Menu Expand
  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung
  4. Vol. 87, Issue 2
  5. pp. 127–138

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Thomas, F., Koessler, A., Engel, S. Stupsende Agrarpolitik? Nudging zu einernachhaltigen Landwirtschaft. Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, 87(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.127
Thomas, Fabian; Koessler, Ann-Kathrin and Engel, Stefanie "Stupsende Agrarpolitik? Nudging zu einernachhaltigen Landwirtschaft" Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 87.2, 2018, 127-138. https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.127
Thomas, Fabian/Koessler, Ann-Kathrin/Engel, Stefanie (2018): Stupsende Agrarpolitik? Nudging zu einernachhaltigen Landwirtschaft, in: Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, vol. 87, iss. 2, 127-138, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.127
Format
Download

Stupsende Agrarpolitik? Nudging zu einernachhaltigen Landwirtschaft

Thomas, Fabian | Koessler, Ann-Kathrin | Engel, Stefanie

Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung, Vol. 87 (2018), Iss. 2 : pp. 127–138

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.87.2.127
Language
German
Pages
12
Keywords

Author Details

Fabian Thomas, Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Umweltsystemforschung

Ann-Kathrin Koessler, Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Umweltsystemforschung

Stefanie Engel, Universität Osnabrück, Institut für Umweltsystemforschung

References

  1. Beedell, Jason und Tahir Rehman (2000): Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 117–127.  Google Scholar
  2. Bovens, Luc (2009): The ethics of nudge. In: Till Grüne-Yanoff und Sven Ove Hansson (Hrsg.): Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 207–219.  Google Scholar
  3. Burton, Rob J. F. (2004): Seeing through the „good farmer’s’ eyes“: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of „productivist“ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (2), 195–215.  Google Scholar
  4. Burton, Rob J. F., Carmen Kuczera und Gerald Schwarz (2008): Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (1), 16–37.  Google Scholar
  5. Burton, Rob J. F. und Geoff A. Wilson (2006): Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies, 22 (1), 95–115.  Google Scholar
  6. Chen, Xiaodong, Frank Lupi, Guangming He und Jianguo Liu (2009): Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (28), 11812–11817.  Google Scholar
  7. Cialdini, Robert B., Nancy Eisenberg, Beth L. Green, Kelton Rhoads und Renee Bator (1998): Undermining the undermining effect of reward on sustained interest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28 (3), 249–263.  Google Scholar
  8. Croson, Rachel und Nicolas Treich (2014): Behavioral environmental economics: Promises and challenges. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 335–351.  Google Scholar
  9. Birch, Leann, Diane Marlin und Julie Rotter (1984): Eating as the „means“ activity in a contingency. Effects on young children’s food preference. Child Development, 55 (2), 431–439.  Google Scholar
  10. Dijk, William F.A. van, Anne Marike Lokhorst, Frank Berendse und Geert R. de Snoo (2015): Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy, 42, 759–766.  Google Scholar
  11. Feindt, Peter H., Christine Krämer, Andrea Früh-Müller, Volkmar Wolters, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Alois Heißenhuber, Caroline van Bers, Fabian Thomas und Kai Purnhagen (2017): Ein neuer Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft: Auf dem Weg zu einer integrativen Politik für den Agrarsektor. Politikpapier des Forschungs- und Entwicklungs- Verbundvorhabens „ZA-NExUS: Zukunftsfähige Agrarpolitik – Natur erhalten, Umwelt sichern“, gefördert vom Bundesamt für Naturschutz und dem Umweltbundesamt, FKZ 35158 80 400, Bonn/Berlin, Mai 2017.  Google Scholar
  12. Grolleau, Gilles, Naoufel Mzoughi und Sophie Thoyer (2015): Using monetary incentives in agri-environmental policies: Can we do more with less? Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 96 (2), 241–257.  Google Scholar
  13. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg (2016): The definition of nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7 (1), 155–174.  Google Scholar
  14. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg und Andreas Maaløe Jespersen (2013): Nudge and the manipulation of choice. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4 (3), 3–28.  Google Scholar
  15. Harris, Craig K. und Conner Bailey (2002): Public support for a clean, green, US agriculture machine. In: Ronald C. Wimberley, Craig K. Harris, Joseph J. Molnar und Terry T. Tomazic (Hrsg.): The social risks of agriculture: Americans speak out on food, farming, and the environment. Praeger, Westport, 31–42.  Google Scholar
  16. Harrison, Carolyn M., Jacquelin A. Burgess und Judy Clark (1998): Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and residents’ understandings of nature conservation goals and policies. Journal of Environmental Management, 54 (4), 305–320.  Google Scholar
  17. Heißenhuber, Alois, Wolfgang Haber und Christine Krämer (2015): 30 Jahre SRU-Sondergutachten „Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft“ – eine Bilanz. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.  Google Scholar
  18. Hernández, Bernardo, Ana M. Martín, Christina Ruiz und Carmen M. del Hidalgo (2010): The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 281–288.  Google Scholar
  19. Howley, Peter, Cathal Buckley, Cathal O’Donoghue und Mary Ryan (2015): Explaining the economic „irrationality“ of farmers’ land use behaviour: The role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits. Ecological Economics, 109, 186–193.  Google Scholar
  20. IFAB – Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität, ZALF – Leibnitz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung, HFR – Hochschule für Forstwissenschaft Rottenburg und BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012): Common agricultural policy from 2014 – Perspectives for more biodiversity and environmental benefits of farming? BfN, Bonn.  Google Scholar
  21. Kuhfuss, Laure, Raphaële Préget, Sophie Thoyer, Nick Hanley, Philippe Le Coënt und Mathieu Désolé (2016): Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Land Economics, 92 (4), 641–655.  Google Scholar
  22. Le Coënt, Philippe (2016): Agri-environmental schemes: Behavioral insights and innovative designs. PhD Thesis, Université de Montpellier.  Google Scholar
  23. Loewenstein, George, Cindy Bryce, David Hagmann und Sachin Rajpal (2015): Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1 (1), 35–42.  Google Scholar
  24. Loewenstein, George und Nick Chater (2017): Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1 (1), 26–53.  Google Scholar
  25. Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Jerry van Dijk, Henk Staats, Erik van Dijk und Geert R. de Snoo (2010): Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: An example from the Netherlands. Human Ecology, 38 (1), 113–122.  Google Scholar
  26. Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Céline Hoon, Rob le Rutte und Geert R. de Snoo (2014): There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy, 39, 121–126.  Google Scholar
  27. Madrian, Brigitte C. und Dennis F. Shea (2001): The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(K) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (4), 1149–1187.  Google Scholar
  28. McGuire, Jean, Lois Wright Morton und Alicia D. Cast (2013): Reconstructing the good farmer identity: Shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agriculture and Human Values, 30 (1), 57–69.  Google Scholar
  29. Messer, Kent D., Paul D. Ferraro und Allen William (2015): Behavioral nudges in competitive environments: A field experiment examining defaults and social comparisons in a conservation contract auction. Working Paper.  Google Scholar
  30. Pe’er, Guy, Lynn V. Dicks, Piero Visconti, Raphaël Arlettas, Adrás Báldi, Tim G. Benton, Sue Collins, Martin Dieterich, Richard D. Gregory, Florian Hartig, Klaus Henle, Peter R. Hobson, David Kleijn, Rosmarie K. Neumann, Trees Robijns, Jenny A. Schmidt, Assaf Shwartz, William J. Sutherland, Anne Turbé, Friedrich Wulf und Anna V. Scott (2014): EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science, 344 (6188), 1090–1092.  Google Scholar
  31. Prager, Katrin (2015): Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12 (February 2015), 59–66.  Google Scholar
  32. Raymond, Christopher M., Claudia Bieling, Nora Fagerholm, Berta Martin-Lopez und Tobias Plieninger (2016): The farmer as a landscape steward: Comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. Ambio, 45 (2), 173–184.  Google Scholar
  33. Reddy, Sheila M. W., Jensen Montambault, Yuta J. Masuda, Elizabeth Keenan, William Butler, Jonathan R. B. Fisher, Stanley T. Asah und Ayelet Gneezy (2017): Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior. Conservation Letters, 10 (2), 248–256.  Google Scholar
  34. Sattler, Claudia und Uwe Jens Nagel (2010): Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures – A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy, 27 (1), 70–77.  Google Scholar
  35. Schubert, Christian (2017): Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological economics, 132 (C), 329–342.  Google Scholar
  36. Schultz, P. Wesley, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein und Vladas Griskevicius (2007): The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18 (5), 429.  Google Scholar
  37. Silvasti, Tiina (2003): The cultural model of „the good farmer“ and the environmental question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values, 20 (2), 143–150.  Google Scholar
  38. Stock, Paul V. und Jérémie Forney (2014): Farmer autonomy and the farming self. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 160–171.  Google Scholar
  39. Sutherland, William J. und Michael J. S. Peel (2010): Benchmarking as a means to improve conservation practice. Oryx, 45 (1), 56–59.  Google Scholar
  40. Swinnen, Johan (Hrsg.) (2015): The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy – An imperfect storm. Rowman & Littlefield International, London.  Google Scholar
  41. Thaler, Richard H. und Cass B. Sunstein (2008): Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Heaven.  Google Scholar
  42. Valatin, Gregory, Darren Moseley und Norman Dandy (2016): Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation? Forest Policy and Economics, 72, 27–36.  Google Scholar
  43. Wallander, Steven, Paul D. Ferraro und Nathaniel Higgins (2017): Addressing participant inattention in federal programs: A field experiment with the conservation reserve program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99 (4), 914–931.  Google Scholar
  44. Warren, Charles R., Rob J. F. Burton, Olivia Buchanan und Richard V. Birnie (2016): Limited adoption of short rotation coppice: The role of farmers’ socio-cultural identity in influencing practice. Journal of Rural Studies, 45, 175–183.  Google Scholar
  45. Whitby, Martin (2000): Challenges and options for the UK agri-environment: Presidential address. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51 (3), 317–332.  Google Scholar
  46. Wilson, Geoff A. und Kaley Hart (2000): Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A, 32 (12), 2161–2185.  Google Scholar
  47. Chen, Xiaodong, Frank Lupi, Guangming He und Jianguo Liu (2009): Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106 (28), 11812–11817.  Google Scholar
  48. Heißenhuber, Alois, Wolfgang Haber und Christine Krämer (2015): 30 Jahre SRU-Sondergutachten „Umweltprobleme der Landwirtschaft“ – eine Bilanz. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau-Roßlau.  Google Scholar
  49. Harrison, Carolyn M., Jacquelin A. Burgess und Judy Clark (1998): Discounted knowledges: farmers’ and residents’ understandings of nature conservation goals and policies. Journal of Environmental Management, 54 (4), 305–320.  Google Scholar
  50. Harris, Craig K. und Conner Bailey (2002): Public support for a clean, green, US agriculture machine. In: Ronald C. Wimberley, Craig K. Harris, Joseph J. Molnar und Terry T. Tomazic (Hrsg.): The social risks of agriculture: Americans speak out on food, farming, and the environment. Praeger, Westport, 31–42.  Google Scholar
  51. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg und Andreas Maaløe Jespersen (2013): Nudge and the manipulation of choice. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 4 (3), 3–28.  Google Scholar
  52. Hansen, Pelle Guldborg (2016): The definition of nudge and libertarian paternalism: Does the hand fit the glove? European Journal of Risk Regulation, 7 (1), 155–174.  Google Scholar
  53. Grolleau, Gilles, Naoufel Mzoughi und Sophie Thoyer (2015): Using monetary incentives in agri-environmental policies: Can we do more with less? Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies, 96 (2), 241–257.  Google Scholar
  54. Cialdini, Robert B., Nancy Eisenberg, Beth L. Green, Kelton Rhoads und Renee Bator (1998): Undermining the undermining effect of reward on sustained interest. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28 (3), 249–263.  Google Scholar
  55. Dijk, William F.A. van, Anne Marike Lokhorst, Frank Berendse und Geert R. de Snoo (2015): Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers’ intentions for agri-environment schemes? Land Use Policy, 42, 759–766.  Google Scholar
  56. Feindt, Peter H., Christine Krämer, Andrea Früh-Müller, Volkmar Wolters, Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Alois Heißenhuber, Caroline van Bers, Fabian Thomas und Kai Purnhagen (2017): Ein neuer Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine nachhaltige Landwirtschaft: Auf dem Weg zu einer integrativen Politik für den Agrarsektor. Politikpapier des Forschungs- und Entwicklungs- Verbundvorhabens „ZA-NExUS: Zukunftsfähige Agrarpolitik – Natur erhalten, Umwelt sichern“, gefördert vom Bundesamt für Naturschutz und dem Umweltbundesamt, FKZ 35158 80 400, Bonn/Berlin, Mai 2017.  Google Scholar
  57. Pe’er, Guy, Lynn V. Dicks, Piero Visconti, Raphaël Arlettas, Adrás Báldi, Tim G. Benton, Sue Collins, Martin Dieterich, Richard D. Gregory, Florian Hartig, Klaus Henle, Peter R. Hobson, David Kleijn, Rosmarie K. Neumann, Trees Robijns, Jenny A. Schmidt, Assaf Shwartz, William J. Sutherland, Anne Turbé, Friedrich Wulf und Anna V. Scott (2014): EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science, 344 (6188), 1090–1092.  Google Scholar
  58. Warren, Charles R., Rob J. F. Burton, Olivia Buchanan und Richard V. Birnie (2016): Limited adoption of short rotation coppice: The role of farmers’ socio-cultural identity in influencing practice. Journal of Rural Studies, 45, 175–183.  Google Scholar
  59. Whitby, Martin (2000): Challenges and options for the UK agri-environment: Presidential address. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 51 (3), 317–332.  Google Scholar
  60. Wilson, Geoff A. und Kaley Hart (2000): Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environment and Planning A, 32 (12), 2161–2185.  Google Scholar
  61. Croson, Rachel und Nicolas Treich (2014): Behavioral environmental economics: Promises and challenges. Environmental and Resource Economics, 58(3), 335–351.  Google Scholar
  62. Sutherland, William J. und Michael J. S. Peel (2010): Benchmarking as a means to improve conservation practice. Oryx, 45 (1), 56–59.  Google Scholar
  63. Swinnen, Johan (Hrsg.) (2015): The Political Economy of the 2014-2020 Common Agricultural Policy – An imperfect storm. Rowman & Littlefield International, London.  Google Scholar
  64. Thaler, Richard H. und Cass B. Sunstein (2008): Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, New Heaven.  Google Scholar
  65. Valatin, Gregory, Darren Moseley und Norman Dandy (2016): Insights from behavioural economics for forest economics and environmental policy: Potential nudges to encourage woodland creation for climate change mitigation and adaptation? Forest Policy and Economics, 72, 27–36.  Google Scholar
  66. Stock, Paul V. und Jérémie Forney (2014): Farmer autonomy and the farming self. Journal of Rural Studies, 36, 160–171.  Google Scholar
  67. Silvasti, Tiina (2003): The cultural model of „the good farmer“ and the environmental question in Finland. Agriculture and Human Values, 20 (2), 143–150.  Google Scholar
  68. Schultz, P. Wesley, Jessica M. Nolan, Robert B. Cialdini, Noah J. Goldstein und Vladas Griskevicius (2007): The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18 (5), 429.  Google Scholar
  69. Schubert, Christian (2017): Green nudges: Do they work? Are they ethical? Ecological economics, 132 (C), 329–342.  Google Scholar
  70. Sattler, Claudia und Uwe Jens Nagel (2010): Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of conservation measures – A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy, 27 (1), 70–77.  Google Scholar
  71. Reddy, Sheila M. W., Jensen Montambault, Yuta J. Masuda, Elizabeth Keenan, William Butler, Jonathan R. B. Fisher, Stanley T. Asah und Ayelet Gneezy (2017): Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior. Conservation Letters, 10 (2), 248–256.  Google Scholar
  72. Wallander, Steven, Paul D. Ferraro und Nathaniel Higgins (2017): Addressing participant inattention in federal programs: A field experiment with the conservation reserve program. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99 (4), 914–931.  Google Scholar
  73. Birch, Leann, Diane Marlin und Julie Rotter (1984): Eating as the „means“ activity in a contingency. Effects on young children’s food preference. Child Development, 55 (2), 431–439.  Google Scholar
  74. Raymond, Christopher M., Claudia Bieling, Nora Fagerholm, Berta Martin-Lopez und Tobias Plieninger (2016): The farmer as a landscape steward: Comparing local understandings of landscape stewardship, landscape values, and land management actions. Ambio, 45 (2), 173–184.  Google Scholar
  75. Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Céline Hoon, Rob le Rutte und Geert R. de Snoo (2014): There is an I in nature: The crucial role of the self in nature conservation. Land Use Policy, 39, 121–126.  Google Scholar
  76. Madrian, Brigitte C. und Dennis F. Shea (2001): The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(K) participation and savings behavior. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116 (4), 1149–1187.  Google Scholar
  77. McGuire, Jean, Lois Wright Morton und Alicia D. Cast (2013): Reconstructing the good farmer identity: Shifts in farmer identities and farm management practices to improve water quality. Agriculture and Human Values, 30 (1), 57–69.  Google Scholar
  78. Messer, Kent D., Paul D. Ferraro und Allen William (2015): Behavioral nudges in competitive environments: A field experiment examining defaults and social comparisons in a conservation contract auction. Working Paper.  Google Scholar
  79. Prager, Katrin (2015): Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12 (February 2015), 59–66.  Google Scholar
  80. Hernández, Bernardo, Ana M. Martín, Christina Ruiz und Carmen M. del Hidalgo (2010): The role of place identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30 (3), 281–288.  Google Scholar
  81. Howley, Peter, Cathal Buckley, Cathal O’Donoghue und Mary Ryan (2015): Explaining the economic „irrationality“ of farmers’ land use behaviour: The role of productivist attitudes and non-pecuniary benefits. Ecological Economics, 109, 186–193.  Google Scholar
  82. IFAB – Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität, ZALF – Leibnitz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung, HFR – Hochschule für Forstwissenschaft Rottenburg und BfN – Bundesamt für Naturschutz (2012): Common agricultural policy from 2014 – Perspectives for more biodiversity and environmental benefits of farming? BfN, Bonn.  Google Scholar
  83. Kuhfuss, Laure, Raphaële Préget, Sophie Thoyer, Nick Hanley, Philippe Le Coënt und Mathieu Désolé (2016): Nudges, social norms, and permanence in agri-environmental schemes. Land Economics, 92 (4), 641–655.  Google Scholar
  84. Le Coënt, Philippe (2016): Agri-environmental schemes: Behavioral insights and innovative designs. PhD Thesis, Université de Montpellier.  Google Scholar
  85. Loewenstein, George, Cindy Bryce, David Hagmann und Sachin Rajpal (2015): Warning: You are about to be nudged. Behavioral Science & Policy, 1 (1), 35–42.  Google Scholar
  86. Loewenstein, George und Nick Chater (2017): Putting nudges in perspective. Behavioural Public Policy, 1 (1), 26–53.  Google Scholar
  87. Lokhorst, Anne Marike, Jerry van Dijk, Henk Staats, Erik van Dijk und Geert R. de Snoo (2010): Using tailored information and public commitment to improve the environmental quality of farm lands: An example from the Netherlands. Human Ecology, 38 (1), 113–122.  Google Scholar
  88. Burton, Rob J. F. und Geoff A. Wilson (2006): Injecting social psychology theory into conceptualisations of agricultural agency: Towards a post-productivist farmer self-identity? Journal of Rural Studies, 22 (1), 95–115.  Google Scholar
  89. Burton, Rob J. F., Carmen Kuczera und Gerald Schwarz (2008): Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48 (1), 16–37.  Google Scholar
  90. Burton, Rob J. F. (2004): Seeing through the „good farmer’s’ eyes“: Towards developing an understanding of the social symbolic value of „productivist“ behaviour. Sociologia Ruralis, 44 (2), 195–215.  Google Scholar
  91. Bovens, Luc (2009): The ethics of nudge. In: Till Grüne-Yanoff und Sven Ove Hansson (Hrsg.): Preference change: Approaches from philosophy, economics and psychology. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands, 207–219.  Google Scholar
  92. Beedell, Jason und Tahir Rehman (2000): Using social-psychology models to understand farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Rural Studies, 16(1), 117–127.  Google Scholar
  93. Allcott, Hunt (2011): Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics, 95 (9-10), 1082–1095.  Google Scholar

Abstract

Scientists and policy-makers are discussing the concept of nudging as a means to steer individual decisions without changing the choice options available. Studies and pilots in the areas of health prevention, energy saving and finance document positive behavioral changes after implementation of this soft and costefficient policy instrument. This article discusses possible fields of application in the domain of agricultural policy, especially in the context of environmental protection measures and the question of how to better support an environmentally friendly agriculture.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Fabian Thomas / Ann-Kathrin Koessler / Stefanie Engel: Stupsende Agrarpolitik? Nudging zu einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft 1
Zusammenfassung 1
Summary 1
1 Einleitung: Die Umweltproblematik der modernen Landwirtschaft 2
2 Die Architektur der Entscheidungssituation: Warum Nudges helfen können 3
3 Landwirte stupsen: Beispiele aus der Literatur 4
4 Nudging 2020: Die Zukunft der EU-Agrarpolitik 6
5 Der Weg voran: Diskussion und Ausblick 9
Literaturverzeichnis 9

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.