of implementing the measure and associated incentives and advice. In the absence of a comprehensive evidence base we utilised Best-Worst Scaling, a discrete choice survey method, to elicit expert and farmer opinion on the relative effectiveness and practicality of mitigation measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from sheep production systems. The method enabled individual mitigation measures to be ranked on a ratio scale of effectiveness (expert opinion) and practicality (farmer opinion). Six measures were identified as possessing the combined qualities of effectiveness and practicality and are considered priority candidates for policy promotion. The overall preferred measure was the use of legumes in pasture reseed mixes. Estimation and analysis of the distribution of individual respondent scores revealed heterogeneity in farmers' perceptions of practicality, suggesting that flexible policies are required to enable farmers to select mitigation measures most suited to their farm type and locality. Practical measures with below average effectiveness may be widely adopted with limited regulation, incentivisation or advice, whilst some highly effective measures with lower practicality are likely to present greater obstacles to adoption. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据