What the study found
The study found that Danish landowners generally wanted higher compensation when agri-environmental schemes required them to give up direct subsidy payments and hunting rights. It also found that longer temporary commitments and rewetting commitments in permanent schemes required higher compensation.
Why the authors say this matters
The authors suggest that comparing willingness to accept different payment designs helps reveal a mismatch between current policy and the kinds of schemes landowners prefer. They conclude that current policy favors flexible annual payments, while the societal benefits from permanent schemes are arguably higher.
What the researchers tested
The researchers studied Danish landowners' preferences for temporary and permanent agri-environmental schemes, which are voluntary programs used to reduce agricultural impacts such as nitrate leaching, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions. They used a choice experiment to compare two land set-aside contracts: temporary contracts with annual payments and permanent contracts with a lump-sum payment.
What worked and what didn't
Landowners required higher compensation under both temporary and permanent schemes when direct subsidy payments and hunting rights were removed. Common Agricultural Policy direct payments were valued lower in permanent contracts when an agricultural activity requirement was present than when it was absent. The average implied discount rate was 3.3%–3.4% for schemes matching actual Danish annual and lump-sum permanent schemes, compared with 1.9%–2.1% in the choice experiment.
What to keep in mind
The summary does not describe limitations beyond the comparison being based on Danish landowners and the specific contract designs studied. The reported results apply to the land set-aside schemes and choice experiment described in the abstract.
Key points
- The study compared Danish landowners' preferences for temporary and permanent agri-environmental schemes.
- Higher compensation was needed when schemes removed direct subsidy payments and hunting rights.
- Longer temporary commitments and rewetting commitments in permanent schemes also required higher compensation.
- The authors report a mismatch between current Danish policy design and the implied preferences in the choice experiment.
- The abstract gives implied discount rates of 3.3%–3.4% for actual schemes and 1.9%–2.1% for the choice experiment.
Disclosure
- Research title:
- Danish landowners asked more compensation for stricter agri-environmental schemes
- Authors:
- Jakob Vesterlund Olsen, Thomas Lundhede, Kahsay Haile Zemo, Martin Hvarregaard Thorsøe, Mette Balslev Greve, Michael Friis Pedersen
- Institutions:
- Aarhus University, Aarhus University, University of Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen
- Publication date:
- 2026-03-09
- OpenAlex record:
- View
- Image credit:
- Graham Horn, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 2.0
Get the weekly research newsletter
Stay current with scholarly research without reading academic papers — one filtered digest, every Friday.