The mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is a central policy concern in agriculture, reflected through voluntary contractual measures in the Common Agricultural Policy. The literature suggests that farmers' motivation for participating in mitigation measures does not necessarily originate in climate consciousness nor a sense of responsibility for mitigation, but rather in the co-benefits that they can bring. This paper investigates farmers' preferences for climate-related and non-climate co-benefits of mitigation measures, specifically carbon sequestration, biodiversity and soil health, using the cover cropping eco-scheme as a case study. We elicit trade-offs between monetary and non-monetary utility values associated with the co-benefits, alongside farmers' attitudes and identities, using a survey among Swedish farmers ( n = 179). Results reveal two distinct classes: class 1 reflects “responsive farmers” due to their greater sensitivity to the non-monetary attributes in the utility function and their positive and significant attitudes towards cover cropping, while class 2 refers to “conventional farmers”, with a stronger preference for the status quo and monetary utility values. Responsive farmers are prepared to incur costs, such as accepting reductions in subsidy payments, to support agri-environmental and climate outcomes. Soil health emerges as the most preferred co-benefit, likely due to its more immediate and tangible private returns, including improved yields, compared with the broader public goods associated with biodiversity and carbon sequestration. Farmers' underlying attitudes towards the cover cropping eco-scheme, alongside farmers' age, are the main source of unobserved heterogeneity in preferences and trade-offs.
Opdenbosch et al. (Wed,) studied this question.