Natural insurance as a green alternative for farmers? Empirical evidence for semi-natural habitats and methodological bias

Jérôme Faure and Lauriane Mouysset ()
Additional contact information
Jérôme Faure: CEBC - Centre d'Études Biologiques de Chizé - UMR 7372 - ULR - La Rochelle Université - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, LTSER-ZAPVS - Zone Atelier Plaine et Val de Sèvre - RZA - LTSER Réseau des Zones Ateliers - INEE-CNRS - Institut Ecologie et Environnement - CNRS Ecologie et Environnement - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
Lauriane Mouysset: CIRED - Centre International de Recherche sur l'Environnement et le Développement - Cirad - Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AgroParisTech - Université Paris-Saclay - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Natural insurance based on the provision of ecosystem services is a promising tool for the future of agriculture. However, empirical evidence of the role it can play is lacking, and its integration into standard insurance strategies – for example, the use of pesticides or market-based insurance – has been understudied. To begin to fill this gap, this study developed an original conceptual framework to estimate the insurance value provided by semi-natural habitats in a crop production context. The framework was then applied to a case study in western France, focusing on the value of natural pest control provided by grassland areas in the context of oilseed rape production. We evaluated the insurance role of grasslands for pest control and estimated this at a value of €50 per hectare. However, this estimation varied greatly according to the farmer's risk-mitigation strategies considered. We found that omitting agricultural inputs (e.g. risk-mitigating inputs such as pesticides) overestimated the insurance value of grassland areas due to the substitution effect between different types of insurance tools. Despite this variation, the findings show that it is nonetheless always optimal for farmers to maintain grassland areas to manage risk. This study provides empirical evidence of the insurance role of semi-natural habitats in an agricultural production context and offers new arguments for the ecological intensification of agriculture.

Keywords: Ecological Intensification; Mitigation; Nature-Based Solution; Farmer; Risk (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-01
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Ecological Economics, 2025, 227, pp.108415. ⟨10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108415⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-05208106

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108415

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().