Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics最新文献

{"title":"US Consumer Appetite for Climate Claims on Beef Products: Does Country-of-Origin Matter?","authors":"Jaime R. Luke,&nbsp;Glynn T. Tonsor","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70084","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70084","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Beef cattle producers have been receiving pressure to reduce methane emissions from production. Beef products with varying climate claims have recently been introduced to the retail sector, stemming from various countries-of-origin. Using data from a US consumer survey, we find a subset of US consumers is willing to pay a premium for <i>Lower Carbon Footprint</i> beef products. These consumers are willing to pay a higher premium for the claim on ribeye steak ($1.84/lb) compared to ground beef ($0.79/lb). Imported beef products with climate claims are unlikely to have major implications on the demand for US-produced beef.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"831-843"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70084","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695781","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Economic Impacts of Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Practices: Evidence From the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program","authors":"Yanggu Li,&nbsp;Wei Zhang","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70130","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70130","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conservation on working agricultural lands is increasingly recognised as a critical strategy for enhancing the resilience of food systems in the face of climate change. Despite the growing funding worldwide for climate-smart agriculture and forestry (CSAF) practices, we lack a comprehensive assessment of their economic impacts. Focusing on the impacts of CSAF practices on agricultural productivity and resilience in the United States, we estimate the effects of payments under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) for CSAF on county-level yields, land rent and measures of production losses for corn, soybean and winter wheat. We also account for the potential confounding effects of land retirement through the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Our findings suggest that EQIP payments for CSAF practices are associated with reductions in county-level corn production losses. In contrast, payments for non-CSAF practices may increase loss measures. These findings highlight the importance of targeted conservation investments in improving agricultural resilience.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"723-746"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70130","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding Farmer Behaviour for Successful Climate Change Mitigation in Voluntary Initiatives","authors":"Marta Tarruella,&nbsp;Robert Huber,&nbsp;Nadja El Benni,&nbsp;Gabriele Mack,&nbsp;David Schäfer,&nbsp;Robert Finger","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70046","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Private and voluntary initiatives, such as voluntary carbon markets, can support public policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in agriculture. This study investigates the impact of behavioural factors (reluctance to change) and social dynamics (peer imitation) on the adoption of two mitigation practices on Swiss dairy and beef farms: the use of the feed additive 3-nitrooxypropanol (3-NOP), the commercial product Bovaer and substituting concentrate feeds with on-farm cultivated legumes. Using a bio-economic agent-based model and a diverse sample of farms, we simulated outcomes for reducing GHG emissions under increasing levels of financial compensation in scenarios reflecting behavioural and social influences. The results show that, assuming profit-maximising behaviour, emissions could be reduced by up to 24% at a price of 150 CHF per tonne of CO₂-equivalent. However, when farmers' reluctance to change is considered, the mitigation potential decreases significantly. Introducing social network effects, such as peer imitation, improves outcomes, increasing the potential reduction and showing that social influence can help overcome behavioural resistance. These findings suggest that, although private and voluntary schemes offer meaningful potential for reducing agricultural emissions, their effectiveness is limited when real-world behavioural dynamics are considered. The study highlights the importance of aligning voluntary market mechanisms with supportive public policies to maximise GHG reductions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"797-813"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70046","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Price Gap in Agriculture-Based Greenhouse Gas Offset Markets","authors":"Jingyi W. Liu,&nbsp;Bruce A. McCarl,&nbsp;Chengcheng J. Fei","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70052","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Today, there is a global effort to reduce greenhouse gas net emissions (GHGNE). For economic well-being, it is important to identify low-cost means of net emission offsets. Agriculture and forestry have received considerable attention as a means of supplying emissions offsets, as they contribute nearly 20% of global emissions. However, given that other sources of emissions also present opportunities for reducing GHGNE, the issue of comparative offset costs becomes important. This paper examines the offset costs associated with reducing net carbon dioxide equivalent emissions in agriculture and highlights the relative costs and associated cost components. We discuss an approach for estimating the per-tonne GHGNE cost and formulate expressions for the cost to buyers, payments to sellers, and the gap in between in the context of a potential carbon market. Case studies are conducted to estimate the gap for different situations. We believe differences in claimable versus saleable GHGNE quantities and market transaction costs, in part, explain the large variation in observed prices paid for different emission offset actions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"610-624"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Awareness–Action and Policy Acceptability in Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Key Stakeholders in Germany's Cattle Dairy and Meat Chains","authors":"Karen Arcia,&nbsp;Livia Cerini,&nbsp;Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70102","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70102","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper presents a systematic literature review and targeted searches to define a synthesis framework mapping the awareness–action gap, progression along the awareness–action continuum and policy acceptability in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mitigation among key stakeholders in Germany's cattle dairy and meat chains. The awareness–action gap results from barriers that prevent stakeholders from translating climate awareness into action, whereas progression reflects how far different stakeholder groups have advanced from awareness to action. Previous studies often focus on single stakeholder groups, individual policies or general national trends, but seldom examine how different stakeholders stagnate or progress from awareness to action or how policy acceptability can support this transition. Our synthesis framework integrates concepts and indicators from behavioural economics, social psychology and environmental policy to address these issues. We find strong disparities in four stakeholder groups regarding barriers to act. Producers face misaligned incentives and resource constraints. Consumers are hindered by cultural norms and weak market signals. Regulators struggle with fragmented policies and political hesitancy. Finally, influencers, which we define as entities such as media and think tanks that boost public discourse, amplify inconsistent narratives that impede coordinated action. We also assess the acceptability of 20 GHG mitigation policies for producers and consumers. For meat taxation, we analyse acceptability for two additional stakeholders: policymakers and social organisations. Three structural factors constrain policy uptake: fragmented stakeholder preferences, a lack of enforceable mechanisms for mid-chain actors and weak institutional pathways to translate preferences into regulation. While some policies have higher acceptability, debated measures such as meat taxation still face low support across stakeholders. This illustrates how framing, layered atop structural constraints, ultimately shapes whether acceptability translates into implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"844-868"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70102","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696566","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Soil Carbon Sequestration Policy in Australia: The Additionality Dilemma","authors":"David J. Pannell","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70076","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70076","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Australian Carbon Credit Unit (ACCU) Scheme provides opportunities for farmers to benefit financially from sequestering additional carbon in their soils. The Scheme assesses additionality using a ‘newness’ test; if one of a list of eligible farming practices was not used by a farmer in a 5-year baseline period, its use within the project is considered to be additional. However, this approach is unable to detect non-additionality in cases where farmer adoption of the eligible farming practice is increasing in the absence of carbon credits. This analysis uses parameters from the actual scheme, combined with soil carbon sequestration rates informed by scientific research, and calculates net financial benefits to farmers from participation in the soil carbon method of the ACCU Scheme. In most scenarios modelled in this study, the net benefits to farmers from participating in the soil carbon scheme are small relative to other costs and revenues from farming (assuming that a recognised existing design problem with the scheme that is causing over-crediting is corrected). As a result, the area of additional projects is relatively small and can easily be outweighed by non-additional projects. Therefore, the expenditure on ACCUs required to achieve a tonne of genuine CO₂-e mitigation can be extremely high: up to 80 times higher than the cost of an ACCU in one of the scenarios explored. The prospects of developing a system that accurately assesses the additionality of soil carbon projects seem remote.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"597-609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Environmental Total Factor Productivity and the Cost-Effectiveness of GHG Emission Reduction: The Case of Crop Production in China","authors":"Yang Liu,&nbsp;Maria Vrachioli,&nbsp;Johannes Sauer","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70067","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70067","url":null,"abstract":"<p>China's diversified agricultural policies have effectively improved both the yield and environmental performance of the crop sector. Quantifying productivity trends and their drivers is key to formulating strategies for high-quality and low-carbon crop development. This study uses input–output panel data of crop products to examine changes in the environmental total factor productivity (ETFP) of the crop sector and its major sub-sectors across 30 Chinese provinces from 2001 to 2020. The results show that the ETFP of the crop sector exhibited a wavelike growth pattern, mainly driven by technological progress. In addition, reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can significantly improve the ETFP and shows considerable potential. Over the entire study period, the crop sector could mitigate up to 35.5% of GHG emissions to reach the frontier target value. The average marginal abatement cost is 4106 yuan/tonne CO₂e. Spatially, the GHG emission mitigation potential and cost-effectiveness in the western and central regions are higher than those in the eastern region. Therefore, inter-regional cooperation can leverage regional differences to optimise total reduction costs and establish a carbon market, which would positively impact both the crop economy and the environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"765-780"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70067","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696441","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Policy Evaluation for Climate Mitigations in the European Agricultural Sector—A Comparison of Policy Options at Micro and Macro Level","authors":"John Helming,&nbsp;Elisa Bardazzi,&nbsp;David Schaefer,&nbsp;Hugo Scherer,&nbsp;Zuzana Smeets Kristkova","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70068","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70068","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The purpose of this paper is to discuss the micro- and macro-outcomes for the standard neoclassical carbon tax (whose burden falls on the producers) versus the implication of a budget neutral, performance-based EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) focusing on non-CO₂ emission (N₂O and CH₄, measured in CO₂eq) reduction, especially in the livestock sector. The subsidy is budget neutral as financed via the current basic payment of the first pillar of the CAP. The policies are applied to the single farm level model FarmDyn to take into account heterogeneity between farms and regions and the macro model MAGNET to take into account market feedback and possible leakage effects. Farm level mitigation potentials and costs from FarmDyn are used to calibrate the EU27 national milk production Marginal Abatement Costs Curves (MACCs) in MAGNET. On the other hand, scenario-specific changes in prices of agricultural inputs and output from MAGNET are used as input in FarmDyn, improving the consistency of the modelling framework. The results of the simulations conducted in this framework show clear conclusions. On the one hand, imposing a standard carbon tax on non-CO₂ emissions in the agricultural sector is the most effective method to achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction as the carbon tax can lead to significant reduction of total agricultural GHG emissions (MAGNET). Nevertheless, this result is connected to several trade-offs, such as farm income losses in the short term (FarmDyn) and losses in agricultural production and employment (different by country in the EU27) in the somewhat longer term (MAGNET). On the other hand, subsidising the emission abatement costs allows for mitigating almost completely the negative trade-offs while still allowing a substantial reduction of agricultural emissions. However, subsidies easily result in overcompensation and increased prices of inputs and technologies that mitigate emissions.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"625-641"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70068","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696531","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Consequences of Soil Organic Carbon for Crop Yield, Farm Productivity and Profit","authors":"Devin Allen Serfas","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70028","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Crop choices affect soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks, allowing farmers to manipulate the amount of carbon sequestered in the soil over time. This paper examines the private and public benefits of crop rotations that sequester additional carbon across the province of Saskatchewan, Canada using a novel field-level dataset from the Saskatchewan Crop Insurance Corporation matched with data on weather, soil and simulated SOC. I begin by estimating the on-farm shadow value of SOC using a dynamic panel regression model and find that it is positive with diminishing marginal returns; the yield (and thus profit) response to SOC is larger in soil zones with less SOC and smaller in soil zones with more SOC. I then use dynamic simulations to estimate the SOC and yield response to different crop rotations over time. The adoption of the Canola-Spring Wheat-Peas-Spring Wheat crop rotation leads to a 27.5%, 8.2% and 4.4% increase in long-term average profit compared to current levels in the brown, dark brown and black &amp; grey soil zones attributable to increased SOC over 32 years of average weather conditions. Finally, I compute the external social benefit from the Canola-Spring Wheat-Peas-Spring Wheat rotation relative to Spring Wheat-Fallow-Spring Wheat-Fallow on all insurable hectares in Saskatchewan from 2023 to 2055, and find benefits amounting to 108 billion CAD when employing a social cost of carbon of 185 USD/Mg of CO₂. These results show that selecting crop rotations that have greater SOC sequestration potential not only improves on-farm profitability over time, but can generate substantial environmental benefits.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"686-710"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70028","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148696488","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Carbon Farming Optimisation With Market Premiums for Biodiversity Co-Benefits Under Climate Change Socio-Economic Pathway Scenarios","authors":"Yuan Gao,&nbsp;Jeffery Connor,&nbsp;David Summers,&nbsp;Cathy Waters,&nbsp;Annette Cowie","doi":"10.1111/1467-8489.70085","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.70085","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Achieving global climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and restoration goals requires innovative solutions that balance carbon sequestration with biodiversity conservation. Payments for ecosystem services markets often treat carbon sequestration and biodiversity separately, but integrating biodiversity as a co-benefit within carbon farming could improve the environmental outcomes of carbon markets. This study explores the potential for carbon farming strategies in south-eastern Australia, investigating the trade-offs and synergies between carbon farming and biodiversity conservation. We aim to evaluate whether modest changes to carbon farming policy could influence biodiversity outcomes, carbon sequestration and economic returns. We develop an optimisation framework to evaluate two carbon farming practices, assisted natural regeneration and environmental planting, under different climate projections and policy scenarios. Our model incorporates carbon sequestration estimates and biodiversity priorities across historical climate and projected climate change defined by the shared socio-economic pathways, specifically SSP245 and SSP585. The selection of land use change sites is optimised for two policy settings: a least-cost carbon policy that emulates current market design, and a premium carbon credit policy that provides a 10% premium to maximise biodiversity outcomes without sacrificing carbon sequestration or economic return. Results indicate that biodiversity premiums in carbon credit payments could significantly improve biodiversity outcomes without sacrificing carbon sequestration or economic returns. Spatial analyses reveal shifts in optimal locations for carbon farming under different climate change projections. Previous research on carbon-biodiversity trade-offs has overlooked the impacts of current policy settings, eligibility criteria, risk factors and transaction costs. By addressing these gaps, this study provides new insights into how a moderate premium to existing policies could significantly enhance biodiversity co-benefits within carbon credit schemes.</p>","PeriodicalId":55427,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics","volume":"70 3","pages":"747-764"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2026-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1467-8489.70085","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148695876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}