Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands
Farming significantly influences public goods (PGs) like water quality and biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Balancing sustainable PG delivery with short-term profitability is challenging. This study examines agri-environmental contracts in the Netherlands through a web-based search of g...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Taylor & Francis Group
2025-12-01
|
| Series: | International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/14735903.2025.2524258 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850108168641708032 |
|---|---|
| author | Kina S. Harmanny Peter Verburg Catharina Schulp |
| author_facet | Kina S. Harmanny Peter Verburg Catharina Schulp |
| author_sort | Kina S. Harmanny |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Farming significantly influences public goods (PGs) like water quality and biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Balancing sustainable PG delivery with short-term profitability is challenging. This study examines agri-environmental contracts in the Netherlands through a web-based search of grey literature. We gathered data on 137 agri-environmental contracts, reporting on PG delivery 294 times. The PG biodiversity was reported most frequently to be targeted by contracts (40%) followed by the PG agricultural landscapes and recreation (15%). We found various actors involved, particularly private ones, who are underrepresented in the literature and need more attention. Contrary to the preference for result-based contracts, 48% is input-based. In 68% of cases, monetary payments motivate participation, but tools like knowledge sharing are also reported. In 25% of the contracts, monitoring of results was not reported and effects on PG delivery were barely described. Furthermore, unexpected positive or negative spill-over effects of management practices on different PGs are not considered, risking counter effective outcomes. This study provides the first comprehensive national-level overview of contracts identifying current uptake of contracts and gaps therein, revealing a clear discrepancy between contract status and recent research on the topic. A better understanding of contract characteristics is vital for effective PG delivery in agriculture. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-5d467a1ee3fb4e829a5bf8e45f3aabd6 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 1473-5903 1747-762X |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-12-01 |
| publisher | Taylor & Francis Group |
| record_format | Article |
| series | International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability |
| spelling | doaj-art-5d467a1ee3fb4e829a5bf8e45f3aabd62025-08-20T02:38:26ZengTaylor & Francis GroupInternational Journal of Agricultural Sustainability1473-59031747-762X2025-12-0123110.1080/14735903.2025.2524258Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the NetherlandsKina S. Harmanny0Peter Verburg1Catharina Schulp2Environmental Geography Group, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsEnvironmental Geography Group, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsEnvironmental Geography Group, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The NetherlandsFarming significantly influences public goods (PGs) like water quality and biodiversity, both positively and negatively. Balancing sustainable PG delivery with short-term profitability is challenging. This study examines agri-environmental contracts in the Netherlands through a web-based search of grey literature. We gathered data on 137 agri-environmental contracts, reporting on PG delivery 294 times. The PG biodiversity was reported most frequently to be targeted by contracts (40%) followed by the PG agricultural landscapes and recreation (15%). We found various actors involved, particularly private ones, who are underrepresented in the literature and need more attention. Contrary to the preference for result-based contracts, 48% is input-based. In 68% of cases, monetary payments motivate participation, but tools like knowledge sharing are also reported. In 25% of the contracts, monitoring of results was not reported and effects on PG delivery were barely described. Furthermore, unexpected positive or negative spill-over effects of management practices on different PGs are not considered, risking counter effective outcomes. This study provides the first comprehensive national-level overview of contracts identifying current uptake of contracts and gaps therein, revealing a clear discrepancy between contract status and recent research on the topic. A better understanding of contract characteristics is vital for effective PG delivery in agriculture.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/14735903.2025.2524258Sustainable agricultureagricultural contractsAESbiodiversitypublic goodsecosystem services |
| spellingShingle | Kina S. Harmanny Peter Verburg Catharina Schulp Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability Sustainable agriculture agricultural contracts AES biodiversity public goods ecosystem services |
| title | Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands |
| title_full | Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands |
| title_fullStr | Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands |
| title_full_unstemmed | Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands |
| title_short | Assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the Netherlands |
| title_sort | assessing contract solutions for agricultural public goods in the netherlands |
| topic | Sustainable agriculture agricultural contracts AES biodiversity public goods ecosystem services |
| url | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10.1080/14735903.2025.2524258 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kinasharmanny assessingcontractsolutionsforagriculturalpublicgoodsinthenetherlands AT peterverburg assessingcontractsolutionsforagriculturalpublicgoodsinthenetherlands AT catharinaschulp assessingcontractsolutionsforagriculturalpublicgoodsinthenetherlands |